Lawsuit: Dismissed ko531 v. The Crown, Case 16 (Mag. Ct., 2025)

[ko531]

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CIVIL ACTION

Ko531
Plaintiff

v.

The Crown
Defendant

INTRODUCTION
I, ko531, made a FOI request on August 28th, 2025 towards the MOJ into the contents on the #Exec-crown chat as is the outlined process in the Government Information Act. At first, the Prime Minister (GoldBlooded) deemed the channel classifed. After asking some questions the MOJ would later admit that the channel could not be classified as it was not under the Parliament or a Ministry. The representative of the MOJ Ibney then decided to make a reasonable effort as to follow the law by asking the Prime Minister "pretty please give him what he is asking for" which the Prime Minister would then denied. The result of this ticket, as Ibney subsequently agreed, means that no FOI request actually has to be fufilled. This is a breach of the Government Information act by both the Prime Minister refusing to provide all unclassified information and a member of parliament withholding information permanently. This court should correct this blantent disrespect of the law by forcing the content of the #Exec-Crown Channel to be released.


I. PARTIES
1. Ko531
2. The Crown

II. FACTS
1. The Government Information Act section 8(2)(a) states: "A Freedom of Information request made by an individual citizen is made towards the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry of Justice is then expected to make a reasonable attempt to provide all non-classified requested information."
2. On August 28th, 2025 I, ko531, made a FOI request into the contents of the #Exec-Crown chat.
3. This request would be denied by the Prime Minister GoldBlooded due to it's classification status
4. A representative and Solicitor General of the MOJ Ibney agreed the chat is an independent channel that could not be classified.
5. Ibney while representing the MOJ made a "reasonable request" towards Goldblooded by asking "pretty please give him what he's asking for"
6. Prime Minister Goldblooded would still denied this request due to it not falling under "parliament or cabinet information" while also questioning the reasonability of the request due to its length.
7. Previously the MOJ has granted an unrelated FOI requests I have made totally 101 pages of discord discussions.
8. The MOJ is required to make a reasonable attempt to provide all non-classified requested information and not just parliament or cabinet information.
9. The Prime Minister is a member of Parliament
10. The Government Information Act section 8(1) states "Parliament directly represents the people in government. Therefore Parliament does not have the power to permanently withhold information from the public"

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Section 9(3) of the Government Information act states: "Any citizen or government body with a significant interest in classified information can request the Magistrates Court to determine whether or not said information is justly classified. This request pertains to all classifications."
2. Section 8(1) of the Government Information act states: " Parliament directly represents the people in government. Therefore Parliament does not have the power to permanently withhold information from the public." Goldblooded as a member of Parliament is breaching this section by permanently withholding information from the public that his MOJ claimed to not be classified.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. Release of all discussions in the #Exec-Crown channel
2. $1,000 in legal fees.

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: P-007

Spoiler: P-008

Spoiler: P-009

Spoiler: P-010

Spoiler: P-011

 

[Zodd]

IN THE MAGISTRATES' COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF SUMMONS
The Queen's rightfully appointed Government are required to appear before the Magistrates' Court In the case of
ko531 v. The Crown, Case 16 (Mag. Ct., 2025)

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons may result in a default judgment based on the known facts of the case.

All parties will make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures (General and Magistrates).​

 

[Ibney0]

Present, your honour.

 

[Ibney0]

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY TO DISMISS

Your honour,

Under the General Court Rules and Procedures, the Crown entreats this Court to dismiss this case for lack of claim. The Government Information Act ("GIA") provides no method for the Magistrate Court to release information to the public. Under your honours previous ruling, the magistrate court may only lower the classification level of specific information if it is improperly classified. Ko531 v. The Crown, Case 8 (Mag.Ct., 2025).

Plaintiff brings suit to compel the release of all information within the #exec-crown channel. They cite zero authority which requires the government to do so. Instead, they cite that "Parliament" can not withhold information permanently from its people. See GIA Sec. 8(1). Prime Minister Goldblooded, believe it or not, is not Parliament. They are a member of parliament, but they are not refusing to release this information in their position as a member of parliament. They are the Prime Minister, and their discussions with the Monarch are within their official capacity as Prime Minister.

