Lawsuit: In Session Moyfr v. The Crown, Case 4 (Ch. 2025)

[Moyfr]

Moyfr (Tourist)

V.

The Crown

Pretext:
A recent law passed by parliament, The immigration and Citizenship Act, that was signed by the king on the 18th of April, 2025 states that," A ‘citizen’ is a player who has passed a citizenship exam and has the full rights and abilities of a citizen within Alexandria." I believe that this provision, as well as the entire Immigration and Citizenship Act, is unconstitutional and violates the rights of any non-citizen that lives within the borders of Alexandria.

Facts:
I - The existing constitution of the Kingdom of Alexandria lacks a clear definition and criteria for granting citizenship.
II - The existing constitution of the Kingdom of Alexandria does not give Parliament the authority to grant citizenship.
III - Provisions in the current immigration law violate the constitution directly. For example:

The constitution states," The following rights and freedoms are guaranteed, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society."

1. The right to participate in and run for office
2. The right to vote in elections and referendums provided the player meets the activity requirements set by law.
3. The right to secret ballot in elections and referendums
4. The right to appeal a charge made against them
5. No citizen can be made to produce self-incriminating evidence in a court of law, parliamentary hearing, subpoena, or impeachment trial
6. Freedom of political communication, press, and media
7. The right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer and to be informed of the nature of the charges brought against them
8. The right to peacefully assemble
9. Freedom of association
10. Every citizen is equal before and under the law
11. Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof
12. Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure
13. Every citizen has the right to be informed of the reason for a subpoena, detention, charge, or arrest made against them

The Immigration and Citizenship Act states:
Section (5) - Residents
(2) Residents have all rights and abilities of a citizen, but may not receive security clearances or run for public office.

This provision goes against the guaranteed freedoms and rights provided by the constitution, as it specifically does not mention that you need to be a citizen to run for office, whereas it specifies in later provisions that citizens are given specific rights. This illustrates two things: One, that the founders specifically included citizenship on some provisions but not others, giving the legislature no right to prevent rights from being given to non-citizens. Two, the law makes unreasonable limits which are not justified and go against our free society.

IV. The Immigration and Citizenship act places an undue burden on immigrants and residents of the Kingdom of Alexandria.

As it stands currently, the Immigration and Citizenship Act places two tests in the way of immigrants who arrive from foreign lands. The first being the Residency Exam and the second being the Citizenship Exam. These tests are akin to that of a poll tax or literacy test, are we such a low society to not realize that placing these barriers could serve to deter or push would-be citizens away?

May I further point out that the Residency Exam must be passed with a 100% score and the Citizenship Exam with an 80% score. What would happen to a poor soul who maybe mistypes or selects an answer question and is all of a sudden barred from becoming a citizen or resident? This is not only unfair but excessive punishment to immigrants or residents who wish to become citizens.

V. The law bars "tourists" of Alexandria from voting in elections, becoming employed, opening bank accounts, opening a business, owning property, and receiving grants in the Kingdom of Alexandria.

This fundamentally goes against the "life, liberty, and security" clause of the Constitution as, not only does the clause gives no mention of "citizen", but there is no way a tourist could survive, thrive, or defend themselves without being able to access these fundamental services that are only given to citizens.

Furthermore, as a current player of StateCraft, I cannot do any of these things and have to rely on the timing and decision of someone else to determine whether I get these supposed "guaranteed rights" or not.

VI. Those who do not agree with the political or governmental structure of the Kingdom of Alexandria are put at a disadvantage and can ultimately be discriminated against in any citizenship process.

When on the server, after saying my views of my distaste with the kingdom and recent legislation, I was threatened with having my life taken and also not being able to get citizenship as I was a "traitor".

VII. This lawsuit is being made after RealImza v. Crown, Case 1 (Ch. 2025), in which the Immigrant and Citizenship Act was going through Parliament, the court stated that," The Chancery does not see the need to grant an answer to this question at this time." Further stating that." A proposal within Parliament has been brought that clarifies this question soundly fails the test of having a reasonable and effective means to challenge the law."

