Case: Pending Aero Nox v. Azalea Isles (2025) CV 15

[Robidemon2]

Aero Nox, Plaintiff
v.
Government of Azalea, Defendant

---

Civil Complaint​

Plaintiff Aero Nox brings this complaint against the Government of Azalea for violating constitutionally protected voting rights by enforcing the Voter Registration Act in a manner that disenfranchises eligible citizens. The Government has denied voting rights to citizens who meet all constitutional requirements by refusing to accept as valid for this general initial voter registrations during the electoral period, incorrectly labeling such registrations as impermissible "changes" of residence. This misinterpretation contradicts both statutory language and constitutional authority.

---

Parties​

Plaintiff​

• Aero Nox

Defendant​

• Government of Azalea

​

---

Factual Allegations​

1. The Constitution of Azalea establishes the qualifications for voting, requiring that a citizen:
   • (a) Have at least twelve (12) cumulative hours of playtime;
   • (b) Have at least five (5) hours of monthly playtime; and
   • (c) Live in the district in which they are voting.
2. Plaintiff Aero Nox meets all constitutional qualifications for voting.
3. Numerous citizens similarly meet these constitutional requirements.
4. Despite this, the Government of Azalea has denied Aero Nox and others the right to vote in the upcoming general election.
5. The Government bases its justification on the Voter Registration Act, which requires citizens to submit a voter registration form including their legal name, primary residence, documents, and party affiliation.
6. The Government claims that citizens cannot "change" their residence during an electoral period.
7. Aero Nox, along with affected citizens, did not have a pre-existing voter registration on file prior to the electoral period.
8. Submitting a residence for the first time is not a "change" it is an initial registration, which the Voter Registration Act requires.
9. A "change" necessarily requires a pre-existing entry. The citizens in question never had one; therefore, no "change" occurred. The lack of an entry is not an entry in of itself.
10. The Government’s interpretation creates an additional voting qualification not present in the Constitution or in the Voter Registration Act itself, : having a pre-registered residence before the electoral period begins.
11. This additional requirement unlawfully restricts voting rights and contradicts the constitutional guarantee.
12. By refusing to accept initial registrations, the Government is denying constitutionally eligible citizens their right to vote.

---

Legal Claims​

1. Violation of Constitutional Voting Rights
   • The Government's refusal to accept initial voter registrations during the electoral period violates the Constitution by imposing restrictions absent from constitutional text.
2. Unlawful Interpretation of the Voter Registration Act
   • The Government incorrectly interprets initial registrations as "changes," contrary to statutory intent and basic definitional logic.
3. Unconstitutional Disenfranchisement
   • The Government is denying the right to vote to citizens who meet all constitutional qualifications based solely on a misapplication of statutory language.

---

Prayer for Relief​

The plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant the following relief:

1. A declaration that initial voter registrations are not "changes" and may not be prohibited during the electoral period.
2. An order requiring the Government to immediately recognize and process all voter registrations from constitutionally eligible citizens.
3. Any other relief the Court deems appropriate and just.

---

Verification​

I,Robidemon2, hereby affirm that the allegations in the complaint AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.

 

[Robidemon2]

Motion for Injunction


Plaintiff hereby moves the Court of the Azalea Isles for an injunction to prevent ongoing constitutional violations resulting from the Government of Azalea’s enforcement of the Voter Registration Act.



The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue one of the following forms of relief:

A temporary injunction striking or suspending the section of the Voter Registration Act that prohibits voter residence updates during the electoral period, but only as applied to initial voter registrations for citizens who did not previously have a registered residence.
Immediate suspension of this section is required to prevent further harm, as the Plaintiff’s rights are being violated continuously.



Alternatively, an injunction halting or pausing the current election until voter registrations for constitutionally eligible citizens including Aero Nox are properly accepted and processed.



