Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of CityRP.

SignUp Now!

Latest posts

Case: Adjourned Aero Nox v. Azalea Isles (2026) CV 25

Aero

Aero

Member
Aeronox4
Aeronox4
Citizen
Joined
Nov 13, 2025
Messages
452
Aero Nox, Plaintiff
v.
Azalea Isles, Defendant​

Complaint​

Sections 12(a)(iii) and 12(a)(iv) of the New Criminal Code Act as amended by The Criminal Contests Act strip a defendant of their Constitutional rights to due process.

Parties:​

  • Plaintiff: Aero Nox
  • Defendant: Azalea Isles

Factual Allegations:​

(All dates and time are in Eastern Daylight Time, which is UTC-4.)

1. On May 18, 2026, The Criminal Contests Act was ratified. (Exhibit P-001)​
​
2. The Criminal Contests Act amends the New Criminal Code and adds the following two sections.​
​
Section 12(a)(iii): If a suspect has a resisting arrest charge, they are deemed a flight risk and wave their right to contest.​
Section 12(a)(iv): If a suspect is found to be guilty of a crime, while still having a ticket open to contest another crime, the contest shall be invalidated and the suspect will be guilty of the crime they were seeking to contest.​
​
3. Section 12(a)(iii) strips a defendant's right to due process by removing their ability to contest a charge, thereby resulting in an automatic finding of guilt by the Ministry of Justice.​
​
4. Section 12(a)(iv) links a defendant's guilt in one charge to a conviction in an unrelated charge.​

Legal Claims:​

I. Due Process

Section 12(a)(iii) automatically strips a defendant of the ability to contest a charge. That deprivation of a procedural right denies the defendant’s right to meaningful access to adjudicative proceedings.

II. Presumption of Innocence

Section 12(a)(iv) nullifies a pending contest by presuming guilt for the contested charge based on the determination of guilt for some other crime. This violates the presumption of innocence and the accused's right to be convicted only after proof beyond a reasonable doubt on each charge.
​

Prayer for Relief:​

1. A declaratory judgment that Sections 12(a)(iii) and 12(a)(iv) are unconstitutional;​

2. Award costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.​

Verification:​

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

Evidence​

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upon review of the complaint, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has not sufficiently established one of the prerequisites necessary to bring this action before the Court. Specifically, the complaint fails to adequately allege standing.

Case Structure
In order to bring a case forward, it must have standing and it must be legally actionable. Standing refers to the legal right of an individual or entity to bring a case before a court. It is contingent upon demonstrating a direct and specific interest in the subject matter of the case, such as being affected by an action.
Click to expand...

In the present complaint, the Plaintiff has failed to allege facts showing such a direct and specific interest. As a result, the complaint is presently deficient.

If the Plaintiff does believe they have standing, they are allowed to file a new complaint in this court-thread within the next 72 hours, and the original complaint will be stricken. Otherwise, this case will be dismissed.
 
Aero Nox, Plaintiff
v.
Azalea Isles, Defendant​

Complaint​

Sections 12(a)(iii) and 12(a)(iv) of the New Criminal Code Act as amended by The Criminal Contests Act strip a defendant of their Constitutional rights to due process.

Parties:​

  • Plaintiff: Aero Nox
  • Defendant: Azalea Isles

Factual Allegations:​

(All dates and time are in Eastern Daylight Time, which is UTC-4.)