Further grounds to hold off a firm decision was due to the reasoning that," Put simply, this issue is one that has not directly harmed the Petitioner."

As a member of the minority who now falls under the new law's jurisdiction and who is also not legally a citizen, further as someone who has been directly affected by this new law, I believe I have firm grounds to challenge the law in court.

Claims For Relief:
I. The Immigration and Citizenship Act, by abruptly and arbitrarily denying me, the plaintiff, an opportunity to obtain citizenship, unlawfully deprives my rights guaranteed by the Constitution, including equality under the law, participation in governance, and due process protections.

II. I, the plaintiff, assert that the Immigration and Citizenship Act, by its structure and timing, unfairly deprives me of the opportunity to obtain citizenship, and places an undue burden on Tourists and Residents to obtain citizenship, thereby denying my fundamental constitutional rights.

III. The Constitution of Alexandria, while silent on explicit citizenship criteria, enshrines core principles including equality under the law, participation in governance, and due process protections. By imposing new, restrictive standards that have directly impacted me, a player who joined after the law was signed into effect, the Act violates these constitutional guarantees. Specifically, if I would have joined a mere week sooner, I would have qualified for citizenship under the fact that all previous residents were automatically grandfathered in. In this notion, I am being treated completely differently and unfairly under the law compared to a "citizen" who was grandfathered in, and does not have to go through any of the troubles the Immigration and Citizenship Act outline.

Just to be extra sure, because I know that the defense loves to use the General Court Rules and Procedures card, I have ensured that these claims are within the outlined provisions and give me cause to sue in this court.

With this in mind, I request that the court rule on these following reliefs:
I. That the Immigration and Citizenship Act is unconstitutional and violates the my rights under the Constitution, specifically the right to equality, political participation, and due process.

II. That the Court issue an injunction preventing the enforcement of the Act as applied to individuals who were residents of Alexandria before the Act’s enactment, until a more equitable and constitutionally sound process is established.

III. That I be granted citizenship or provided an alternative means to gain citizenship under conditions that do not violate constitutional rights.

 

[Smallfries]

CHANCERY OF ALEXANDRIA​

WRIT OF SUMMONS​

The King's rightfully appointed Government is commanded to present itself before the court In Re: Moyfr v. Crown. The Crown's Counsel has seventy-two hours to appear before punitive measures are taken.​

 

[Psypio]

we shouldn't let anyone be a citizen as it is unholy

 

[Moyfr]

Objection:
Breach of Court Procedure - Psypio is not a member of the Crown’s Counsel and has no business appearing in this case nor being disruptive in this court.

I humbly request that a Contempt of Court charge to be placed on Psypio and the comment to be stricken from court record.

 

[kaiserin]

Objection:Breach of Court Procedure - Psypio is not a member of the Crown’s Counsel and has no business appearing in this case nor being disruptive in this court.I humbly request that a Contempt of Court charge to be placed on Psypio and the comment to be stricken from court record.

Sustained.

we shouldn't let anyone be a citizen as it is unholy

The Chancery finds Psypio guilty of Contempt, and they are to be fined £100. Their comment shall be struck from the record.

 

[Moyfr]

Thank you your honor!

 

[kaiserin]

Thank you your honor!

You are welcome, but Plaintiff is advised to hold themself to the same standard and not to speak out of turn within this Court.

 

[Greenish9]

CHANCERY OF ALEXANDRIA​

WRIT OF SUMMONS​

The King's rightfully appointed Government is commanded to present itself before the court In Re: Moyfr v. Crown. The Crown's Counsel has seventy-two hours to appear before punitive measures are taken.​

The Defendant is present and will be represented by Crown Counsels Greenish9 and huesca12.​

 

[Smallfries]

The Defendant is present and will be represented by Crown Counsels Greenish9 and huesca12.​

Thank you, Counsel. Given that I have seen your credentials before, I will not ask to check them again and assume your colleague is similarly credentialled. Let it be known that the Court will not actively check these credentials going forwards, but any person who fraudulently presents themselves as Crown Counsel, or otherwise as a representative without truly being so, will face consequences most severe.

