Case: Pending robidemon2 v. Ministry of Justice (2025) CV 17

[Robidemon2]

---

Civil Complaint​

Plaintiff robidemon2 brings this civil action against the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) for slander committed by an MOJ Lawyer acting in their official governmental capacity. The lawyer made multiple false, defamatory, and reputation‑damaging statements about the plaintiff, including calling him an "Anti‑Law politician," an "alt," an "anarchist with a messed‑up political agenda," a "fraudster," and accusing him of "pausing democracy." These statements were false, and caused significant reputational harm. Although the lawyer was later terminated, the damage remains, and the MOJ is liable for slander committed by its official agent.

---

Parties​

Plaintiff​

• robidemon2 – Citizen and political participant in Azalea whose reputation was harmed.

Defendant​

• Ministry of Justice (MOJ) – Government ministry responsible for legal enforcement and supervision of its officers and lawyers.

Co‑Defendants​

• Biscuitplays- Lawyer that committed slander
• PowderUwu- Co-Consul that agreed to release the information

---

Factual Allegations​

1. Plaintiff robidemon2 is an active and recognized political participant and citizen of the Azalea Isles.
2. An MOJ Lawyer, while acting in an official governmental capacity on behalf of the Ministry of Justice, made multiple false and defamatory public statements about the plaintiff to a news organisation.
3. These statements included, but were not limited to:
   • Accusing the plaintiff of being an “Anti‑Law politician.”
   • Calling the plaintiff an “alt.”
   • Labeling the plaintiff an “anarchist with a messed‑up political agenda.”
   • Claiming the plaintiff was a “fraudster.”
   • Alleging the plaintiff “paused democracy.”
4. Each of these statements was false, known to be false, and served no legitimate governmental purpose.
5. The MOJ Lawyer made these statements publicly, causing immediate reputational harm.
6. The statements were made intentionally, with the purpose of undermining the plaintiff’s credibility and damaging his reputation.
7. The MOJ dismissed the lawyer after these actions, implicitly acknowledging misconduct.
8. Despite the termination, the harm to the plaintiff’s name, political reputation, and credibility continues, as the statements were public and widely circulated.
9. As the statements were made by an MOJ official performing official duties, the Ministry of Justice is liable for the resulting damages.

---

Legal Claims​

Claim 1 — Slander ​

1. Under Section 1 of the Slander Act, slander is defined as making false and damaging statements about someone.
2. Section 2 prohibits slander outright.
3. Under Section 3, the plaintiff may sue for slander but must prove damages and intent.
4. The MOJ Lawyer, acting under official authority, knowingly made false statements with the intent to harm the plaintiff’s reputation.
5. These actions constitute slander under the Act.
6. The plaintiff suffered reputational, political, and social damages as a direct and proximate result of the slander.
7. Under Section 5, the defendant must pay compensation of no less than $50, with the final amount determined by the Court based on severity and evidence.

---

Prayer for Relief​

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Find the Ministry of Justice liable for slander committed by its official representative.
2. Award monetary compensation to the plaintiff in an amount not less than $50, and higher if warranted by severity.
3. Grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper.

---

Verification​

I, robidemon2, hereby affirm that the allegations in this complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.

 

[fauzfauzfauz]

Before the Court proceeds with a summons, can you clarify if you intend to sue the MoJ, Powder, and Biscuit as a class, in accordance with the law I have linked below, or solely the MoJ?

Act of Parliament - Civil Suit Reform Act

Original Legislation: Passed Bill Link: https://cityrp.org/threads/civil-suit-reform-act.211/ Final Vote: 6-0-1 Ratified: May 15, 2025 Author: Lysander Lyon, MP Sponsor: Lysander Lyon, MP Civil Suit Reform Act Preamble: The judiciary has interpreted the two-parties clause for civil trials in...

www.cityrp.org

 

[Robidemon2]

Solely the MOJ

 

[Sparkichu]

I, Sparkimon, will be stepping in as the attorney on behalf of the plaintiff, robidemon2.

