Case: Pending Anthony Org v. Ministry of Justice (2026) CV 03

[Anthony_org]

Anthony_org​

v.

The Ministry of Justice

---

INTRODUCTION​

1. This is an action brought pursuant to Section 5 of the Freedom of Information Act to compel disclosure of records withheld by the Ministry of Justice.
2. The Minister of Justice, RealHanuta, has not responded to the FOI in over 1 month
3. A Ministry of Justice employee, has asserted that no Ministry-approved communications with journalists regarding cases exist. The Plaintiff disputes that assertion and seeks judicial review as expressly authorized by law.

---

PARTIES​

1. Plaintiff, Anthony Org, is a citizen of Azalea Isles entitled to petition the Government for records under the Freedom of Information Act.
2. Defendant, the Ministry of Justice of Azalea Isles (“MoJ”), is a government ministry subject to FOIA obligations.

---

JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY​

1. This Court has jurisdiction under FOIA 5(a), which permits a citizen to file suit when:
   • Information is withheld,
   • The scope or existence of records is disputed, or
   • The citizen believes the request has not been properly handled.
   • The citizen believes the request has not been fulfilled in a timely manner.
2. The Court is further empowered under FOIA 5(b) to review withheld information and determine the appropriate classification.

---

STATEMENT OF FACTS​

1. On or about December 8, 2025, Plaintiff opened a government ticket requesting information related to communications between Ministry of Justice officials and journalists concerning legal cases.
2. The request was submitted through official government channels and therefore constitutes a valid FOI petition under FOIA §4(a).
3. On December 14, 2025, a Ministry official responded stating, in substance, that:

“I don’t believe there’s been any MoJ-approved discussions with the press since the term began.”

1. The Ministry did not:

• Identify whether records were searched,
• Identify whether records exist but are classified,
• Provide a classification determination under FOIA S3, or
• Offer partial disclosure or redaction under FOIA S4(d).

1. The Plaintiff disputes the sufficiency of the Ministry’s response and asserts that the existence and/or classification of responsive records remains unresolved.
2. The Ministry has now allowed the ticket to lapse without further action.

---

Legal Claims​

1. Under FOIA S5(a), a citizen may file suit where they believe:

• Information has been improperly withheld, or
• A request has not been handled in a timely or adequate manner.

1. Under FOIA S5(b), the Court is authorized to:

• Review withheld information,
• Determine the proper classification,
• Compel disclosure where appropriate.

1. The Ministry’s statement that it “does not believe” records exist is not a classification determination and does not satisfy FOIA requirements.
2. Judicial review is therefore necessary to resolve whether:

• Responsive records exist,
• Such records are Restricted or Classified,
• Any portion may be disclosed or redacted.

---

PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:


1. Order the Ministry of Justice to conduct and certify a proper search for records responsive to Plaintiff’s FOI request;


1B. Require the Ministry to submit any responsive records for review if classification is asserted;


1C. Determine the proper FOIA classification of any such records pursuant to FOIA S3;


1D. Compel disclosure of any records, or portions thereof, found to be Public or Restricted and lawfully releasable;


1E. Grant any other relief the Court deems just and proper under FOIA S5.

2. $1000 to compensate for wasted time.

---

VERIFICATION​

I, Anthony Org, affirm under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

 

[Westray]

Writ of Summons

Azalea Isles District Court, Civil Case (CV)

Case No. CV-26-03
​

Plaintiff: Anthony Org (Anthony_org)
Defendant: Ministry of Justice

​

The Defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Anthony Org v. Ministry of Justice. 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

 

[RealHanuta]

The Ministry of justice is present before the court

 

[Westray]

The Ministry of justice is present before the court

Please present your answer to the complaint.

 

[RealHanuta]

Motion to Dismiss
Your Honour,

The plaintiff has hit the Judiciary with a load of new lawsuits. Considering the lack of Judges that Azalea is currently faced with, I believe that it is in all of our interests to reduce the number of court cases as quickly as possible.

This request came during a time in which I had some IRL stuff and was serverly sick. That is why that request came not to my attention. The ticket also did not appear on the CityRP Discord server so that I could have reviewed it when I came back (I have answered several other tickets, I couldn't have missed, would it have been there). The plaintiff also did not remind me after a while and it wasn't brought to my attention by another employee either.

Leaving this request unanswered was simply caused by a series of unfortunate events rather than willful secrecy. The FOIA aims to pursue the latter rather than the former. That is why I request that Your Honour dismisses the case and I will submit the answer to the request here.