The Defense shall have seventy-two hours to provide their Answer.

 

[huesca12]

In the Chancery of the Kingdom of Alexandria
ENTREATY OF DISMISSAL

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
​

Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
The General Court Rules & Procedures outline that "cases ... filed on the reasoning of public interest" may be dismissed, "if the plaintiff fails to have sufficient standing in order to pursue the case." Here, the Plaintiff states in the Pretext section of their complaint that they believe The Immigration & Citizenship Act violates the constitutional rights of "any non-citizen that lives within the borders of Alexandria." This explicitly predicates the complaint on the reasoning of public interest, satisfying the condition for the applicability of a Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.

Within their Claims for Relief, the Plaintiff also directly outlines their premise for the standing of the given complaint. In particular, they cite the General Court Rules & Procedures to claim that "they have a standing application to pursue a case" under the Genuine Interest Clause (GIC). The GIC states the following:

"In order for a plaintiff to pursue a case, they must show ... to the court [that they have] a genuine interest as a citizen and there are no reasonable and effective alternative means to challenge the law."
​

Note that the applicability of the GIC is specifically predicated first on "genuine interest as a citizen," which the Plaintiff admits to not being at the top of their complaint. Moreover, in RealImza v. Crown (2025), this Court held the following two points with respect to The Immigration & Citizenship Act, which was under Parliamentary debate at the time:

1. "It seems untrue that there is no reasonable and effective means to challenge the law." (Parliament vetted and passed the law just as it can reconsider and repeal it.)​
2. "The fact that a proposal within Parliament has been brought that clarifies this question soundly fails the test of having a reasonable and effective means to challenge the law." (This reaffirms the first point and establishes the precedent for the Parliament's ability to clarify uncodified constitutional questions via legislation, incidentally rebutting the Plaintiff's second Claim for Relief.)​

Taken together, these precedents soundly disprove the GIC's second condition, meaning the Plaintiff does not have sufficient standing in order to pursue the case.

Therefore, the Plaintiff's complaint has a Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.

If this Court does not believe that the Plaintiff has filed their case on the reasoning of public interest, the Defense would also like to note that the Plaintiff's failure to meet all parts of 'Standing Application' is grounds for a Sua Sponte Dismissal under the Preliminary Clauses of the General Court Rules & Procedures.

Lack of Claim

The General Court Rules & Procedures outline that "failure to state a claim for relief" is grounds for dismissal. Turning to the Plaintiff's two Claims for Relief, one finds that neither meaningfully constitute a claim. The first claim is simply a defense of the complaint's standing, and the second is a basic invocation of the High Court's establishment in the Constitution. For the complaint to be validly constructed, the Claims for Relief would need to have some reference to the alleged violation of constitutional rights.

Application of Writ

Moving on to the Plaintiff's Prayers for Relief. The first and second requests ask for this Court to declare them a citizen. However, the Constitution only gives the High Court exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional questions. As the Plaintiff astutely points out, citizenship criteria are not referenced in the Constitution. Under the traditions of our common law system, this means that citizenship is a Retained Royal Prerogative of the Crown that may be exercised at His or His government's discretion and not the Judiciary.

The same argument also applies to the third request, which effectively asks this Court to rewrite a law that it has already upheld.

Res Judicata

The Claims for Relief and Prayers for Relief presented in this complaint are plagiarized verbatim from RealImza v. Crown (2025). This definitionally satisfies the Issue Preclusion clause for a Res Judicata dismissal.

We request the Court dismiss this complaint with Prejudice.​

 

[Moyfr]

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENSE'S ENTREATY OF DISMISSAL​

I, the plaintiff in this case, make the following objections as protected in my right to object to any "proceedings that you believe is improper or unfair, you may still raise an objection with a thorough explanation" under the Chancery Rules and Procedures.

