Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of CityRP.

SignUp Now!

Latest posts

Case: Pending Sagg Wizard v. Ministry of Justice (2026) CV 18

Aero

Aero

Member
Parliament Member
Aeronox4
Aeronox4
Citizen
Joined
Nov 13, 2025
Messages
352
Sagg Wizard, Plaintiff
v.
Ministry of Justice, Defendant​

Civil Complaint:​

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) charged Plaintiff with the crime of Bank Robbery. Upon learning of this charge, Plaintiff opened an MoJ ticket to contest the charge and to ask to see the evidence against him. The MoJ provided their evidence and Plaintiff, finding the evidence to be lacking, demanded that the charge be dropped. The MoJ refused. Plaintiff then asserted his right for a trial. The MoJ refused again. This represents a breach of Plaintiff's civil rights and a gross overreach of powers by the Executive as it attempts to usurp the Judiciary's Constitutional role.

Parties:​

  • Plaintiff: Sagg Wizard (IGN: "Saggwizard13")
  • Defendant: Ministry of Justice

Factual Allegations:​

(All dates and time are in Eastern Daylight Time, which is UTC-4.)
  1. On March 18, 2026, Plaintiff was charged with the crime of Bank Robbery by Minister of Justice Dogan Karaca (Exhibit P-001).
  2. This charge was manually created by Minister of Justice Dogan Karaca.
  3. Upon discovering this charge, Plaintiff opened an MoJ ticket, at approximately 9:41am, asking to see the evidence (Exhibit P-002).
  4. At approximately 9:45am, Plaintiff requested that his lawyer, Aero Nox, be added to the ticket (Exhibit P-003).
  5. Plaintiff's lawyer revieved the evidence presented by the MoJ and found it to be lacking.
  6. At approximately 10:51am. Plaintiff's lawyer told the MoJ that Plaintiff was exercising his right to a trial (Exhibit P-004).
  7. On March 20, 2026 at approximately 12:54pm, the Minister of Justice unconstituionally denied Plaintiff's right to a trial (Exhibit P-005).
  8. Starting at approximately 1:17pm, the Minister of Justice wrongfully stated that it was up to Plaintiff to prove his innocence (Exhibits P-006 & P-007).
  9. At approximately 1:37pm. Minister of Justice Dogan Karaca once again stated that he was denying Plaintiff a trial, while repeating the wrongful statement that Plaintiff needed to prove his innocence (Exhibit P-008).

Legal Claims:​

1. Minister of Justice Dogan Karaca, by denying Plaintiff his right to a trial and claiming the authority to adjudicate, violated the Constitution and usurped the Judiciary's Constitutional authority.​

Articles 3-5 of the Constitution of Azalea Isles clearly lays out the roles of each of the three co-equal branches of government. The Executive responsibilities are clearly limited to the execution of the law, while the Judiciary is the only branch who shall be repsonsible for adjudicating disputes within Azalea Isles.

The Executive is limited to executing the law and may not unilaterally deny access to statutory adjudicative procedures.

2. Minister Dogan Karaca misinterpreted of the New Criminal Code Act §12(a).​

The New Criminal Code Act §12(a) states:

(a) Misdemeanors can be contested in a Ministry of Justice ticket. Upon arrest, Ministry of Justice officers must inform the suspect that they can contest the charges alleged against them and ask if the suspect wishes to contest their charges.
Click to expand...

While this section does provide those charged with the procedural steps to contest their charge, it does give the Executive the authority to deny access to statutory adjudicative procedures. Such a clause would clearly be unconstitutional, per the first legal claim.

3. Minister Dogan Karaca wrongfully claims that those accused of a crime must prove their innocence.​

The "Principles of Criminal Law" clearly state:

Guilty beyond a Reasonable Doubt: A defendant is assumed not guilty. A plaintiff presenting a criminal prosecution must prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction. However, a defendant found not guilty in a criminal trial may still find themselves guilty in a civil trial where the standards of evidence are lower.
Click to expand...

The burden of proof for criminal charges always lies with the Government. By demanding that those charged with crimes prove their innocence, Minister Dogan Karaca assumes that the defendant is guilty. This is a clear violation of the "Guilty beyond a Reasonable Doubt" principle.

