Lawsuit: Adjourned Dartanboy v. Crown, Case 1 (Ch. 2026)

Status
Not open for further replies.
ThePuffer said:
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY OF CONTINUANCE



Your honor,

The crown humbly requestes a continuance of up to 72 hours.

Though this may inconvenience the Plaintiff, we request this continunce due to complications in my health from a surgery I had undergone last week.

I will assure the court that the best efforts if the crowns litigators are on this case, and that the Solicitor General is to assign a different prosecutor to this case hopefully within the next 24 hours.

Like was said before, the crown is well aware of the inconvenience this causes to plaintiff, but as I'm sure plaintiff would agree, irl health should come first
Click to expand...
Granted.
 
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
  1. The Crown AFFIRMS the Constitution as the supreme law of the land
  2. The Crown AFFIRMS every player has freedom of political communication, press, and media
  3. The Crown NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that it is the duty of the Speaker to protect Members of Parliament's right to speak freely within the Parliament
  4. The Crown NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that the Claimant's election to Parliament on October 21, 2025
  5. The Crown NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that the Claimant responded to Prime Minister Capt11543
  6. The Crown NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that the Speaker stated, "Accusing someone of intentionally lying in such a disrespectful and unprofessional manner will not be tolerated in this chamber. Member of Parliament Dartanboy is ordered to strike his message and refrain from such conduct in the future".
  7. The Crown NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that the Claimant stated, "Political communication is a Constitutional Right, and the purpose of this right is precisely to prevent the Parliament from abusing its power to silence those who criticize it. I will not strike my statement and I will not be silent when I see injustice".
  8. The Crown NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that the Speaker ordered The Claimant to strike his statement
  9. The Crown NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that the Claimant responded to the order from The Speaker with "No".
  10. The Crown NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that the Speaker suspended The Claimant for twenty-four hours despite claiming eight hours.
II. DEFENSE

A. Not Duty of the Crown to Defend

The Claimant mistakes the Executive as empowered by the Crown and the Constitution as the correct body for the Defence of the (ex-)Speaker’s actions.

The Constitution entrusts executive power and the enforcement of legislation to the Executive. Constitution, Part II, Section 6.

The Crown, or the Executive for that matter, is not responsible for defending the actions of the Speaker, a role of the Legislative Branch of Government. Parliament has not provided any provision that requires the Crown, or the Executive, to defend actions within its own branch. Notably, one might mistake the actions of the Speaker as the actions of Parliament. Such is not the case. The Speaker, being a body within Parliament, id. at Part I, Section 4(“.. Parliament elects a Speaker to be the presiding officer of the parliamentary chamber ..”), does not necessarily represent the law, which the Executive is entrusted with enforcing.

B. Prayer Lacks Standing

No effective relief can be granted, nor does the Crown have the power to fulfil the requested relief. The Speaker in question no longer holds the role of Speaker, and the Parliament that the Claimant was a part of is no longer in existence.

The Crown doesn’t have the jurisdiction required over the Speaker to fulfil the desired prayer for relief of an apology.

Standing requires a relief that is a favourable decision to be shown to the Court. General Court Rules and Procedures, I) 9) Standing Application (“a plaintiff to pursue a case, they must show .. to the court .. remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favourable decision.”).

It is neither reasonable nor favourable to order that the Crown force an apology from an individual or a body that isn’t itself or a part of itself. As mentioned supra, the Speaker is not a body of the Crown nor the Executive; therefore, it is not favourable to order this from the Crown.

Additionally, standing requires that the Claimant show that the remedy is applicable under the relevant law. The Claimant only cites the Constitution in his complaint. See Case 1 (Ch. 2026), Civil Action, 5. Claims of Relief. An apology is not applicable or relevant in the context of the Constitution.

C. Complaint Lacks Standing

Standing further requires that the Claimant show injury has been suffered that is caused by a clear second party. General Court Rules and Procedures, I) 9) Standing Application (“a plaintiff to pursue a case, they must show .. to the court .. suffered some injury caused by a clear second party ..”)

The Claimant fails to show that the Crown caused the injury. As discussed supra in II. A, the Speaker is not a body of the Crown and is a body of the Legislature.