I. Standing under the Genuine Interest Clause​

The Defense’s assertion that the I lack standing misapplies the General Court Rules & Procedures. Under the Genuine Interest Clause (GIC), standing is afforded to those who demonstrate:

"a genuine interest as a citizen and [that] there are no reasonable and effective alternative means to challenge the law."

It is indeed accurate that I am not a "citizen" under the contested Immigration and Citizenship Act. However, this very point creates a constitutional paradox: I seek to challenge a law that defines citizenship without constitutional basis. To deny standing based on a status that is itself the subject of constitutional dispute would amount to circular reasoning.

Moreover, RealImza v. Crown (2025) is distinguishable. In that case, the Court found that legislative mechanisms were underway to address the concern. Here, no such repeal or amendment process has been introduced following the Act’s enactment, rendering the political remedy theoretical rather than "reasonable and effective."

My direct stake in being subjected to different rights and privileges — based solely on an unconstitutionally enacted law — satisfies the GIC's genuine interest and hardship standards. Thus, standing exists.

II. Sufficient Claim for Relief​

Contrary to the Defense's assertion, the Plaintiff’s complaint properly alleges violations of constitutional guarantees. While the "Claims for Relief" address procedural posture, the "Pretext" and "Statement of Facts" sections directly argue that the Immigration and Citizenship Act violates:

• The right to equal treatment under law,
• The right to political participation,
• Freedom of political communication.

Thus, liberally construed in line with procedural tradition favoring resolution on the merits, the complaint states a claim sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

III. Judicial Authority and Constitutional Interpretation​

While the Constitution is silent on citizenship criteria, it is settled in common law traditions that silence does not imply unlimited executive discretion. Instead, where legislation impacts constitutional rights (such as political participation and equality under law), courts retain authority to ensure laws do not circumvent constitutional guarantees.

Thus, the High Court is empowered to review whether the Immigration and Citizenship Act conflicts with constitutional protections — even if it refrains from "declaring citizenship" outright.

I do not demand that the Court unilaterally grant citizenship, but rather asks the Court to enjoin enforcement of unconstitutional barriers to citizenship and political participation.

IV. Res Judicata Does Not Apply​

The Defense incorrectly invokes Res Judicata. While similarities exist between this complaint and the one in RealImza v. Crown (2025), they concern different plaintiffs, different factual postures (post-enactment, not pre-enactment), and different injuries.

Further, Res Judicata requires not mere similarity, but identity of parties and causes of action, which is absent here.

Thus, dismissal on these grounds is improper.

V. Conclusion​

While I may not have many rights as a non-citizen, I at the very least ask for the right to a fair trial. The simple notion that the crown can continue to deny immigrants citizenship on the basis of vague court procedures is outrageous and inhumane. To also give the notion that I, someone being directly impacted by a constitutional error and passed law of parliament, doesn't have standing is also laughable.

For the foregoing reasons, I, the plaintiff, respectfully requests that this Court:

• Deny the Defense's Entreaty of Dismissal,
• Allow this case to proceed to hearing on the merits.

Respectfully submitted,

Moyfr
Plaintiff

 

[kaiserin]

IN THE CHANCERY OF ALEXANDRIA​

The Chancery does not find the Entreaty of Dismissal persuasive.

Response to the Crown

Under the Public Interest section of the Guiding Principles, it is true that one of the footings required to contest a law is that one have a genuine interest as a citizen, and so forth. However, parties to to this issue seem to miss in the first third of the sentence, preceding the words "have a genuine interest as a citizen," the word "or" appears. Directly preceding this monumental, earth-shattering, and prestigious monument of legal writing, there is a second clause, "that they (the claimant) must show that they are directly affected by it." Clearly, the Claimant is directly affected by the law being contested here, so they make out proper standing to contest this law though they do not fulfill the second prong of the Public Interest test, where they must have a genuine interest as a citizen and there be no reasonable and effective alternative means to challenge the law.

