Case: Pending Anthony Org v. Ministry of Justice (2026) CV 04

[Anthony_org]

Anthony_org​

v.

Ministry of Justice

---

Introduction​

This civil action arises from the unlawful arrest, detention, and punishment of Plaintiff Anthony_org by agents of the Ministry of Justice (“MOJ”) without judicial process or lawful authority. Plaintiff was subjected to criminal punishment without being brought before a court, without prosecutorial oversight, and without an opportunity to defend themselves, in contravention of the constitutional framework governing criminal adjudication in Azalea Isles.


These actions violated the Constitution of Azalea Isles, including but not limited to:
Article 1 – Protection against government overreach and the guarantee of the rule of law;
Article 2 – Separation of powers between the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary;
Article 5 – The exclusive authority of the Judiciary to adjudicate criminal matters.


Plaintiff brings this action to vindicate constitutional rights, to obtain redress for the harms suffered, and to prevent continued abuse of executive authority by the Ministry of Justice.

---

PARTIES​

Plaintiff
Anthony_org

Defendant
Ministry of Justice (“MOJ”)

---

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. At all relevant times, the Ministry of Justice exercised authority over criminal enforcement and law enforcement actions in Azalea Isles.
2. Plaintiff was subjected to criminal punishment imposed by law enforcement acting under the authority of the Ministry of Justice.
3. Plaintiff was not brought before a court prior to the imposition of that punishment.
4. No prosecutor headed Plaintiff’s case.
5. The punishment imposed on Plaintiff exceeded thirty minutes of jail and/or one thousand dollars in fines.
6. The Azalea Isles Criminal Code states that any content of the criminal code not explicitly mentioned or established by an Act of Parliament is invalid and shall be removed from the criminal code.
7. No Act of Parliament establishes a procedure authorizing police to impose criminal punishment or arrest players without a trial.
8. Despite the absence of such statutory authorization, law enforcement imposed criminal punishment on Plaintiff without judicial process.
9. Plaintiff suffered harm as a direct result of this enforcement action.

---

Witnesses

BiscuitplaysYT - Arresting Officer
Phoenixflamesong - Assisting Arresting Officer

---

LEGAL CLAIMS

COUNT I – VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1: GOVERNMENT OVERREACH AND RULE OF LAW​

1. Article 1 of the Constitution of Azalea Isles guarantees protection against government overreach of powers not specified by the Constitution.
2. Article 1 further guarantees that Azalea Isles is governed by the rule of law and that citizens are entitled to inviolable legal protections subject only to reasonable limits prescribed by law.
3. No Act of Parliament authorizes police or the Ministry of Justice to impose criminal punishment or arrest players without judicial process.
4. By imposing criminal punishment absent such lawful authority, the Ministry of Justice exercised powers not specified by the Constitution.
5. This conduct violated Plaintiff’s constitutional protections under Article 1.
6. Plaintiff suffered harm as a direct result of this violation.

---

COUNT II – VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2: SEPARATION OF POWERS​

1. Article 2 of the Constitution establishes three co-equal branches of government: the Parliament, the Executive, and the Judiciary.
2. Parliament alone possesses authority to establish criminal law and criminal procedure.
3. The Executive derives its authority from Parliament and may only execute constitutionally valid laws.
4. The Judiciary alone possesses authority to adjudicate criminal matters and impose punishment through judicial process.
5. Imposing criminal punishment without a court proceeding constitutes an exercise of judicial power.
6. By permitting or directing law enforcement to impose criminal punishment without judicial proceedings or parliamentary authorization, the Ministry of Justice usurped legislative and judicial powers.
7. This conduct violated the separation of powers mandated by Article 2.
8. Plaintiff suffered harm as a direct result of this violation.

---

COUNT III – VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5: DENIAL OF JUDICIAL ADJUDICATION​

1. Article 5 of the Constitution vests the Judiciary with responsibility for adjudicating criminal trials and rendering verdicts in criminal matters.
2. Criminal punishment may only be imposed following judicial adjudication.
3. Plaintiff was subjected to criminal punishment without a court adjudication or criminal trial.
4. By bypassing the Judiciary and imposing punishment directly, the Ministry of Justice deprived the courts of their constitutional role.
5. This conduct violated Plaintiff’s rights under Article 5.
6. Plaintiff suffered harm as a direct result of this violation.

---

COUNT IV – VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1: DENIAL OF EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW​

1. Article 1 of the Constitution guarantees that each citizen is entitled to equal treatment under the law.
2. Equal treatment under the law requires that criminal punishment be imposed only through constitutionally valid and uniformly applied procedures.
3. The Ministry of Justice imposed criminal punishment through ad hoc executive enforcement rather than constitutionally prescribed judicial process.
4. Plaintiff was subjected to treatment inconsistent with the constitutional framework governing criminal punishment.
5. This denied Plaintiff equal treatment under the law in violation of Article 1.
6. Plaintiff suffered harm as a direct result of this violation.

---

PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief:

A. A declaration that the Ministry of Justice violated Article 1 of the Constitution of Azalea Isles, and an award of $10,000 in punitive damages for Count I;
B. A declaration that the Ministry of Justice violated Article 2 of the Constitution of Azalea Isles, and an award of $10,000 in punitive damages for Count II;
C. A declaration that the Ministry of Justice violated Article 5 of the Constitution of Azalea Isles, and an award of $10,000 in punitive damages for Count III;
D. A declaration that the Ministry of Justice violated Article 1 of the Constitution of Azalea Isles, and an award of $10,000 in punitive damages for Count IV;
E. An award of legal fees equal to twenty percent (20%) of all monetary damages awarded;
F. A declaration that the criminal punishment imposed on Plaintiff was unconstitutional and void;
G. An order vacating and expunging all records of the unconstitutional punishment imposed on Plaintiff;
H. An injunction prohibiting the Ministry of Justice from imposing criminal punishment or arrests without judicial process unless expressly authorized by an Act of Parliament consistent with the Constitution;
I. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just, proper, and necessary to uphold the Constitution of Azalea Isles.

---

VERIFICATION​

I, Anthony_org, affirm under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are 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-26-04
​

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

 

[RealHanuta]

Motion to Halt

Your Honour,
this case is directly related to another case brought forward by the Plaintiff. It is evident that the outcome of this case will provide a quick and simple solution to this case, or atleast cut it short considerably. I request that this trial be halted until 2026 CV 2 is resolved to be used as a basis. This is not to undermine the Plaintiff's right of going to court but to save ourselves a ton of work, which should be in all our interests.

 

[Westray]

Motion to Halt

Your Honour,
this case is directly related to another case brought forward by the Plaintiff. It is evident that the outcome of this case will provide a quick and simple solution to this case, or atleast cut it short considerably. I request that this trial be halted until 2026 CV 2 is resolved to be used as a basis. This is not to undermine the Plaintiff's right of going to court but to save ourselves a ton of work, which should be in all our interests.

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