The Plaintiff may attempt to claim that they are a Minister of a Ministry, and claim that under GIA Sec. (1)(c) the information must be released because there is a new Prime Minister, this is not true either. While the Prime Minister is a Minister, he does not run a Ministry:

All Ministers serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister does not expressly have the powers of the several other Ministers, but has the authority to order the other Ministers to effectuate their power as they see fit and within the confines of the Constitution or as prescribed by law.

Government Organization Act ("GOA"), Part III, Sec. 10 (2).

The Prime Minister possesses no Ministry of their own. They also technically possess no individual power of those Ministries. Instead, they only have the power to order certain Ministers to do specific things under law, and fire them if they fail to do so.

The GIA is highly flawed. Your honour realized that after the previous case. I personally have already submitted legislation to fix it, but at the moment, the plaintiff has no recourse, and lacks a claim for which relief can be sought. Continuing this case would waste everyone's time. Because of this, we ask that you dismiss the plaintiff's claim with prejudice, or in the alternative, without prejudice and order him to submit a claim for which relief may be sought if he chooses to submit again.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney0
Solicitor General
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[ko531]

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY TO DISMISS

Your honour,

Under the General Court Rules and Procedures, the Crown entreats this Court to dismiss this case for lack of claim. The Government Information Act ("GIA") provides no method for the Magistrate Court to release information to the public. Under your honours previous ruling, the magistrate court may only lower the classification level of specific information if it is improperly classified. Ko531 v. The Crown, Case 8 (Mag.Ct., 2025).

Plaintiff brings suit to compel the release of all information within the #exec-crown channel. They cite zero authority which requires the government to do so. Instead, they cite that "Parliament" can not withhold information permanently from its people. See GIA Sec. 8(1). Prime Minister Goldblooded, believe it or not, is not Parliament. They are a member of parliament, but they are not refusing to release this information in their position as a member of parliament. They are the Prime Minister, and their discussions with the Monarch are within their official capacity as Prime Minister.

The Plaintiff may attempt to claim that they are a Minister of a Ministry, and claim that under GIA Sec. (1)(c) the information must be released because there is a new Prime Minister, this is not true either. While the Prime Minister is a Minister, he does not run a Ministry:



Government Organization Act ("GOA"), Part III, Sec. 10 (2).

The Prime Minister possesses no Ministry of their own. They also technically possess no individual power of those Ministries. Instead, they only have the power to order certain Ministers to do specific things under law, and fire them if they fail to do so.

The GIA is highly flawed. Your honour realized that after the previous case. I personally have already submitted legislation to fix it, but at the moment, the plaintiff has no recourse, and lacks a claim for which relief can be sought. Continuing this case would waste everyone's time. Because of this, we ask that you dismiss the plaintiff's claim with prejudice, or in the alternative, without prejudice and order him to submit a claim for which relief may be sought if he chooses to submit again.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney0
Solicitor General
Kingdom of Alexandria

Permission to respond your honor?

 

[Zodd]

Permission to respond your honor?

I hereby grant you permission to respond.​

 

[ko531]

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO ENTREATY TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

The Crown claims that the court has no ability to release such information but this is false. The court always has the ability to force compliance with the law which is exactly what I am asking the court to do. The Prime Minister is a member of parliament and is required to uphold the standards set for parliament. By this refusal to release the request information he is in clear violation of section 8(1) of the Government Information act. It is wordplay to say that the Prime Minister is not parliament but a member of parliament and only invites the breaking of the law. Parliament is made up by members of parliament. Without members of parliament there is no parliament and vice versa. There should be no distiction as one does not exist without the other By making such distiction means that members of parliament do not have to follow the law in regards to the parliament.

This denial of unclassified information goes completely against the nature of the Government Information Act and it should be corrected. The government should not have tha ability to ignore and violate the law. If this court were to dismiss this case, the Government Information Act would be informally rescinded. The request was not denied due to being an unreasonable request or due to its classified nature but because of reasons that are never once said inside the Government Information Act. The Prime Minister of all people should uphold the law, not ignore it and enforce what doesn't exist.

 

[Ibney0]

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO ENTREATY TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

The Crown claims that the court has no ability to release such information but this is false. The court always has the ability to force compliance with the law which is exactly what I am asking the court to do. The Prime Minister is a member of parliament and is required to uphold the standards set for parliament. By this refusal to release the request information he is in clear violation of section 8(1) of the Government Information act. It is wordplay to say that the Prime Minister is not parliament but a member of parliament and only invites the breaking of the law. Parliament is made up by members of parliament. Without members of parliament there is no parliament and vice versa. There should be no distiction as one does not exist without the other By making such distiction means that members of parliament do not have to follow the law in regards to the parliament.