 

[Westray]

Motion to Dismiss
Your Honour,

The plaintiff has hit the Judiciary with a load of new lawsuits. Considering the lack of Judges that Azalea is currently faced with, I believe that it is in all of our interests to reduce the number of court cases as quickly as possible.

This request came during a time in which I had some IRL stuff and was serverly sick. That is why that request came not to my attention. The ticket also did not appear on the CityRP Discord server so that I could have reviewed it when I came back (I have answered several other tickets, I couldn't have missed, would it have been there). The plaintiff also did not remind me after a while and it wasn't brought to my attention by another employee either.

Leaving this request unanswered was simply caused by a series of unfortunate events rather than willful secrecy. The FOIA aims to pursue the latter rather than the former. That is why I request that Your Honour dismisses the case and I will submit the answer to the request here.

The Plaintiff has 48 hours to provide a response before the Court rules on this motion.

 

[Anthony_org]

Motion to Dismiss
Your Honour,

The plaintiff has hit the Judiciary with a load of new lawsuits. Considering the lack of Judges that Azalea is currently faced with, I believe that it is in all of our interests to reduce the number of court cases as quickly as possible.

This request came during a time in which I had some IRL stuff and was serverly sick. That is why that request came not to my attention. The ticket also did not appear on the CityRP Discord server so that I could have reviewed it when I came back (I have answered several other tickets, I couldn't have missed, would it have been there). The plaintiff also did not remind me after a while and it wasn't brought to my attention by another employee either.

Leaving this request unanswered was simply caused by a series of unfortunate events rather than willful secrecy. The FOIA aims to pursue the latter rather than the former. That is why I request that Your Honour dismisses the case and I will submit the answer to the request here.

DISMISSAL IS NOT WARRANTED UNDER FOIA S5​

The Defendant’s motion does not contest the Court’s jurisdiction, nor does it argue that the Plaintiff lacks standing. Instead, it relies on explanations regarding staffing limitations, illness, and internal communication issues.

While the Plaintiff does not dispute that such circumstances may occur, FOIA §5 does not condition judicial review on willful secrecy, bad faith, or intent.

FOIA S5(a) permits suit where:

Information is allegedly withheld, or

• A citizen believes their request has not been handled in a timely or proper manner.

The statute is procedural and remedial in nature. Whether the delay was intentional or accidental is not a threshold requirement for dismissal.

---

INADVERTENCE DOES NOT MOOT AN FOIA CLAIM​

The Defendant argues that the request went unanswered due to “a series of unfortunate events.” Even if taken as true, this does not resolve the underlying dispute:

• No formal classification determination was issued under FOIA S3
• No certification of record search was provided
• No partial disclosure or redaction assessment was offered under FOIA S4(d)

FOIA does not permit requests to be resolved retroactively by informal explanations alone once litigation has been initiated. The statute instead directs the Court to review the handling of the request and, where appropriate, compel compliance.

---

THE OFFER TO ANSWER NOW DOES NOT RENDER THE CASE MOOT​

The Defendant suggests dismissal so that an answer may now be provided.


However, FOIA S5(b) specifically contemplates judicial involvement where a dispute exists as to:

• Whether records exist, or
• Whether information has been properly classified.

Given that the Defendant previously stated they “do not believe” such records exist, without certifying a search or classification, the dispute remains live. Judicial oversight is therefore appropriate to ensure compliance and finality.

Dismissal at this stage would leave the Plaintiff without assurance that:

• A proper search was conducted, or
• Any existing records were correctly classified.

---

CONCLUSION​

This lawsuit was properly filed under the Freedom of Information Act. The Defendant’s explanations, while noted, do not eliminate the statutory basis for review.


The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny the motion to dismiss

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

Your Honor, as the individual who is shown in the screenshot providing the response to the Plaintiff, I would appreciate the opportunity to file an amicus brief with the court.

 

[Anthony_org]

Your Honor, as the individual who is shown in the screenshot providing the response to the Plaintiff, I would appreciate the opportunity to file an amicus brief with the court.

Objection

Your honor, an Amicus Curiae brief ("Friend of the court") is for individuals or organizations who are not a party to a specific case. xXLordLyonXx is a current MoJ employee. This makes him a direct party to the case and not eligible to submit an Amicus Curiae brief.

 

[Westray]

Your Honor, as the individual who is shown in the screenshot providing the response to the Plaintiff, I would appreciate the opportunity to file an amicus brief with the court.