Continuing the election while Aero Nox remains excluded causes ongoing and compounding harm, as each passing day of the electoral period further entrenches his inability to meaningfully participate.
Aero Nox is prevented from voting, participating in campaign activity as a recognized voter, influencing candidate selection, or being counted as part of his district’s electorate.
Every procedural step of the election conducted without his lawful inclusion ,such as candidate qualification, campaigning, polling preparation, and vote tallying, causes irreversible damage that cannot be undone once the election concludes.
Therefore, halting the election is necessary to prevent further violation of Aero Nox’s constitutional rights and to preserve the fairness and legitimacy of the electoral process.

 

[fauzfauzfauz]

WRIT OF SUMMONS

Azalea Isles District Court

Case No. CV-25-14​

Plaintiff: Aero Nox
Defendant: Azalea Isles

The Defendant is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Aero Nox v. Azalea Isles. Failure to do so within 48 hours may result in a default judgement. The Court asks both parties to familiarize themselves with the relevant court documents, appropriate formats, and the law, especially as referenced in the complaint. Please ensure all court orders are followed.

Additionally, the temporary injunction is denied for now, and will not be considered until the Plaintiff provides evidence of their allegations. Despite the fact the filing was already submitted, I will show grace and allow you 24 hours to submit evidence relevant to your claim.


Signed,
District Court Justice Fauz Wolfe

 

[RealHanuta]

Motion to Dismiss

Your Honor,
the Constitution is quite clear here. As amended by the Electoral Reform Amendment, the Voter Registration section of the Constitution reads: “Individuals may be required by the Azalea Isles Government to complete a voter registration process in order to qualify to run for office, and to vote.”The Voter Registration Act fulfills this provision of the Constitution by establishing a clear voter registration process.
A new primary residence is a change in status, regardless of whether one was on file before, and the Constitution gives Parliament and the Azalea Isles Government the power to establish and manage this process. It may be reformed legislatively, but the Constitution, as amended, is clear that the Government is in charge of managing the process. As such, we motion for dismissal of the case.

 

[Robidemon2]

Your Honor, the Plaintiff asks to respond to the defendants motion to dismiss.

 

[Robidemon2]

WRIT OF SUMMONS

Azalea Isles District Court

Case No. CV-25-14​

Plaintiff: Aero Nox
Defendant: Azalea Isles

The Defendant is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Aero Nox v. Azalea Isles. Failure to do so within 48 hours may result in a default judgement. The Court asks both parties to familiarize themselves with the relevant court documents, appropriate formats, and the law, especially as referenced in the complaint. Please ensure all court orders are followed.

Additionally, the temporary injunction is denied for now, and will not be considered until the Plaintiff provides evidence of their allegations. Despite the fact the filing was already submitted, I will show grace and allow you 24 hours to submit evidence relevant to your claim.


Signed,
District Court Justice Fauz Wolfe

Your Honor,
Plaintiff Aeronox4 was outside the voting registration period thus does not qualify as a voter, the reason does not qualify as a voter is because of a wrong interpretation, in my eyes, of the Voter Registration Act that states that "primary residences cannot be changed once the electoral period begins". this interpretation would overstep the delegatory powers given by the constitution . While I am unable to prove damages that will occur Post hoc I am able without a shadow of a doubt state that his voter registration has not been accepted for this general election. In terms of damages we are looking at the violation of his rights not only in the constitution but I would even argue in the Voter Registration Act itself.

 

[fauzfauzfauz]

Thank you for the addition. The Court is going to authorize the temporary injunction as followed: The upcoming by election shall be paused pending the verdict of this case.

The halt is only to last until a verdict has been reached in the interest of justice, before the alleged damages become irreversible, and such that both sides can sufficiently argue their case. The Court will not authorize any additional relief aligning with what the Plaintiff prays for in the interest of the Defendant, nor will support the Defendant’s claims, pending a verdict. Given the low stake nature of the by-election, the Court deems this to be the best path to take in order to circumnavigate any additional complications.

The Motion to Dismiss is also denied, and I will also like to note the Plaintiff does not have to ask for permission to respond to a motion in my court. If either party would like to contest the contents of the motion before one is ruled on, they are welcome to do so. (And of course, is welcome to file a motion to reconsider should a party be unhappy with a ruling)

 

[Anthony_org]

Your honor, may I file an amicus brief about this case?

