Case: Pending Aero Nox v. Ministry of State (2026) CV 14

[Aero]

Aero Nox

v.

Ministry of State

---

Introduction

This is a civil action brought by the Plaintiff, Aero Nox, against the Ministry of State (MoS) for their execution of unconstitutional Parliamentary audits. Nowhere in our body of law is this responsibility defined as a mandate for the the Ministry of State. As such, their execution of these audits is unconstitutional and a waste of public funds.

---

Parties

1. Plaintiff Aero Nox - A Member of Parliament of the Azalea Isles
2. Defendant Ministry of State

---

Factual Allegations

1. On January 27, 2026, the Ministry of State reached out to Aero Nox to ask questions as part of their execution of Parliamentary audits, as seen in the attached screenshot.
2. Nowhere in the body of law for the Azalea Isles is the Ministry of State given the mandate to perform these audits.
3. The Constitution clearly states that "Portfolios may be established through law to manage the following government responsibilities: justice, health, infrastructure, social services, public safety, trade, regulation, education and anything else established through the law."
4. Section 4.b.i of the Governing Structures Act reaffirms this by stating "(i) These policies are subject to the laws and the Constitution of the Azalea Isles and cannot contravene them."
5. Section 11 of the Governing Structures Act does not charge the Ministry of State with Parliamentary oversight.
6. As such, the Ministry of State is operating outside the bounds of its Constitutional responsibilities.

---

As a direct result of the Ministry of Justice’s actions, the Plaintiff suffered:

• An improper exercise of Executive power against Parliament.

---

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief:

1. The immediate cessation of all activities by the Ministry of State which are not defined in law, including but not limited to, Parliamentary audits.
2. Any further relief the Court deems just and proper.

 

[Aero]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court for an emergency temporary injunction prohibiting the Ministry of State from illegally performing Parliamentary audits during the duration of this case. Absent injunctive relief, Plaintiff faces government overreach with powers not defined in law.

 

[Aero]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court for an emergency temporary injunction prohibiting the Ministry of State from illegally enforcing the "MOS AUDIT POLICY" created at 3:11pm EST and found at https://www.cityrp.org/threads/mos-audit-policy.3139/. Absent injunctive relief, Plaintiff faces government overreach with powers not defined in law.

 

[Westray]

Writ of Summons

Azalea Isles District Court, Civil Case (CV)

Case No. CV-26-14
​

Plaintiff: Aero Nox (Aeronox4)
Defendant: Ministry of State

​

The Defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Aero Nox v. Ministry of State. Failure to respond within 48 hours may result in a default judgement. Both parties are ask 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.

If you wish to hold this trial at the Azalea Courthouse in-person, please note that in your response. The Court will try to work with both parties to hold live hearings at convenient times.

​

Signed,
Hon. Chief Justice Raymond West

 

[Westray]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court for an emergency temporary injunction prohibiting the Ministry of State from illegally performing Parliamentary audits during the duration of this case. Absent injunctive relief, Plaintiff faces government overreach with powers not defined in law.

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court for an emergency temporary injunction prohibiting the Ministry of State from illegally enforcing the "MOS AUDIT POLICY" created at 3:11pm EST and found at https://www.cityrp.org/threads/mos-audit-policy.3139/. Absent injunctive relief, Plaintiff faces government overreach with powers not defined in law.

The Court will rule on this matter 24 hours from now. When responding to the summons, the Defendant may also provide a response to this emergency injunction, provided they do so before the Court's ruling.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

The Ministry of State is present before the court.


Response to Both Injunctions

Your Honor, the parliamentary audits are voluntary as part of the Ministry's efforts to aid in broader government transparency. Plaintiff is not being compelled to respond or facing consequences for not responding. Plaintiff was told answering the questions was voluntary. It is simply the Ministry asking MPs questions, which they can choose not to answer. Plaintiff's claims are excessive, and it is the Defendant's position that a voluntary Q&A with no consequences for not participating is not "government overreach with powers not defined in law."

 

[Aero]

Objection: Relevance

Counsel for the defense speaks of the Parliamentary audits being voluntary as if that gives them legitimacy. The fact remains that the Ministry of State does not have the mandate to perform these audits and should therefore not be allocating any government resources to their execution.

 

[Westray]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court for an emergency temporary injunction prohibiting the Ministry of State from illegally performing Parliamentary audits during the duration of this case. Absent injunctive relief, Plaintiff faces government overreach with powers not defined in law.

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court for an emergency temporary injunction prohibiting the Ministry of State from illegally enforcing the "MOS AUDIT POLICY" created at 3:11pm EST and found at https://www.cityrp.org/threads/mos-audit-policy.3139/. Absent injunctive relief, Plaintiff faces government overreach with powers not defined in law.

After some consideration, the Court has decided to accept these requests for an emergency injunction with caveats. This decision is made with the understanding that unauthorized executive intrusion into the legislative sphere (like auditing MPs) could potentially constitute a separation-of-powers injury.

I also struggle to see the voluntary argument that the Defence has presented in this case. The Plaintiff's screenshot shows no indication from the Ministry of State to suggest that these audits are voluntarily. Instead, when questioned regarding the basis for the inquiry, the State Minister asserted authority by virtue of its position as an executive ministry ("The fact that I'm MoS Minister?"), rather than clarifying the voluntary nature of the request.

The Court finds that when an executive ministry initiates an inquiry under the assertion of governmental authority, such action carries an inherent coercive effect, particularly when directed at Members of Parliament. That being said, should the Ministry assert the clear voluntarily nature of this audit, it may reduce any irreparable harms absent belief. Please see the injunction I am placing below.

---

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Ministry of State, its officers, agents, and employees are hereby enjoined from conducting, enforcing, or implementing any Parliamentary audit or audit-like inquiry, unless the Ministry satisfies the following conditions:

• The Ministry of State must explicitly and affirmatively notify all Members of Parliament and Parliamentary Officers, in writing, that:
  • Participation in any audit or inquiry is entirely optional;
  • There is no expectation of compliance; and,
  • The Ministry does not assert any authority to compel responses.

Such notice must be clear, unambiguous, and issued prior to any further audit-related communication.

The "MOS AUDIT POLICY" can continue to be enforced, provided that it meets the above conditions in any communications with Parliament.

Note that this injunction does not authorize the Ministry of State to exercise powers not granted by law and does not resolve the ultimate question of whether parliamentary audits by the Ministry are constitutionally permissible. Failure to meet the conditions of this injunction (such as continuing to conduct parliamentary audits without meeting the listed conditions) may result in charges for not abiding by court orders.

 

[Westray]

Given that the injunction has now been responded to, the Defendant has 48 hours, from this post, to present an answer to the complaint.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

Motion to Reconsider

I apologize for not initially attaching these, Your Honor. As Your Honor mentioned needing to believe the issue was voluntary, these are the full chats between the Plaintiff and the Minister. The Minister refers to the questions being voluntary three times throughout the conversation. Your Honor's injunction simply upholds existing MoS policy. As such, we request you withdraw the declared injunction.