1. On May 18, 2026, The Criminal Contests Act was ratified. (Exhibit P-001)​
​
2. The Criminal Contests Act amends the New Criminal Code and adds the following two sections.​
​
Section 12(a)(iii): If a suspect has a resisting arrest charge, they are deemed a flight risk and wave their right to contest.​
Section 12(a)(iv): If a suspect is found to be guilty of a crime, while still having a ticket open to contest another crime, the contest shall be invalidated and the suspect will be guilty of the crime they were seeking to contest.​
​
3. Section 12(a)(iii) strips a defendant's right to due process by removing their ability to contest a charge, thereby resulting in an automatic finding of guilt by the Ministry of Justice.​
​
4. Section 12(a)(iv) links a defendant's guilt in one charge to a conviction in an unrelated charge.​
​
5. On April 22, 2026, Plaintiff received a resisting arrest charge. (Exhibit P-002)​
​
6. Plaintiff currently possesses 6 active warrants for charges that Plaintiff wishes to contest. (Exhibit P-003)​
​
7. Under the terms of The Criminal Contests Act, the existence of Plaintiff’s resisting arrest charge (Exhibit P-002) would, by operation of Section 12(a)(iii), automatically deem Plaintiff a flight risk and result in waiver of Plaintiff’s right to contest any of the active warrants or charges Plaintiff currently seeks to contest.​
​
8. Under the terms of Section 12(a)(iv), if Plaintiff is found guilty on any one of the charged matters, any pending contests relating to Plaintiff’s other active charges would be invalidated and those contested matters would be treated as convictions without further adjudication.​
​
9. The Constitution of Azalea Isles guarantees fundamental procedural protections for persons accused of crimes, including the right to due process, the right to be heard, and the presumption of innocence. The challenged statutory provisions conflict with those constitutional guarantees by eliminating meaningful adjudicative procedures and by presuming guilt in contravention of constitutional text and principles.​
​
10. The loss of the ability to contest charges under Section 12(a)(iii) and the automatic invalidation of pending contests under Section 12(a)(iv) create imminent and concrete harms to Plaintiff: (a) immediate loss of liberty interests when adjudicative procedures are foreclosed and Plaintiff’s ability to challenge charges is nullified; (b) imminent risk of criminal conviction and collateral consequences - such as incarceration, fines, and stigma - without the required individualized adjudication; and (c) foreseeable chilling of Plaintiff’s ability to vindicate legal rights and to participate in adjudicative processes.​

Legal Claims:​

I. Due Process

Section 12(a)(iii) automatically strips a defendant of the ability to contest a charge. That deprivation of a procedural right denies the defendant’s right to meaningful access to adjudicative proceedings.

II. Presumption of Innocence

Section 12(a)(iv) nullifies a pending contest by presuming guilt for the contested charge based on the determination of guilt for some other crime. This violates the presumption of innocence and the accused's right to be convicted only after proof beyond a reasonable doubt on each charge.
​

Prayer for Relief:​

1. A declaratory judgment that Sections 12(a)(iii) and 12(a)(iv) are unconstitutional;​

2. Award costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.​

Verification:​

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

Evidence​


P-002.png

P-003.png
 

Writ of Summons

Azalea Isles District Court, Civil Case (CV)

Case No. CV-26-25​
Plaintiff: Aero Nox
Defendant: Azalea Isles
​
The Defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Aero Nox v. Azalea Isles. Failure to respond within 48 hours may result in a default judgement. Both parties are asked to familiarize themselves with the relevant court documents, including proper formats, as well as the laws referenced in the complaint. Ensure that you comply with any court orders.

Please indicate in your response whether you wish to conduct the proceedings in person at the Azalea Courthouse. If you do not wish to hold the trial at the Azalea Courthouse, you must also state this in your response. The Court will try to work with both parties to hold live hearings at convenient times.
​
Signed,
Hon. Judge Milk Crack
 
Your Honor,

The Azalea Isles Government represented by the Ministry of Justice is present and myself and Prosecutor Alexander Davis will be working as prosecutors for this case.

Our answer to this complaint will be posted shortly.

Sincerely,
Phoenix Flamesong
Deputy Minister of Justice
 
Aero Nox, Plaintiff

v.

Azalea Isles, Defendant​

Answer to Civil Complaint:

The plaintiff argues that the procedures set forth by the New Criminal Code Act strip defenders of their constitutional rights, but this is simply not true. Most of the rights presented as being stripped by the New Criminal Code Act by the plaintiff are never mentioned or referenced in the Constitution and therefore can not be taken away.