 

[fauzfauzfauz]

Can you state your interest in the matter, or to either the Plaintiff or the Defendant? Will you be able to affirm that any and all statements made in this court are true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief, and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury?

 

[Anthony_org]

Thank you for the response your honor,
One of my personal friends who is not the plaintiff, is affected by the current regulations for voter registration. I would like to offer both my thoughts on the case and the circumstances that restricted her from performing her, in my opinion, constitutional right to vote. I can affirm that all statements I make are true and correct to the best of my information.

 

[RealHanuta]

Motion to Substitute Council

Your Honor,

regarding the fact that there are now multiple cases in which the Ministry of Justice is involved in that require serious efforts, I will give up council to Lysander Lyon.

 

[fauzfauzfauz]

You may file your amicus brief, Mr. Anthony, and thank you for the verification. My last ask is that your statements remain factual.

Mr. Brehmer, thank you for notifying me and for your time in my Court.

Mr. Lyon, welcome, and please let me know if you need additional time to process the case file and submit a response. Just please do so in a timely manner.


Expedited Trial Notice

Due to the temporary injunction that is currently halting the election, I politely ask that all responses are submitted within a 24 hour period rather than a 48. Please indicate at any point if an extension is needed; it will be granted as I understand IRL is a priority. (Additionally, if the Defendant needs more than 24 hours to respond to the case file, that is allowed, given the substitution. I expect subsequent statements to follow this timeframe.) In turn, I will make an effort to ensure my responses are within 24 hours as well.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

Thank you, Your Honor.

Prior to responding to the complaint, I must unfortunately make several important motions and objections.


Motion to Strike
The Plaintiff's listed Factual Allegations 8-12 are not general facts (date, time, location) or information. They are legal claims and arguments that must be litigated in this court.


Motion for Reconsideration
Your Honor, we ask you revoke the injunction on the election. First and foremost, the defense is unclear what Act of Parliament this court is deriving authority to issue an order pausing an election. Temporary injunctions, as listed under the Court Orders, Powers, and Judgments tab on the forums, are "issued to maintain the status quo while a legal dispute is ongoing." The status quo in this case is that Aero Nox did not complete his voter registration in the proper time.

Secondly, Your Honor has issued this injunction in violation of the Court Orders Procedure Act. The Defendant was not provided an opportunity to issue a rebuttal to the (improperly-named) motion filed by the Plaintiff. As such, we must request the immediate reversal of your decision, as it was issued without giving us an opportunity to respond and is therefore in direct violation of the law.


Motion to Suppress Evidence
If the Plaintiff wishes to utilize testimony of an individual, they should call that individual as a witness. Allowing the Plaintiff to ask questions in private and post them in the court thread as evidence gives the Defendant no opportunity to conduct a proper cross-examination, inherently biasing the trial. Therefore, we request the screenshot provided be suppressed and not considered by the court. If the Plaintiff wishes to use such testimony as evidence, they should be required to call witnesses as all prior cases have had to do, so that the defense has a fair and proper opportunity to cross-examine any testimony given by individuals.


Motion for Reconsideration
Your Honor ruled against our Motion to Dismiss without providing any explanation. The Constitution clearly delegates the authority to manage and regulate Voter Registration to the Government of the Azalea Isles, which I can personally confirm as the author of the constitutional amendment establishing this power is the intended interpretation. We must respectfully ask again that this case be dismissed.


Objection to Amicus Brief
This is a trial case, Your Honor. As clearly stated in "The Judiciary" forum page, under the "Judiciary" forum folder, "Trial cases shall be between a plaintiff...; a defendant...; and various third-parties affiliated with the case in some form (...whom are named in the case for reasons designated by a plaintiff or defendant.)" (emphasis added).