Respectfully submitted,
TheSnowGuardian, and CasualGreyKnight,
Solicitor General, and Crown’s Counsel



IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR RECONSIDERATION WRIT OF DISMISSAL

The Crown moves for dismissal and asks that the Honourable Court reconsider the dismissal of the Civil Action under Rule 7 and Rule 10 of the Dismissal Rules.

A. Rule 7: Failure to Include Party

As demonstrated in the Complaint, the Claimant has failed to include all the relevant parties. Therefore, this action should be dismissed under Rule 7.

B. Rule 10: Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

As demonstrated in the Complaint, the Claimant has failed to satisfy the requirements of Standing. As the injury was not caused by the Crown or the Executive, the Crown pleads that the action against the Crown be dismissed.

Respectfully Submitted,
TheSnowGuardian
Solicitor General
 
Last edited:
TheSnowGuardian said:
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR RECONSIDERATION WRIT OF DISMISSAL

The Crown moves for dismissal and asks that the Honourable Court reconsider the dismissal of the Civil Action under Rule 7 and Rule 10 of the Dismissal Rules.

A. Rule 7: Failure to Include Party

As demonstrated in the Complaint, the Claimant has failed to include all the relevant parties. Therefore, this action should be dismissed under Rule 7.

B. Rule 10: Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

As demonstrated in the Complaint, the Claimant has failed to satisfy the requirements of Standing. As the injury was not caused by the Crown or the Executive, the Crown pleads that the action against the Crown be dismissed.

Respectfully Submitted,
TheSnowGuardian
Solicitor General
Click to expand...
We deny what we believe to be both of the entreaties requested. A reconsideration appears to be requested, but is not elaborated on. A fresh dismissal writ is requested, but with very sparse elaboration, only giving two sentences each. The elaboration is not satisfactory and cites no authority, merely stating the Crown's position as if it were true. We are not convinced.

The Crown is reminded to observe Rule I(8) of the General Court R. & Proc. General Court R. & Proc. § I(8). All sources must be hyperlinked per filing the first time they are used. The Chancery asks the Crown to do so at its earliest convenience.

Discovery shall now begin and last for seventy-two hours. Discovery may be abridged at the request of both parties, or extended if just cause is given.
 
Smallfries said:
We deny what we believe to be both of the entreaties requested. A reconsideration appears to be requested, but is not elaborated on. A fresh dismissal writ is requested, but with very sparse elaboration, only giving two sentences each. The elaboration is not satisfactory and cites no authority, merely stating the Crown's position as if it were true. We are not convinced.

The Crown is reminded to observe Rule I(8) of the General Court R. & Proc. General Court R. & Proc. § I(8). All sources must be hyperlinked per filing the first time they are used. The Chancery asks the Crown to do so at its earliest convenience.

Discovery shall now begin and last for seventy-two hours. Discovery may be abridged at the request of both parties, or extended if just cause is given.
Click to expand...
Your Honour,
The Crown has hyperlinked the Claimant's complaint along with the Dismissal Rules.
 
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR WRIT OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

Your Honours,
The Crown pleads that the Court grant this Writ and proceed to summary judgment, seeing that the facts of this case are not in dispute.
 
Your honor,  if "neither affirm nor deny" is functionally equivalent to affirming, then I see no issue with Summary Judgement.
 
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
BRIEF

The Crown inserts Section II of Response to Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

A. The Speaker had the Power to Suspend

The Speaker was within their right to suspend as they ensure that they oversee debate and that parliamentary procedure is followed. They also ensure that debates are conducted in an orderly manner and that members may be called to order if necessary. Additionally, they ensure that parliamentary traditions are upheld. See Constitution § 4(1), (2), (7)

While it may be true that the Speaker protects the right to speak freely of every Member of Parliament, the Crown pleads that the right to speak freely is not inherently absolute. The Speaker is also entrusted with ensuring that the proper order and proper parliamentary procedures are followed in the Chamber of Parliament. id. And ultimately, it is the Crown’s belief that members must be reasonable with their free speech, as is a feature of every other constitutional right.

A more moderate example of what could be seen as a violation of a member's right to speak freely is the speaker disallowing debates on certain topics that are core to the government's issues. However, calling someone a liar in a distinguished chamber that has the highest power of the land, which is to make law, is not orderly. It is clearly unreasonable to apply the right to speak freely in this case.
Notably, the member was also given two warnings and what looks like attempts to be called to order, and the member refused to comply with the orders of the Speaker of Parliament. Therefore, by breaking parliamentary procedure and order, the Speaker was within their right to suspend the member, not for what they said, but for how they acted after it. See Complaint, Open List Act Debate - Partial.