Parties:
  1. Plaintiff, Aero Nox
  2. Defendant, Azalea Isles

Factual Allegations:
  1. Agreed
  2. Agreed
  3. Deny - There is no right due to process in the Constitution or the Guiding Principles of Azalea Isles Law.
  4. Agreed
  5. Agreed
  6. Agreed
  7. Deny - While it is true that the plaintiff would be classified as a flight risk, they would lose the right to contest their charges. There is no mechanism in place from the New Criminal Code Act to contest warrants with the MoJ, only misdemeanors.
  8. Deny - While it is true that other contests would be invalidated if the defendant is found guilty on another charge, this only applies to misdemeanors, and therefore, saying the defendant would be found guilty on all other active charges is misleading and wrong. As per the precedent set in Sagg Wizard v. Ministry of Justice (2026) CV 18, the courts always have the final say in finding if a defendant is guilty or not. So there would be no further adjudication handled by the MoJ, but the courts will always have the ability to have a say.
  9. Deny - The Constitution does not guarantee the right to due process or the right to be heard. The only right the Constitution expressly provides that is remotely relevant to this case is the right against self-incrimination. To the plaintiff's point on presumption of innocence, as per the New Criminal Code Act 12(a)(vi), the MoJ must find the defendant “Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  10. Deny - The defendant only loses the right to contest charges with the MoJ, not with the courts. The courts will always have the final say in criminal matters, and the defendant will always be able to go to the courts to rule on a matter. This matter is pulled from precedent from Sagg Wizard v. Ministry of Justice (2026) CV 18.

Legal Claims:

  1. The plaintiff argues that the New Criminal Code Act denies them a right that is not granted in the Azalea Isles. Neither the Constitution nor the Guiding Principles of Azalea Isles Law grants a defendant the right to due process.
  2. The New Criminal Code Act 12(a)(vii) provides a provision for the defendant to appeal to the courts if they believe that the evidence does not prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Trial Location:

The Defense does not wish to have an in-person trial.

Verification:

I, Alexander Davis, hereby affirm that the allegations in the answer AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the defendant’s knowledge, information, and belief, and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.
 
Will the Plaintiff please present their opening statement within the next 48 hours.
 
Your Honour,

The legal question presented in this case is simple. Do Sections 12(a)(iii) and 12(a)(iv) of the New Criminal Code Act strip a defendant of their Constitutional protections?

Per Chief Justice West's opinion in Sagg Wizard v. Ministry of Justice (2026) CV18, "the Constitution still guarantees protections including due process, protection against government overreach, and the right to fair adjudication in Article 1."

Westray said:
Regardless of reasonable limitations, the Constitution still guarantees protections including due process, protection against government overreach, and the right to fair adjudication in Article 1. These protections require that determinations of criminal guilt remain subject to independent judicial oversight when properly challenged.
Click to expand...

This opinion is clear. Article 1 of the Constitution guarantees protections including due process and the right to fair adjudication.

Next we look to The Guiding Principles of Azalea Isles' Law. The principle of "Guilty beyond a Reasonable Doubt states that "A plaintiff presenting a criminal prosecution must prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction."

Guilty beyond a Reasonable Doubt: A defendant is assumed not guilty. A plaintiff presenting a criminal prosecution must prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction. However, a defendant found not guilty in a criminal trial may still find themselves guilty in a civil trial where the standards of evidence are lower.
Click to expand...

The Ministry of Justice's ruling of misdemeanor charges are still constrained by this guiding principle. This fact is even touched on by the Court Opinion in Sagg Wizard v. Ministry of Justice (2026) CV18 where the Chief Justice clarifies:
Westray said:
Adding to this, to be clear, the Court is asserting one core fact: the burden of proof still remains at all times with the Ministry of Justice.
Click to expand...

Your Honour, an automatic finding of guilt, based on an unrelated criminal charge or an unrelated criminal conviction fails to meet this burden of proof.

As such, we ask that the Court find in favour of the Plaintiff and strike Sections 12(a)(iii) and 12(a)(iv) from law.
 
MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING

Your Honour, we believe the legal question in this matter is fairly clear. We humbly request an expedited hearing in this matter.
 
Since the Defence does not agree to the expedited hearing, the motion is denied.


The Defence shall have 48 hours to submit its opening statement.
 
Your Honor,

Even with the opinion from Chief Justice West, the MoJ, as per the New Criminal Code Act 12(a)(vi), still has to prove Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. The New Criminal Code Act also has a process for more appeals in 12(a)(vii). The defense argues that due to these provisions in the New Criminal Code Act, the overall section in its entirety remains constitutional.
 
Alright, both sides shall have 48 hours to provide their witness lists, or indicate whether they do not intend to call any witnesses.
 
Plaintiff has no witnesses to call.
 
Alright, the Plaintiff has 48-hours to present their closing statement.
 
Last edited:
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honour,

The Court's opinion in Sagg Wizard v. Ministry of Justice (2026) CV18 is clear.

The Ministry of Justice's administrative rulings are subject to the Constitution's guaranteed protections of due process, protection against government overreach, and the right to fair adjudication. They must also meet the standard of "Guilty beyond a Reasonable Doubt".