The individual requesting the ability to file an Amicus Brief, which is only legally allowed in appellate cases (and this is not an appellate case, no decision is being appealed here), has not been named by either the Plaintiff or the Defendant as a party to the case. The Judiciary page explicitly states who may participate as a party to a trial case, and unaffiliated individuals with an interest in the case are only explicitly allowed under the appellate section.

As such, we must ask that you reverse your decision to allow the presentation of an amicus brief, as they are not allowed for non-appellate cases.

 

[Anthony_org]

You may file your amicus brief, Mr. Anthony, and thank you for the verification. My last ask is that your statements remain factual.

Mr. Brehmer, thank you for notifying me and for your time in my Court.

Mr. Lyon, welcome, and please let me know if you need additional time to process the case file and submit a response. Just please do so in a timely manner.


Expedited Trial Notice

Due to the temporary injunction that is currently halting the election, I politely ask that all responses are submitted within a 24 hour period rather than a 48. Please indicate at any point if an extension is needed; it will be granted as I understand IRL is a priority. (Additionally, if the Defendant needs more than 24 hours to respond to the case file, that is allowed, given the substitution. I expect subsequent statements to follow this timeframe.) In turn, I will make an effort to ensure my responses are within 24 hours as well.

My name is Anthony_org, I am not affiliated with the Plaintiff, but a personal friend of mine has been directly affected by the Government’s current interpretation of voter registration regulations, as she was unable to fulfill what I believe to be her constitutional right to vote.

I have a significant interest in the Court’s resolution of this matter because the challenged policy does not only affect the Plaintiff, it affects any citizen who attempts to register for the first time during an electoral period, including those who fully meet every constitutional requirement to vote. The Court’s decision will determine whether citizens like my friend, and future voters in similar situations, will be permitted lawful access to the ballot.

The Government’s refusal to process initial voter registrations during an electoral period is an incorrect interpretation of the law and results in unconstitutional disenfranchisement. By interpreting an initial registration as a prohibited “change of residence,” the Government has denied eligible citizens access to the ballot.

While it was not brought up in my previous request to file an Amicus Brief the change of council for the defense is notable due to the Prime Minister interfering with a FOI request that had to do with the plaintiffs counsel. Lyon has previously called the plaintiffs counsel a "MFer" in global chat. If your honor wishes, I can provide text logs and pictures backing this claim.

I affirm that all statements in this brief are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, and I understand that any falsehoods may subject me to penalties for perjury.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

Motion to Strike
I have already requested the Amicus Brief be blocked via objection, but now that it has been submitted, I wish to motion to strike the contents of the post, especially the fourth paragraph that contains out of context ad-hominem attacks against the counsel for the Defendant that do not bear relevance to the case.

 

[Anthony_org]

Your honor, may I respond to the claim?

 

[Robidemon2]

Thank you, Your Honor.

Prior to responding to the complaint, I must unfortunately make several important motions and objections.


Motion to Strike
The Plaintiff's listed Factual Allegations 8-12 are not general facts (date, time, location) or information. They are legal claims and arguments that must be litigated in this court.


Motion for Reconsideration
Your Honor, we ask you revoke the injunction on the election. First and foremost, the defense is unclear what Act of Parliament this court is deriving authority to issue an order pausing an election. Temporary injunctions, as listed under the Court Orders, Powers, and Judgments tab on the forums, are "issued to maintain the status quo while a legal dispute is ongoing." The status quo in this case is that Aero Nox did not complete his voter registration in the proper time.

Secondly, Your Honor has issued this injunction in violation of the Court Orders Procedure Act. The Defendant was not provided an opportunity to issue a rebuttal to the (improperly-named) motion filed by the Plaintiff. As such, we must request the immediate reversal of your decision, as it was issued without giving us an opportunity to respond and is therefore in direct violation of the law.


Motion to Suppress Evidence
If the Plaintiff wishes to utilize testimony of an individual, they should call that individual as a witness. Allowing the Plaintiff to ask questions in private and post them in the court thread as evidence gives the Defendant no opportunity to conduct a proper cross-examination, inherently biasing the trial. Therefore, we request the screenshot provided be suppressed and not considered by the court. If the Plaintiff wishes to use such testimony as evidence, they should be required to call witnesses as all prior cases have had to do, so that the defense has a fair and proper opportunity to cross-examine any testimony given by individuals.


