robidemon2 v. Ministry of Justice (MOJ)

[Robidemon2]

robidemon2 v. Ministry of Justice (MOJ)​

---

robidemon2, Plaintiff
v.
Ministry of Justice (MOJ), Defendant

---

Civil Complaint​

Plaintiff robidemon2 brings this complaint against the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) for unlawfully arresting the plaintiff without proper authorization, in violation of established Enforcement and Prosecution Procedures. The arresting officer, identified as Police Officer Emerald, executed an arrest on plot F011 without obtaining the required permission from the property owner and without meeting the legal standards for warrantless entry under Section 11(d) of the Enforcement and Prosecution Procedures.

---

Parties​

Plaintiff​

• robidemon2

Defendant​

• Ministry of Justice (MOJ)

Co-Defendant(s)​

• Police Officer Emerald, acting as an agent of the MOJ

---

Factual Allegations​

1. Plaintiff robidemon2 was present on plot F011, a privately owned property, on the date of the incident.
2. Police Officer Emerald arrived at plot F011 to execute what was claimed to be an active arrest warrant for the plaintiff.
3. Officer Emerald entered the property without first obtaining permission from the property owner, as required under Section 11(d) of the Enforcement and Prosecution Procedures.
4. There was no emergency, no immediate threat, no crime in progress, and the plaintiff had not fled into the property, meaning none of the exceptions under Section 11(d)(i)–(v) applied.
5. Officer Emerald proceeded to arrest the plaintiff on the property despite the lack of lawful authorization to enter.
6. The plaintiff was subsequently detained, and any time spent confined counts toward punishment under Section 11(b).
7. Following the arrest, MOJ Officer Dogen Karaca informed the plaintiff that police may enter private property whenever an active arrest warrant exists.
8. This statement was used as justification for the entry and arrest; however, this interpretation contradicts Section 11(d), which still requires property-owner consent or a qualifying exception even when executing an active warrant.

Legal Claims​

1. Unlawful Entry and Arrest (Violation of Enforcement Procedure Section 11(d))
   • The MOJ, through Officer Emerald, unlawfully entered private property without consent, without emergency circumstances, and without a valid exception under Section 11(d)(i)–(v).
2. Improper Execution of Active Warrant
   • Even if a warrant existed, its execution was invalid due to failure to adhere to property-owner consent requirements and legal procedure.
3. Violation of Plaintiff's Due Process Rights
   • The plaintiff was arrested without compliance with mandated legal standards, depriving them of statutory protections.

---

Prayer for Relief​

The plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant the following relief:

1. A declaration that the arrest conducted by Officer Emerald was unlawful and in violation of Section 11(d).
2. Injunctive relief preventing the MOJ and its agents from executing warrants on private property without following proper procedures in the future.
3. Compensation for any damages incurred, including but not limited to improper confinement under Section 11(b).
4. Removal or invalidation of fines or penalties associated with the unlawful arrest.
5. Any additional relief the Court deems appropriate and just.

---

Verification​

I, robidemon2, hereby affirm that the allegations in the complaint AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the plaintiff's knowledge, information, and belief and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.