This denial of unclassified information goes completely against the nature of the Government Information Act and it should be corrected. The government should not have tha ability to ignore and violate the law. If this court were to dismiss this case, the Government Information Act would be informally rescinded. The request was not denied due to being an unreasonable request or due to its classified nature but because of reasons that are never once said inside the Government Information Act. The Prime Minister of all people should uphold the law, not ignore it and enforce what doesn't exist.

Because plaintiff brings up points he states no where in his original complaint, I feel compelled to request a reply.

 

[ko531]

Because plaintiff brings up points he states no where in his original complaint, I feel compelled to request a reply.

Objection

Procedural Breach

Even though nothing outlining this in any court rules to my knowledge, it is general procedure that only one response is allowed. Almost never is a response to a response allowed as it opens up the possibility to indefinite responses. This request should be denied.

 

[Ibney0]

Objection

Procedural Breach

Even though nothing outlining this in any court rules to my knowledge, it is general procedure that only one response is allowed. Almost never is a response to a response allowed as it opens up the possibility to indefinite responses. This request should be denied.

Your honour, plaintiff points to no procedural rule that would disallow such. The Court has discretion to deny a reply if it becomes frivolous. Plaintiff outlined arguments not within their original complaint. To deny the defense the ability to respond to those arguments would allow plaintiff's to hide arguments outside of their complaint. Either the Court allows a response, or we request you do not consider this section of plaintiff's argument:

This denial of unclassified information goes completely against the nature of the Government Information Act and it should be corrected. The government should not have tha ability to ignore and violate the law. If this court were to dismiss this case, the Government Information Act would be informally rescinded. The request was not denied due to being an unreasonable request or due to its classified nature but because of reasons that are never once said inside the Government Information Act. The Prime Minister of all people should uphold the law, not ignore it and enforce what doesn't exist.

 

[Ibney0]

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF PROMPTING

Your honour,

This case is still outstanding, and has been for 20 days. May we request a writ of prompting as to how to proceed? It also appears to be moot with the passage of the Freedom of Information Act.

 

[Zodd]

Your honour, plaintiff points to no procedural rule that would disallow such. The Court has discretion to deny a reply if it becomes frivolous. Plaintiff outlined arguments not within their original complaint. To deny the defense the ability to respond to those arguments would allow plaintiff's to hide arguments outside of their complaint. Either the Court allows a response, or we request you do not consider this section of plaintiff's argument:

The court will permit a response to the response - as the crown points out, new arguments were made, but I do not want this to turn into a perpetual back and forth.
I'd like a response within 48 hours, and then this court will deliberate on the entreaty to dismiss after.

This is also notice to the crown to provide an answer to the complaint within 72 hours.​

 

[Ibney0]

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

I. FACTS
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Denied.
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted.
6. Admitted.
7. Admitted.
8. Admitted, so far as the MOJ is required to attempt to provide that information.
9. Admitted, so far as the Prime Minister serves as a Member of Parliament, and separately as the Prime Minister, in two separate roles.
10. Admitted.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Admitted that it does say that.
2. Admitted that it does say that, again. Denied as the Prime Minister is withholding the information from the public as his discussions within the Exec-Crown channel are private discussions outside my particular ministry, or within the scope of his role as a member of parliament.

IV. Defenses
1. The Government Information act is poorly written. It specifies this court has the power to adjust classification status. It also states that Parliament or a Ministry can not withhold information from the public. The Prime Minister does not run a ministry, and while he is a member of Parliament, he was not acting within his role as a member of parliament when he discussed things with the Monarch.
2. Alternatively, the Government Information Act no longer applies, and this case is Moot with the passage of the Freedom of Information Act.

Respectfully Submitted,

Joseph Ibney0
Solicitor General
Ministry of Justice

 

[Ibney0]

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO ENTREATY TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

The Crown claims that the court has no ability to release such information but this is false. The court always has the ability to force compliance with the law which is exactly what I am asking the court to do. The Prime Minister is a member of parliament and is required to uphold the standards set for parliament. By this refusal to release the request information he is in clear violation of section 8(1) of the Government Information act. It is wordplay to say that the Prime Minister is not parliament but a member of parliament and only invites the breaking of the law. Parliament is made up by members of parliament. Without members of parliament there is no parliament and vice versa. There should be no distiction as one does not exist without the other By making such distiction means that members of parliament do not have to follow the law in regards to the parliament.