Motion for Reconsideration
Your Honor ruled against our Motion to Dismiss without providing any explanation. The Constitution clearly delegates the authority to manage and regulate Voter Registration to the Government of the Azalea Isles, which I can personally confirm as the author of the constitutional amendment establishing this power is the intended interpretation. We must respectfully ask again that this case be dismissed.


Objection to Amicus Brief
This is a trial case, Your Honor. As clearly stated in "The Judiciary" forum page, under the "Judiciary" forum folder, "Trial cases shall be between a plaintiff...; a defendant...; and various third-parties affiliated with the case in some form (...whom are named in the case for reasons designated by a plaintiff or defendant.)" (emphasis added).

The individual requesting the ability to file an Amicus Brief, which is only legally allowed in appellate cases (and this is not an appellate case, no decision is being appealed here), has not been named by either the Plaintiff or the Defendant as a party to the case. The Judiciary page explicitly states who may participate as a party to a trial case, and unaffiliated individuals with an interest in the case are only explicitly allowed under the appellate section.

As such, we must ask that you reverse your decision to allow the presentation of an amicus brief, as they are not allowed for non-appellate cases.

Your honor,
I will now respond to the following motions laid out by the defense:

Motion for Reconsideration
Your Honor, he just repeated the same argument made by the defense in the initial Motion to Dismiss, this motion should be rejected as no new arguments have been made and there is nothing new to consider.

Motion to Strike
The facts laid out are essential to understand the events, or so the Plaintiff understands. If defense Council wishes to contest them, they can do so in their response.

 

[fauzfauzfauz]

The first motion to strike is accepted, such factual allegations, specifically points 8-12, shall be stricken from that section and considered to be legal claims to be argued in this case.

The first motion for reconsideration is denied. The temporary injunction will stay in place. The injunction is in place to “keep” the election until the end of the case, given that the election was to end on Sunday. The Defense also had 24 hours from the injunction motion to my acceptance to provide a rebuttal.

Motion to suppress evidence is denied. The Defense is welcome to argue the Plaintiff’s explanation of the evidence, but it will remain on record. It’s quite common to submit evidence that contains someone else's statement.

The second motion for reconsideration is denied. I denied the original motion for dismissal as the Plaintiff is arguing the interpretation of the law and powers given to the government.

Objection is overruled. While amicus briefs are most common in appellate cases, they are allowed in district courts at the discretion of the judge. Since I am the judge, I approve of the amicus.

The second motion to strike is accepted in part. The fourth paragraph shall be stricken for the record due to its irreverence to the case. Separate matters may be brought up at the appropriate place and time. The rest of the brief will remain on the record for now.

Thank you for your statement, Anthony. That is all I will be needing of you at this time.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

Interlocutory Appeal

I, Lysander Lyon, am requesting review of the ruling made by the District Court of Azalea on the Motion for Reconsideration of the temporary injunction. This order was issued in violation of the Court Orders Procedure Act. The Plaintiff finished making their statements in support of the injunction on Saturday at 7:09pm, and the judge accepted the injunction an hour and a half later, at 8:40pm.

In addition, Section 2c(iv) clearly states “The side not requesting the order shall have 24 hours, after the judge informs them in the thread, to present their rebuttal to the request for an order.”

Regardless of the intention of the injunction, it was issued illegally and in violation of the law. Our judiciary interprets the law - it does not have the freedom to ignore clearly stated procedures, or legislate. Therefore, we are forced to file this interlocutory appeal to prevent the continued existence of this court order, as the defendant’s rights under the law were violated by this court in its issuance.


Interlocutory Appeal

I, Lysander Lyon, am requesting review of the ruling made by the District Court of Azalea on the Objection/Motion to Strike for the amicus brief.