This principle has been upheld by the Court and is now clear precedent:

Prayer for Relief:​

1. Declaratory Relief​

  1. A declaration that Minister Dogan Karaca’s actions denying Plaintiff a trial and purporting to adjudicate criminal charges usurp the Judiciary’s constitutional authority and violate Articles 3–5 of the Constitution of Azalea Isles.
  2. A declaration that Minister Karaca’s interpretation and application of the New Criminal Code Act §12(a) to deny access to the statutory misdemeanor contest procedure is unlawful and unconstitutional.
  3. A declaration that Minister Karaca’s statements and actions asserting that an accused must prove their innocence violate the constitutional presumption of innocence and the principle that the burden of proof in criminal prosecutions rests with the State.

2. Mandatory Injunctive Relief​

  1. A mandatory injunction ordering Minister Dogan Karaca and the Ministry of Justice to immediately accept and process Plaintiff’s Ministry of Justice ticket contest under New Criminal Code Act §12(a), and to permit the statutory adjudicative procedure to proceed without further Executive interference.
  2. An injunction prohibiting Minister Karaca and Ministry officials from further denying, blocking, interfering with, or purporting to adjudicate criminal charges that are properly within the Judiciary’s authority.

3. Costs and Ancillary Relief​

  1. An award of costs of these proceedings, including reasonable attorney’s fees.
  2. Such further or alternative relief as the Court deems just and proper, including sanctions against Minister Karaca or Ministry officials for contempt or willful violation of Court orders if warranted.

Verification:​

I, Aero Nox, 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.

Evidence​

P-001.png

P-002.png

P-003.png

P-004.png

P-005.png

P-006.png

P-007.png

P-008.png
 
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court for an emergency temporary injunction prohibiting the Ministry of Justice from arresting Plaintiff for this charge, while the Court rules on the matter of Plaintiff's right to a trial for said charge.
 

Writ of Summons

Azalea Isles District Court, Civil Case (CV)

Case No. CV-26-18
​
Plaintiff: Sagg Wizard (Saggwizard13)
Defendant: Ministry of Justice
​
The Defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Sagg Wizard v. Ministry of Justice (2026). 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
 
Aero said:
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court for an emergency temporary injunction prohibiting the Ministry of Justice from arresting Plaintiff for this charge, while the Court rules on the matter of Plaintiff's right to a trial for said charge.
Click to expand...
The Court will rule on this matter 24 hours from now. When responding to the summons, the Defendant may also provide a response to this emergency injunction, provided they do so before the Court's ruling.
 
Your Honour, I would like to inform the respected court that the Government Prosecutors Ren Kuronoscucinder and Helena Adler will work on this case together as Co-Counsel.

Respectfully submitted,

Doğan Karaca
Minister of Justice
 
DK3458 said:
Your Honour, I would like to inform the respected court that the Government Prosecutors Ren Kuronoscucinder and Helena Adler will work on this case together as Co-Counsel.

Respectfully submitted,

Doğan Karaca
Minister of Justice
Click to expand...
I apologize, Your Honour. We are also adding Random Intruder on as co-counsel.
 
Aero said:
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court for an emergency temporary injunction prohibiting the Ministry of Justice from arresting Plaintiff for this charge, while the Court rules on the matter of Plaintiff's right to a trial for said charge.
Click to expand...
Seeing as no response has been provided by the Defendant, the Court has evaluated this request for an emergency injunction purely on the arguments presented at this time. Since these charges are being contested in this case, this appears on its face as a reasonable request. Therefore, the emergency injunction prohibiting the Ministry of Justice from arresting the Plaintiff for this charge is hereby granted.

The Ministry of Justice may not detain or arrest the Plaintiff, Sagg Wizard, on the charge of Bank Robbery that was initially levied on March 18, 2026. In line with court procedure, the Ministry is hereby enjoined from committing such action for the duration of this case unless otherwise directed by the Court. This order is issued for Sagg Wizard v. Ministry of Justice (2026) CV 18 in the District Court.

Such emergency injunction does not apply to future charges levied against the Plaintiff for the charge of Bank Robbery. Should Mr. Wizard be accused of robbing the bank on another occasion separate from this charge on March 18, this order does not protect them. This is offered as clarity to ensure that both the Ministry and the Plaintiff understand their roles and responsibilities.

Signed,
Hon. Chief Justice Raymond West
 
@Sparkimon @RandomIntruder, seeing as more than 48 hours have elapsed since the deadline has been provided, the Ministry of Justice is required to provide a satisfactory explanation for its lack of response.

You have 24 hours, from this post, to submit a response to the complaint, along with a justification for failing to meet the Court's deadlines. Failure to do so may result in default judgement.
 
Your Honour, we were not yet asked to respond to the initial complaint. We did not want to speak out of turn as to not receive any penalty. We will be submitting our response to the complaint shortly.
 