 

[Westray]

Good afternoon,

In accordance with the Court Reformation Act, I will be stepping into the position of District Court Judge in order to handle this case, has it has been more than five days since the case was filed. I would like to thank the Plaintiff for their patience while the Court addresses this matter.

Please note that as per §3(a) of the Court Reformation Act, by taking on this case, it "does not invalidate or prevent later appeals - the Justice, in effect, shall take on the role of Judge in the case."

Sincerely,

Raymond West
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, stepping into the District Court

 

[Westray]

Writ of Summons

Azalea Isles Civil Court (CV)

Case No. CV-25-12
​

Plaintiff: Robi Hawes (Robidemon2)
Defendant: Ministry of Justice

​

The Defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Robi Hawes 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,
Acting District Court Judge, Raymond West

 

[RealHanuta]

The Defense is present before the Court, Your Honour.

 

[RealHanuta]

Motion to Dismiss

Your Honour,
the Defense motions for the case to be dismissed due to two reasons:
First of all, the plaintiff has failed to prove, that actions of the Mininistry of Justice as an institution constituted slander against them. They have not provided a proper explanation on why the actions of individuals can be transfered onto the whole Ministry. Yes, these people were MoJ employees, which does not mean however that they may never express their personal opinions, also within Government channels. And no law acknowledges that Government employees always act on behalft of their employer. The news paper in the exhibits labeled these opinions as official, made by 'MoJ Representitives'. But the headline of a rather populist news outlet should not weigh within the context of this trial, since it is also known, that this paper was run by a person close to the plaintiff. I wont deny that an MoJ employee forwarded these expressions to the newspaper, but I can confidently say, that this was not in any way authorised by the Ministry of Justice.
The Defense finds that the case file should not be directed towards the Ministry of Justice, but rather the individual perpetrators and motions that it shall be removed from the case file and cleared of all charges.

Second of all, the Plaintiff has failed to provide clear prove on any damages that have occured due to these statements being made, and that the individuals expressed these opinions intending to damage the their reputation, both required by the Anti-Slander Act.

"(b) Damages resulting from slander are not presumed and must be proven in a court of law."
"(c) In addition to proving damages, the plaintiff must also prove the defendant's intent to damage their reputation."

Since this case file does not constitute a proper slander charge, we find that it be dismissed.

 

[Sparkichu]

Motion to Amend the Complaint and Add Additional Evidence

The plaintiff wishes to bring forward additional evidence which shows BiscuitPlaysYT speaking on behalf of the MoJ, acting as a part of the ministry in order to "expose robi" as quoted in a message from BiscuitPlaysYT in the screenshot labelled "evidence-5". The evidence is listed below in the form of screenshots.

The plaintiff would also like to bring forward a quote provided by the defense from the Anti-Slander Act itself:

"(b) Damages resulting from slander are not presumed and must be proven in a court of law."

The reasoning for this case is to prove in the court of law that there have been damages from the actions made by the defendant. We are acting in accordance to the Anti-Slander Act as it is written as the defendant has provided above.

 

[Sparkichu]

Motion to Amend the Complaint and Add Additional Evidence

The plaintiff wishes to bring forward additional evidence which shows BiscuitPlaysYT speaking on behalf of the MoJ, acting as a part of the ministry in order to "expose robi" as quoted in a message from BiscuitPlaysYT in the screenshot labelled "evidence-5". The evidence is listed below in the form of screenshots.

The plaintiff would also like to bring forward a quote provided by the defense from the Anti-Slander Act itself:

"(b) Damages resulting from slander are not presumed and must be proven in a court of law."

The reasoning for this case is to prove in the court of law that there have been damages from the actions made by the defendant. We are acting in accordance to the Anti-Slander Act as it is written as the defendant has provided above.

I did not realize I could only add 10 files to a message, so here are the other two attached below.