Each court has the power to manage their courtroom, but only within the bounds of the law. There is no legal precedent or legislation allowing amicus filings in trial cases, and the forum information that has managed judicial proceedings for over a year has not changed. Trial cases are to be between the plaintiff, defendant, and named third parties, such as witnesses, to establish the facts and rule on them.

Therefore, we are forced to file this interlocutory appeal to request the correction of this error, as allowing outside, non-named individuals to comment on this trial case creates bias, has no legal basis, and the district court judge has cited no legal basis, simply asserting that the right exists somewhere, despite the clear contradiction of prior cases and The Judiciary’s forum information.


For posterity, I am noting here that these appeals can only be ruled on / answered by the Supreme Court, currently @Westray.

 

[Westray]

It is my understanding that I have been included in a piece of evidence in this case, which may present the potential for an appearance of bias. Allow me to first be forthright to state that any decision I have made as the Elections Manager was done in consultation with and on the advice of the government. My legal opinion may differ depending on the arguments presented in a case of law.

Interlocutory Appeal

I, Lysander Lyon, am requesting review of the ruling made by the District Court of Azalea on the Motion for Reconsideration of the temporary injunction. This order was issued in violation of the Court Orders Procedure Act. The Plaintiff finished making their statements in support of the injunction on Saturday at 7:09pm, and the judge accepted the injunction an hour and a half later, at 8:40pm.

In addition, Section 2c(iv) clearly states “The side not requesting the order shall have 24 hours, after the judge informs them in the thread, to present their rebuttal to the request for an order.”

Regardless of the intention of the injunction, it was issued illegally and in violation of the law. Our judiciary interprets the law - it does not have the freedom to ignore clearly stated procedures, or legislate. Therefore, we are forced to file this interlocutory appeal to prevent the continued existence of this court order, as the defendant’s rights under the law were violated by this court in its issuance.

This appeal is accepted with caveats. It is my opinion as Chair of the Supreme Court that the opposing party in a case must be entitled to respond to an injunction within 24 hours after notification. This is because §2c(iv) of the Court Orders Procedure Act states as follows:

"The side not requesting the order shall have 24 hours, after the judge informs them in the thread, to present their rebuttal to the request for an order."

However, understanding the sensitive nature of this case and the upmost respect for the District Court, I will not be rescinding the injunction in its entirety. Instead, I will be asking that the Her Honour, Fauz Wolfe, fully re-considers the injunction after the Defendant has been entitled his opportunity to present a response. After re-considering the injunction, her Honour may provide the rationale for such ruling based on both the arguments of the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Interlocutory Appeal

I, Lysander Lyon, am requesting review of the ruling made by the District Court of Azalea on the Objection/Motion to Strike for the amicus brief.

Each court has the power to manage their courtroom, but only within the bounds of the law. There is no legal precedent or legislation allowing amicus filings in trial cases, and the forum information that has managed judicial proceedings for over a year has not changed. Trial cases are to be between the plaintiff, defendant, and named third parties, such as witnesses, to establish the facts and rule on them.

Therefore, we are forced to file this interlocutory appeal to request the correction of this error, as allowing outside, non-named individuals to comment on this trial case creates bias, has no legal basis, and the district court judge has cited no legal basis, simply asserting that the right exists somewhere, despite the clear contradiction of prior cases and The Judiciary’s forum information.

In searching for precedent on the forums, I have found mention of amicus curaie briefs in the Overview of The Judiciary page. This is also a common legal principle approached in which a non-party may weigh in on a case offering new facts or legal considerations. It is not restricted by statutory law, which leaves it up to the Court to decide. Whether or not an amicus curaie brief is accepted is based on the discretion of the presiding judge. For that reason, the appeal is respectfully denied.

I will caution the Court to be mindful of the usage of these briefs. The latin language translates to "friend of the court," and if someone is filing an amicus brief to present ad-hominem attacks or provide arguments that have already been made, it is not friendly nor helpful to the Court.

Thank you for your review. Given that these interlocutory appeals have been reviewed, the case may proceed.