At this time, the Court is prepared to respectfully reject this request. While I understand your interest in the case, your positionality to the matters at hand would be better suited as a witness. You are someone who has been involved in the freedom of information request, directly cited in the evidence, and your testimony as a witness would be more relevant.

Motion to Dismiss
Your Honour,

The plaintiff has hit the Judiciary with a load of new lawsuits. Considering the lack of Judges that Azalea is currently faced with, I believe that it is in all of our interests to reduce the number of court cases as quickly as possible.

This request came during a time in which I had some IRL stuff and was serverly sick. That is why that request came not to my attention. The ticket also did not appear on the CityRP Discord server so that I could have reviewed it when I came back (I have answered several other tickets, I couldn't have missed, would it have been there). The plaintiff also did not remind me after a while and it wasn't brought to my attention by another employee either.

Leaving this request unanswered was simply caused by a series of unfortunate events rather than willful secrecy. The FOIA aims to pursue the latter rather than the former. That is why I request that Your Honour dismisses the case and I will submit the answer to the request here.

While understanding that this may be a reasonable argument to present to the Court regarding the government's intent, it does not provide a sufficient enough explanation to justify dismissal of the case. Motions to dismiss are typically based on lack of standing or inconsistent filing. In such case, the Plaintiff has clearly explained their standing pursuant to §5(a) of the Freedom of Information Act.

"if the petitioning citizen feels that their request is not being handled in a timely manner, they may file a suit in Court."

The area that this case will likely need to explore further will be to address the reasonability in particular with §5(a)(i) which does exempt "...additional allowance for the fact that Ministries have regular operations to continue while attempting to fulfill FOI requests." Whether these types of exemptions or justifications are sufficient to satisfy the provisions of the law must be litigated through the trial process.

Given that the Plaintiff has been able to justify their standing, the Court is prepared to respectfully reject the motion to dismiss.

The Defendant, the Ministry of Justice, has 48 hours, from this post, to provide an answer to the complaint.

 

[Anthony_org]

Your honor, I wish to bring Sparkimon as co-council.

 

[RealHanuta]

Answer to Civil Complaint:

Your Honor,
the Ministry of Justice provided an immediate response to the Plaintiff, with an employee stating they did not believe there had been any MoJ-approved discussions with the press since the term began. The Plaintiff clearly misinterprets the Freedom of Information Act on several levels in their filing, as the Defendant shall prove.

Parties:
Plaintiff - Anthony_org
Defendant - Ministry of Justice

Factual Defenses or Challenges:

(1) A representative of the Ministry of Justice provided a response to the Plaintiff within one week saying they didn’t believe there was anything approved by the Ministry for press discussions.

(2) The FOIA does not require the Ministry to disclose search details, but just to answer the question(s) outlined in the FOI, with clarification if information is classified or redacted.

(3) The Plaintiff did not request any further elaboration or indicate they were dissatisfied with the Ministry’s response in any way.

(4) The FOI request was not visible for the Minister of Justice due to Discord hiding the channel, which prevented the Minister from seeing the FOI request, although this should not matter as a response was given.

(5) The Amendment to the Freedom of Information Act took effect on December 24th, and is applicable to this situation.

Legal Defenses or Challenges:

(1) The Ministry provided an answer to the Plaintiff within one week of the FOI being submitted. The Plaintiff did not indicate disapproval or a need for clarification until the lawsuit was filed. This is not a situation where the MoJ did not respond - this is a situation where the Plaintiff appears to have wanted more from the MoJ’s response but made zero effort to request it. The Ministry’s initial answer is an answer to the Plaintiff’s request, and the Plaintiff made no effort to seek the extra clarification not required by law.

(2) The Plaintiff appears to be claiming that the Ministry of Justice is withholding information. The Ministry can confirm records were reviewed, and that the Minister of Justice at no time authorized press discussions during the last parliamentary term of the Lyon administration. As there were no relevant classified records, the Plaintiff did not need to receive a classification status.

(3) The Plaintiff’s characterization of the FOIA is incorrect. Individuals may not sue when they believe information is being withheld. They may sue when they are told information is restricted / cannot be provided due to classification. The government is compelled to inform an individual if information cannot be provided to them - this was not the case here, there was not restricted information, and as such this entire section of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is irrelevant, as there is no restricted information to be compelled.

Verification:
I, Hanuta Brehmer, 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.