Next, we agree with the Crown that there is no properly stated claim. In a more strict, storied, and robust legal framework, the Claimant would fail here and we would dismiss the case at hand. However, Alexandria is a burgeoning and novel nation, and strict adherence to myopic guidelines would be both catastrophic and potentially fatal to justice. It is evident to the Chancery that while Claimant did not properly state their claims, they do indeed have claims. It is quite obvious, particularly through analysis of the Claimant's prayer for relief, that the Claimant's claim for relief comes from the law depriving them of Citizenship they would otherwise have were the law to be more lenient or to be passed mere days later. This deprivation of Citizenship, and thus some rights, is a clear claim for which they may file suit. Confusingly, the Crown implies Sua Sponte as a necessary remedy in the previous section, where it would rather be applicable and appropriate here.

The Crown also, interestingly, seems to imply that even if their attempts at Dismissal were to fall short, and the Claimant to emerge victorious over the government, we would not have the authority to grant the prayed-for relief because Citizenship is in some way, shape, or form a "Retained Royal Prerogative of the Crown that may be exercised at [the Government's] discretion and not the Judiciary." The Chancery wants to make this fact abundantly clear: were we to find in favour of the Claimant, this finding could entail that A.P.004 were unconstitutional and thus revert the act into oblivion and return all inhabitants of Alexandria into a state of quasi-citizenship. This would be entirely within our prerogative as servants of the Crown and His Majesty's Law. The Government is reminded that in this Court, the Judiciary is the ultimate authority of the Law, and any matter is entirely, wholly, and indisputably under our abilities of interpretation as granted by the Constitution. Thus, we will not begin to entertain the notions ascribed in the Government's offensive Application of Writ.

We agree with the Claimant's response to the Entreaty that they are not precluded by the earlier case RealImza v. Crown. Though the matters were similar, Issue Preclusion fails here because the issue in that case was who was defined as a Citizen at all, while in this case the issue is whether it is Constitutional to limit Citizenship in the way Parliament has. Thus, we dispel with the Crown's Entreaty of Dismissal in its entirety.

Response to the Claimant

Procedurally, the Claimant responds to the Entreaty for Dismissal, an action which is frowned upon in our sister nation of Redmont. There, responses are only allowed to Objections, and explicitly denied (in most cases) to motions. Here, however, we see no need for such a restriction on Advocates of the Court, and believe it not only beneficial but necessary to allow each party an attempt to combat potential misinformation. Thus, procedure in regards to motions and objections both will be done as follows: When a party posts a motion or objection, the opposing party may post a response. The original posting party may not file a response, but may request a response officially if they deem necessary. The presiding Officer may grant this request, but there shall in no case be a further response after this point.

A Message to All

Further, the Claimant is reminded that Claims for Relief are to be those crucial underlying points that show to the nation what damages, wrongs, or injustices befell them, or other necessary showings of current, future, or potential harm that could befall them. These claims should naturally flow into their Prayers for Relief. Here, the facts make it evident that the Claimant's Claim for Relief is that A.P.004 removed their rights through restricting Citizenship, as this directly flows into their Prayer where they ask for the Court to declare them as a Citizen.

Observers should note that while Alexandria is young and formats and legal jurisprudence are untested and unshaped, the Courts will be lenient and attempt to offer a hand to litigators as we have here in a fair, impartial, and neutral manner. However, all observers are expected to keenly study what we say and what we ask for, as over time, the maturation of our Kingdom will lead to a tightening of standards in Court. To that end, the Crown is reminded that an Answer to Complaint is not simply any motion or response at all, but rather a specific legal document that outlines their defences and responses to the initial Complaint of the Claimant. The deadline for that filing was around an hour ago, but in the same spirit of leniency and benevolence as extended to the Claimant, the Court will graciously stave off Contempt charges for twenty-four hours from this post. The Crown is not bound to any specific format, and is encouraged to confer with other legal minds in the community or look to other cases for guidance.