This denial of unclassified information goes completely against the nature of the Government Information Act and it should be corrected. The government should not have tha ability to ignore and violate the law. If this court were to dismiss this case, the Government Information Act would be informally rescinded. The request was not denied due to being an unreasonable request or due to its classified nature but because of reasons that are never once said inside the Government Information Act. The Prime Minister of all people should uphold the law, not ignore it and enforce what doesn't exist.

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
REPLY TO RESPONSE TO ENTREATY TO DISMISS

Your honour,

As this Court held previously:

The plaintiff in this matter has specifically asked for the release of information that is deemed not justly classified. The request process is intended for the Magistrate to lower the classification down to the highest justifiable level, and that level is ‘UNCLASSIFIED’ and cannot be lowered further.

I will not be granting the release of information itself as this is not a power delegated to me by the Government Information Act. The process for retrieving information remains the same, citizens should request the information from the MOJ, and the Chancery should comply to provide information that is not classified and is deemed a reasonable request.

Ko531 v. The Crown, Case 8 (Mag. Ct., 2025).

The plaintiff states "the court always has the ability to force compliance with the law which is exactly what I am asking the court to do." Plaintiff cites no legal authority to force compliance with any law, and additionally, does not explain what legal authority he intends to cause this Court to force compliance. The Court does not have the ability to enforce the law. Instead, the Court interprets the law, and the Executive enforces that interpretation. See K.A. Const. Part II, Sec 6.

The Court can not interpret what does not exist. It is not the job of the Court to read into statutes what they ought think to be there. Instead, the Court must interpret what is written, and what power they are given by Parliament as the authorized legislative body. If the Government Information Act does not allow the Court to release messages, it is not the purpose of the Court to do so.

Plaintiff makes extensive policy arguments that amount to nothing more than conjecture about what ought to be, not what exists. Additionally, they state that:

Parliament is made up by members of parliament. Without members of parliament there is no parliament and vice versa. There should be no distiction as one does not exist without the other By making such distiction means that members of parliament do not have to follow the law in regards to the parliament.

Plaintiff's contentions fall flat on their face. Not all Members of Parliament are part of a Ministry, and not all members of a Ministry are Members of Parliament. Members of Parliament may serve in their official capacity as an MP, and as a Minister. In their roles as legislators they legislate, and in their role as Ministers they execute the law. They are two, separate, roles with separate duties under our Westminster system. This is evidenced by the fact the Executive and the Legislature are two separate entities within the Constitution. See K.A. Const. Part I; K.A. Const. Part II.

These words are not "Wordsmithing" as plaintiff likes to put it, but the only reasonable interpretation of a poorly worded act. Plaintiff contends that by following this interpretation, it would effectively invalidate the GIA. This is moot, as the GIA has been rescinded and replaced with the Freedom of Information Act. The plaintiff's words hold no weight, they cite to no authority, and they have no case.

For these reasons, the Crown respectfully requests this complaint be dismissed.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney0
Solicitor General
Ministry of Justice

 

[Ibney0]

Your honour,

I have resigned and left the server. Please instruct the government to find a new counsel for this case.

Best of luck,

Joseph Ibney0

 

[Zodd]

IN THE MAGISTRATES' COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF DISMISSAL

The court will be dismissing this case in light of the fact that new legislation has taken hold.

This decision follows the chancery's ruling for dismissal that the underlying law is no longer in force in the case of Ko531 v. The Crown, Case 8 (Mag. Ct., 2025) Appeal.

I will additionally note that the prayer for relief the plaintiff is seeking in this case is to release all the information from the channel.

This prayer is not unreasonable on the basis of the law not specifically saying the court could or could not grant this - but rather that granting this would be operating against the existing law and framework of classification that holds today.
Arguments for that law would need to be brought up under a new filing and address the classifications and law that exists if there was a request for that information -- or more generally, to compel the law be applied as is the case for this prayer.

The case of ko531 v. The Crown, Case 16 (Mag. Ct., 2025), is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

​