Sparkimon said:
Your Honour, we were not yet asked to respond to the initial complaint. We did not want to speak out of turn as to not receive any penalty. We will be submitting our response to the complaint shortly.
Click to expand...

The Defendant was informed on March 25 through #government-announcements on discord and through the summons (the third post on this thread) to file an answer to the complaint within 48 hours. This is standard as established in countless other cases that the Ministry of Justice has handled. Nonetheless, given there is multiple new lawyers who appear to be on this case, I can offer the benefit of the doubt that perhaps some confusion emerged. Moving forward, do not misconstrue such latitude as if it is unlimited.

Please provide your answer to complaint as soon as possible within the new 24-hour deadline that was set out earlier today.
 
Respectfully, Your Honor, you seem to have mixed up your caseload, as no deadline was given in this thread.

Your first message in this trial, attached below, was the initial summons request, where the Ministry is required to appear before the court to indicate our presence.
1774849348232.png

Your second message, responding to your own summons, was an opportunity for the Ministry of Justice to respond to the emergency injunction, attached below. This is not a request for an answer to the complaint.

1774849452541.png

The Ministry of Justice declined to contest the emergency injunction within the 24 hour period, so Your Honor's third message in this channel was ruling in favor of the requested injunction, attached below. Your Honor did not ask for an answer to the complaint at any time, and it is Your Honor who has set the prior precedent that responding to the court out of turn, even when attempting to increase judicial economy, can be grounds for contempt.

1774849510515.png


Now, Your Honor's fourth message in this channel is accusing the Defendant of failing to respond. Your Honor has failed to set any deadline for an answer to the complaint - you set a deadline for the emergency injunction, which does not require the Ministry's response and has been resolved. However, you are instead here requesting a response to the complaint, and a justification for failing to respond before, in a 24 hour time period. Your Honor never even gave the Defendant their first 48 hour period to answer the complaint, and yet the Defendant asked to justify failing to meet a deadline they were not given.
1774849671211.png

Your Honor's final message in this channel states that it was the Discord announcement that gave the answer to the complaint order, and the message in this thread. Your Honor claims this is consistent with the precedent of past cases.

1774849828267.png


Respectfully, Your Honor, you have not followed normal court procedure or your own precedent in the initial handling of this case. Every Discord summons Your Honor posts requests an answer to the complaint within 48 hours, but Your Honor's conduct in the threads of every case up to this point has been contrary. Your Honor's writ of summons in the trial thread (where the official judicial business is conducted) never mentions this, and Your Honor has always separately allotted a new deadline of 48 hours after presence is indicated. Your Honor did this in Anthony Org v. Azalea Isles CV 17, Anthony Org v. Azalea Isles CV 12, and Ren Kuronoscucinder's first case in Your Honor's court, Kimijungun Kapteijn v. Ministry of Justice (2026) CV 11. If Your Honor needs additional case precedent, I am happy to provide it. The confusion generated here is due to Your Honor's departure from court norms and precedent, which has always granted a separate 48 hour timeline for responding to a complaint. No announcement of a change in court policy was provided, either.

Therefore, I am respectfully requesting this court return to following court precedent and processes, as Your Honor has previously enforced, and the Ministry of Justice be given a proper 48 hour timeline to submit our answer to the complaint.
 
Thank you, Mr. Lysander, for your remarks on this case. The Defendant has listed Ren Kuronoscucinder, Helena Adler, and Random Intruder as co-counsel to handle this case. To my knowledge at this time, the Defendant has not listed you as co-counsel on this matter. These types of commentaries are also not appropriate for a court thread, and should be raised as an objection. If there is an issue with procedure, an objection by counsel on-file is the formal route. Failure to abide by this decorum or for non-parties to comment on this case may result in penalties like contempt of court.

With respect to the procedural concerns raised, the Court maintains that the writ of summons provided sufficient notice that a response in some manner (such as a response to the complaint or a motion to dismiss as typical) was required within 48 hours. However, I also acknowledge that in prior cases like Kimijungun Kapteijn v. Ministry of Justice (2026) CV 11, it has at times issued a separate deadline within the trial thread following an appearance by the Defendant. To the extent that this may have created confusion, the Court will exercise its discretion to ensure clarity and fairness. Moving forward, this message will also be updated to ensure it is abundantly clear.

Accordingly, the Defendant is granted an additional 24 hours to file its answer to the complaint. The Court expects full compliance with all deadlines moving forward. Any requests for extensions should be made in a timely and appropriate manner. Please avoid theatrics moving forward - if the Defendant has an objection or needs more time, there is procedure for this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top