 

[Smallfries]

The Crown is held in contempt of court, and is fined £100. For every full hour that elapses from the time of this post, they will be fined an additional £50 for contempt.

So ordered.

 

[huesca12]

In the Chancery of the Kingdom of Alexandria
ENTREATY OF CONTINUANCE

The defense and Ministry of Justice Office of Litigation would like to humbly apologize for its accidental disregard for this Court's time and deeply regret any inconvenience caused to the Plaintiff. Recent constitutional developments have motivated a great deal of dialogue at the Ministry of Justice, regarding the most prudent next steps.

Given the recent passage of a Constitutional Amendment seeking to clarify the distinctions between citizen and non-citizen rights, the defense begs that this Court issue a 72 hour Writ of Continuance, postponing the proceedings until such a time that the date of the popular referendum is known. This will facilitate more efficient scheduling of these procedures so that this issue does not need to be relitigated, following any potential changes.
​

 

[huesca12]

In the Chancery of the Kingdom of Alexandria
ENTREATY OF COMPULSION

By virtue of this Court's opinion that "there is no properly stated claim," the defense humbly begs that this Court compel the Plaintiff to provide an amended Complaint, containing an appropriately elaborated claim.

One of the aims of the Ministry of Justice is to promote the creation of straightforward legal precedents. Considering the seriousness of a topic as sensitive to the nation as citizenship, it is in the mutual interest of all present parties that the Plaintiff's view of their claim(s) be clearly presented at the start of any legal proceeding. This saves the precious time of this Court by avoiding the need to clarify a mutually agreed understanding of any aspects of an implied claim found elsewhere in the complaint, and it makes for scrutable findings that will comprise the foundation of our fledgling judicial system's future growth.

If the aforementioned entreaty is amenable to this Court, the defense would recommend a deadline equivalent to the period of continuance.​

 

[Moyfr]

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENSE'S ENTREATIES​

Your honor, if I may, I would like to formally respond to the motions that the Crown has made in an effort to combat misinformation, as allowed by the previous ruling quoted here:

"Here, however, we see no need for such a restriction on Advocates of the Court, and believe it not only beneficial but necessary to allow each party an attempt to combat potential misinformation."

1. Response to the Entreaty of Continuance​

The Defense currently is arguing that it would like to file a Writ of Continuance on the basis that there is a new Constitutional Amendment Act that recently has passed Parliament. The defense further claims that it would like to postpone for 72 hours to gain insight on a "popular referendum" which, the defense admits, does not have a solidified date. Are we to wait for an infinite amount of time and not bring this case to trial because the Crown cannot get its own house in order?

Furthermore, I would like to respectfully remind the Parliament and The Crown that, under this interim government:

"The Constitution is now published and is subject to government changes, only after the first election is held."

Not only has the first election not been held, but there is not even a solidified date on when an election will be. The Crown is asking this court to continue to drag on this issue for an act that is not only unenforceable but also against server authority.

Finally, on the topic of the Writ of Continuance, the court has already fined the Crown on charges of contempt of court for its lack of participation in this case. Why are we to all of a sudden grant the Crown more time that it has already had? To me the notion that the Crown needs more time to discuss this case is absurd and frankly an embarrassment to the judiciary. The Crown has shown no respect to the court during this entire proceeding, even going as far as admitting the Crown has quote:

" Retained Royal Prerogative of the Crown that may be exercised at [the Government's] discretion and not the Judiciary."

I politely ask that the court deny the Writ of Continuance for the reasons ascribed, as to me it is evident that the Crown is simply attempting to buy time on an issue it knows cannot be dodged.