By making an administrative ruling of guilt, based on unrelated criminal charges, the Ministry of Justice is failing to abide by those Constitutional protections.

The defenses' argument that they do not need to do so, because the ruling can be appealed, is nonsensical.

At all times, criminal defendants must be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The automatic findings of guilt stipulated in Section 12(a)(iii) and Section 12(a)(iv) of the New Criminal Code Act are an affront to that presumption of innocence.

As such, we move the Court to strike these two provisions from law. We also ask that the Court remind Parliament to read the Constitution. And lastly, we ask the Court to award costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
 
Court Verdict
Azalea Isles District Court, Civil Case (CV)

Case No. CV-26-25
Aero Nox v. Azalea Isles

Position of the Plaintiff

1. The Plaintiff challenges Sections 12(a)(iii) and 12(a)(iv) of the New Criminal Code Act, as amended by the Criminal Contests Act. The Plaintiff argues that these provisions “strip a defendant of their Constitutional rights to due process” by removing access to the Ministry of Justice contest procedure.
2. The Plaintiff specifically argues that Section 12(a)(iii) creates an automatic denial of contest rights where a suspect has a resisting arrest charge, and that Section 12(a)(iv) creates an automatic finding of guilt where a suspect is found guilty of another crime while a contest remains open.
3. The Plaintiff relies on Sagg Wizard v. Ministry of Justice (2026) CV 18, where the Court held that Article 1 protects “due process, protection against government overreach, and the right to fair adjudication.”
4. The Plaintiff further relies on the Guiding Principles, which provide that “a defendant is assumed not guilty” and that guilt in criminal prosecutions must be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The Plaintiff argues that automatic guilt based on an unrelated charge or conviction cannot satisfy this standard.

Position of the Defendant
1. The Defence argues that “neither the Constitution nor the Guiding Principles of Azalea Isles Law grants a defendant the right to due process.”
2. The Defence further argues that the challenged provisions affect only the Ministry of Justice contest process, and that “the courts will always have the final say in criminal matters.”

Court opinion:
1. The Court first addresses the Plaintiff’s due process claim. The Constitution of Azalea Isles establishes that society is governed by the rule of law and that citizens possess inviolable protections subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law. Article 1 also protects citizens against government overreach, guarantees equal treatment under the law, and requires the government to uphold Article 1 protections.

Therefore, the Court rejects the interpretation that due process has no constitutional significance in Azalean law. Article 1 clearly requires the government to follow the law when constitutional rights are concerned.

However, the Court also rejects the Plaintiff’s broader submission that due process requires a Ministry of Justice contest procedure in every case. Sagg Wizard does not create a constitutional right to an internal MOJ contest, and the Plaintiff has not shown why due process cannot be satisfied without a contest procedure when judicial oversight remains available.

2. The Court now turns to Section 12(a)(iii), which provides that if a suspect has a resisting arrest charge, “they are deemed a flight risk” and waive the right to contest. The Court finds a reasonable basis for considering such a suspect a flight risk; however, it can find no reasonable basis as to why they should not have the right to contest.

The Defence has not shown a legitimate government interest as to why a resisting arrest charge makes a suspect categorically unable to contest a separate misdemeanour, nor why such suspects should be treated differently when presenting evidence and argument to the Ministry.

Article 1 of the Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law. Treating citizens with a resisting arrest charge differently from citizens without such a charge, absent a legitimate government interest, is a violation of that protection.

3. The Court similarly turns to Section 12(a)(iv), which provides that if a suspect is found guilty of one crime while a contest remains open for another crime, the contest is invalidated and the suspect “will be guilty” of the contested crime.

Again, Article 1 of the Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law. Treating citizens with another charge differently from citizens without such a charge, absent a legitimate government interest, is a violation of that protection.

Decision

The Court hereby rules in favour of the Plaintiff.

1. The Court finds that Sections 12(a)(iii) and 12(a)(iv) are constitutionally deficient, as they discriminate against certain groups without establishing a legitimate government interest.
2. The Court orders the Defence to pay the Plaintiff’s attorney fees in the amount of $1,000 for the first week and $500 for the second week, as the second week was not a full week and only a closing statement was submitted.

This trial is hereby adjourned. The Court thanks both parties for their time.

Signed,
Hon. Judge Milk Crack
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top