Case: Pending Anthony Org v. Ministry of Justice (2026) CV 02

[RandomIntruder]

Your honor, I believe that we are still at the response to the complaint stage of the process as, despite the multitude of motions and missed deadlines, neither our complaint nor the opening statement of the Plaintiff has been sent. Therefore, I present to you the Answer to the Complaint on behalf of the Ministry of Justice

Answer to Civil Complaint

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Defence AFFIRMS statements A1 and A2.
On A3, the Defence DISAGREES with the statement of fact as the Ministry had an active Arrest Warrant for the Plaintiff, which we will later argue is a valid authorization.
The Defence AFFIRMS all statements in B.

LEGAL CLAIMS
The Constitutional right allegedly being violated was “The right to self-representation or counsel in a court of law.” This means that once someone is brought into court, they are allowed to defend themselves. This does not mean that even after an arrest warrant is out, one can still appeal the decision to court first before arrest.

The policing technology issued an active Arrest Warrant for the Plaintiff. This technology was issued by the Crown and is to be treated as accurate in declaring guilt for murders and robberies. Therefore, the Arrest Warrants created by it carry the same power as an Arrest Warrant issued by a court order within the Isles by way of the Sovereignty of Her Majesty.

The technology offered by the Crown did not allow police to manually adjust the duration of arrest, violating the Criminal Code Foundation Act. This technology was later declared by the Crown through Crown Representative as not adherent to this act and has since been amended. Additionally, nothing was taken or searched from the Plaintiff so there could not have been a violation of Article 1 Section 7 as alleged.

I, Random Intruder, 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.

 

[Anthony_org]

Your honor, I believe that we are still at the response to the complaint stage of the process as, despite the multitude of motions and missed deadlines, neither our complaint nor the opening statement of the Plaintiff has been sent. Therefore, I present to you the Answer to the Complaint on behalf of the Ministry of Justice

Answer to Civil Complaint

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Defence AFFIRMS statements A1 and A2.
On A3, the Defence DISAGREES with the statement of fact as the Ministry had an active Arrest Warrant for the Plaintiff, which we will later argue is a valid authorization.
The Defence AFFIRMS all statements in B.

LEGAL CLAIMS
The Constitutional right allegedly being violated was “The right to self-representation or counsel in a court of law.” This means that once someone is brought into court, they are allowed to defend themselves. This does not mean that even after an arrest warrant is out, one can still appeal the decision to court first before arrest.

The policing technology issued an active Arrest Warrant for the Plaintiff. This technology was issued by the Crown and is to be treated as accurate in declaring guilt for murders and robberies. Therefore, the Arrest Warrants created by it carry the same power as an Arrest Warrant issued by a court order within the Isles by way of the Sovereignty of Her Majesty.

The technology offered by the Crown did not allow police to manually adjust the duration of arrest, violating the Criminal Code Foundation Act. This technology was later declared by the Crown through Crown Representative as not adherent to this act and has since been amended. Additionally, nothing was taken or searched from the Plaintiff so there could not have been a violation of Article 1 Section 7 as alleged.

I, Random Intruder, 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.

Objection​

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff objects to the appearance and participation of RandomIntruder, who has submitted filings acting on behalf of the Ministry of Justice, on the grounds that such appearance is procedurally improper and unsupported by legal precedent.

---

No Designation of Counsel or Co-Counsel on the Record​

At no point in this proceeding has RandomIntruder been identified as Counsel or Co-Counsel for the Ministry of Justice. The case caption, parties section, and subsequent filings contain no designation whatsoever indicating that RandomIntruder is authorized to appear or bind the Ministry in this matter.

---

CR-05 Demonstrates That When MoJ Uses Additional Attorneys, It Lists Co-Counsel​

In Azalea Isles v. Dayvon Bennett (2025) CR-05, the Ministry of Justice explicitly listed Co-Counsel in the initial criminal complaint:

• Prosecution: Fauz Wolfe
• Co-Counsel: Lysander Lyon

This designation appeared directly in the pleading itself, without ambiguity and without requiring inference by the Court or opposing parties.

CR-05 demonstrates that when the Ministry intends for an additional attorney to participate, it affirmatively places that designation on the record.

---

CV-15 Demonstrates That When MoJ Changes Counsel, It Files a Motion​

In Aero Nox v. Azalea Isles (2025) CV-15, where the Government of Azalea (and thus the Ministry of Justice) was the Defendant, then-counsel and current MoJ Minister RealHanuta filed a formal Motion to Substitute Counsel, stating:

“I will give up council to Lysander Lyon.”

Critically, Mr. Lyon did not proceed as counsel immediately upon declaration. Instead, the substitution occurred only after the motion was placed before the Court, acknowledged by the presiding judge, and expressly accepted on the record. The Court then offered to adjust procedural timelines to account for the substitution and invited the new counsel to proceed.

This sequence establishes more than mere formality. It demonstrates that changes in Ministry representation are matters requiring judicial notice and approval, not unilateral action. The authority of new counsel flowed from the Court’s recognition of the motion, not from internal Ministry preference alone.

Accordingly, CV-15 stands for the principle that Ministry counsel does not become counsel of record until the Court has acknowledged and approved the substitution, confirming that representation changes are subject to judicial control and oversight.

---

The Present Case Conflicts With Both Established Practices​

Unlike CR-05:

• No Co-Counsel designation was listed.

Unlike CV-15:

• No motion to substitute or add counsel was filed.

---

Relief Requested​

Accordingly, the Objecting Party respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Strike the unauthorized filing
2. Award Default Judgement due to the defendant failing to respond prior to the mandated deadline
3. Sanction the Ministry of Justice for failing to substitute counsel and missing another deadline

 

[RandomIntruder]

Response to Objection
Your honor, the deputy minister already replied as well, a change from the Minister who first was reported present. This change was already accepted by the court. As this is simply the answer to the complaint, a change to a lawyer hired by the Ministry of Justice should be allowed.