2. Response to the Entreaty of Compulsion​

What I find funny is that, immediately after requesting a Writ of Continuance, which as well all know is a request to postpone proceedings, the Crown immediately see's fit to ask for another Entreaty, this time an Entreaty of Compulsion. While I do not agree when this Entreaty is being filed, I do agree that it would be beneficial for all parties to amend my original claim to be more specific and thus easier for the judiciary to rule on in future proceedings. I make my claims clear, with the advice given in the previous ruling by Chancellor Kaiserin:

Claims:
I. The Immigration and Citizenship Act, by abruptly and arbitrarily denying me, the plaintiff, an opportunity to obtain citizenship, unlawfully deprives my rights guaranteed by the Constitution, including equality under the law, participation in governance, and due process protections.

II. I, the plaintiff, assert that the Immigration and Citizenship Act, by its structure and timing, unfairly deprives me of the opportunity to obtain citizenship, and places an undue burden on Tourists and Residents to obtain citizenship, thereby denying my fundamental constitutional rights.

III. The Constitution of Alexandria, while silent on explicit citizenship criteria, enshrines core principles including equality under the law, participation in governance, and due process protections. By imposing new, restrictive standards that have directly impacted me, a player who joined after the law was signed into effect, the Act violates these constitutional guarantees. Specifically, if I would have joined a mere week sooner, I would have qualified for citizenship under the fact that all previous residents were automatically grandfathered in. In this notion, I am being treated completely differently and unfairly under the law compared to a "citizen" who was grandfathered in, and does not have to go through any of the troubles the Immigration and Citizenship Act outline.

Just to be extra sure, because I know that the defense loves to use the General Court Rules and Procedures card, I have ensured that these claims are within the outlined provisions and give me cause to sue in this court.

With this in mind, I request that the court rule on these following reliefs:
I. That the Immigration and Citizenship Act is unconstitutional and violates the my rights under the Constitution, specifically the right to equality, political participation, and due process.

II. That the Court issue an injunction preventing the enforcement of the Act as applied to individuals who were residents of Alexandria before the Act’s enactment, until a more equitable and constitutionally sound process is established.

III. That I be granted citizenship or provided an alternative means to gain citizenship under conditions that do not violate constitutional rights.

3. Conclusion​

While I am no believer in the idea that the court should legislate a land or realm, I do subscribe to the notion that the court, and judiciary as a whole, should have the authority and willingness to step in and protect the rights of those who are treated unfairly and unequally. The Crown has clearly, and without sufficient cause, dragged its feet throughout this matter in a clear attempt to block this court's decision on a subject of incredible constitutional significance.

The Crown on multiple occasions has failed to appear to the court within appropriate timing, multiple times put in question the court's authority in governance matters, and has shown a clear lack of respect for myself, the plaintiff, as it has done nothing thus far but try and discredit my claims and move to dismiss the case entirely.

With the following in mind, I would like to formally submit a the following Entreaties:

ENTREATY TO COMPEL

I would like to formally submit a Writ to Compel in an effort to compel the opposing counsel to produce a response to the court within the next 24 hours.

ENTREATY OF CLAIRVOYANCE

I would like to also formally submit a Writ of Clairvoyance on the opposing counsel's following claim:​

"Given the recent passage of a Constitutional Amendment seeking to clarify the distinctions between citizen and non-citizen rights, the defense begs that this Court issue a 72 hour Writ of Continuance, postponing the proceedings until such a time that the date of the popular referendum is known."​

The fact that the opposition speaks on behalf of the Crown, knowingly brought up the act in court, and has explained interest in the future events of this act speaks volumes to the fact that the opposing counsel is keen on presenting this act in future proceedings

I respectfully remind opposing counsel and the Crown that, "Any act which can be described as knowingly giving incorrect or misleading testimony in Court" is Perjury, and thus is a punishable offense in court.

The Crown, and thus the opposition, is full aware that this testimony of a "constitutional amendment" being important to proceedings, so much so that they need to delay court proceedings for another 72 hours, is false as it is not enforceable whatsoever.

I would appreciate if the court can investigate into this claim and make a judgement on whether this would fall under this offense or not.
​

Sincerely,

Moyfr
Plaintiff

 

[Smallfries]

IN THE CHANCERY OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO ENTREATIES​

The Chancery is responding to four entreaties here.

First, the Defense requests a Writ of Continuance which we grant. This is granted for a period of 48 hours from their request, to expire at 3:35 AM on Wednesday, April 30. The hourly fines are suspended, and the fine for £100 remains. Should the Crown fail to provide their answer by this time, a full fee of £1,400 shall be levied to stand for each hourly contempt charge, and penal sentences may be issued.

The Chancery notes that the argument regarding the current status of an Amendment currently being processed has no merit. The changing of what rights may or may not apply to Citizens or non-Citizens is unimportant to the question of this case, as the question instead belongs to the difference in rights between the two classes overall. A stay of deadline for a filing may be relevant in response to some proposed action in Parliament, but it is not here.

The Claimant responds to the Defense by stating that the Constitution cannot be amended until a new Government is formed. As helpfully clarified earlier today, this is false. Further, the Claimant is correct that this extended deadline is an embarrassment; but that shame does not belong to the Court. The Crown and its Counsel alone bears this burden, and hopefully they have taken this as a learning opportunity. This period in our Nation's history is a time for experimentation and learning for all, and the Chancery continues to be gracious—though we keenly watch for those that would abuse our kindness in bad faith. The moment such a wrongdoer is ascertained, they will be punished most harshly.

Second, the Defense requests a Writ of Compulsion which we grant. The Claimant seems to have consented to the alteration of their original Complaint, and may do so as they have elaborated in their response.

Third, the Claimant requests a Writ to Compel which we refuse. It would make no sense to grant this while granting the Defense's Writ of Continuance.

Finally, the Claimant requests a Writ of Clairvoyance which we refuse. As clarified by Staff, it is not impossible to amend the Constitution at this moment, and thus the amendment, if passed, will not be unenforceable. Even if it were, there is no evidence to indicate the Crown made their comments in bad faith to substantiate a charge of Perjury.

So ordered.

 

[huesca12]

In the Chancery of the Kingdom of Alexandria
ENTREATY OF CLAIRVOYANCE

The defense is grateful to this Court for its quick response and generosity in issuing our writs, which we believe will help keep litigation on topic.

To that end, the defense humbly submits to the court that it clarify the following points:
​

1. When is the deadline for the Plaintiff to update their original complaint in line with the provisions for amendment in the General Court Rules and Procedures?​
2. How does this impact the deadline for the defense's answer, if at all?​

 

[Smallfries]

View attachment 97
In the Chancery of the Kingdom of Alexandria
ENTREATY OF CLAIRVOYANCE

The defense is grateful to this Court for its quick response and generosity in issuing our writs, which we believe will help keep litigation on topic.

To that end, the defense humbly submits to the court that it clarify the following points:
​

1. When is the deadline for the Plaintiff to update their original complaint in line with the provisions for amendment in the General Court Rules and Procedures?​
2. How does this impact the deadline for the defense's answer, if at all?​

As to the first, the Claimant shall amend their original complaint before the deadline for the Crown's Answer. Given that the Claimant has already said what their claims were, this should not be a problem for the Crown in the construction of their Answer due some 15 hours from now.

As to the second, it does not. If it did, the Court would have mentioned it when specifically outlining the Crown's deadline.

 

[Smallfries]

Should the Crown fail to provide their answer by this time, a full fee of £1,400 shall be levied to stand for each hourly contempt charge, and penal sentences may be issued.

To clarify: The Court will not add one contempt charge for each hour, but rather an amount equating to £50 for each contempt charge. To do otherwise would put forwards a charge of £4,800, which is not appropriate at this moment in our history.

The court further notes that 48 charges at £50 should equal £2,400. Mistakes happen, and the Crown will benefit from this one as we will not go back on our word. Should the Crown fail to produce their Answer, the fine will be £1,400.