The Crown takes a similar stance to the Speaker and notes that the member was not merely suspended for their words, but for their lack of decorum and compliance with the rules of the Chamber. Therefore, it can be safe to conclude that it was not just the words of the member, but rather the actions of the member after the speech, when the Speaker tried to exercise the other constitutional powers to ensure proper decorum and order was followed.


B. Right to Political Speech Not Absolute Nor Applicable

The Right to Freedom of Political Speech is subject to reasonable restrictions. See § 22 of the Constitution (“subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law”, limits prescribed by law mentioned supra regarding powers of the Speaker). Additionally, it is not applicable in this case as it protects citizens from prosecution by the Crown, and not from disciplinary actions of the Speaker.
 
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
BRIEF

Your honors,
In this brief I will explain how the Crown is liable for the harm caused.

On The Facts
The facts are not contested in this case. To summarize the facts:

The Constitution, which is the highest law in the land, clearly states that "Every player has freedom of political communication, press, and media" and "The Speaker protects the rights of Members of Parliament to speak freely within the Parliament."

Whilst a Member of Parliament, Claimant made a political communication in the course of Parliamentary Debate on the Open List Act (see Facts and Evidence in Post #1). The Speaker of Parliament ordered Claimant to strike their message, and Claimant refused, citing the Constitutional Right to Political Communication and the purpose of Parliament. The Speaker doubled down on their requirement to strike the message, and Claimant refused again.

At this point, the Speaker suspended the Claimant for a period of 24 hours.

On The Crown's Duty to Litigate
The Parliament's powers are listed in the Constitution, Part I, Section 3:

  1. Legislative Power: Parliament has the authority to create, amend, and repeal laws (“Acts of Parliament”).
  2. Financial Power: Parliament controls government spending, taxation, and the budget.
  3. Power to Form the Government: Parliament selects the Prime Minister and forms the executive government.
  4. Power to Amend the Constitution: Parliament can initiate constitutional changes under the terms of Article 23 of this Constitution.
  5. Power to Approve Treaties: Parliament ratifies international treaties and agreements negotiated by the government.
  6. Power to Investigate: Parliament can create committees to investigate issues and government actions.
  7. Power to Impeach: Parliament has the authority to remove Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Officers for misconduct by supermajority vote.
  8. Power to Control Immigration: Parliament can regulate immigration policies and laws.
  9. Power to Declare War: Parliament has the power to declare war and authorize military engagement by supermajority vote.
  10. Power to Govern Itself: Parliament may enact provisions (e.g. Standing Orders) to govern its internal procedures and establish standards of decorum, subject to oversight by the Judiciary to ensure compliance with the Constitution. Such provisions are not laws.
Click to expand...

While the Parliament's powers are quite extensive, nowhere do they have Executive Power, Legal Credentials, or a Power to Represent the Kingdom in Court.

Meanwhile, Ministers (and by extension, their departments) are given Executive Power in Part II, Sections 6 and 10.

Carrying out the course of a lawsuit is certainly an Executive Power. The Parliament is certainly a branch of the Kingdom's Government, and therefore the only suitable party to defend the Parliament in court is the Ministry of Justice.

The Speaker's Powers
While the Speaker "presides" over the Parliament (Const. Part I, Section 4), they do not possess the power to suspend duly elected Members of Parliament.

Even if they did, it would have to be done so in a narrowly focused way so as not to disturb the Constitutional rights of others.

Why This Was Illegal
The Speaker suspended the Plaintiff for speaking what he believed to be a fact, stated in a form of political communication, for a period of 24 hours.

This violated the Plaintiff's Constitutional Rights and worked against the Speaker's duty to protect "the rights of Members of Parliament to speak freely within the Parliament."

I apologize for my slightly late filing. Between IRL work and court work in Redmont, I posted this just a tad late. I ask for your honors' lenience and forgiveness.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We strike Claimant's brief given its tardiness, noting the extended period in which we granted for it to be filed. We note that of course real-life happens, and other obligations arise. That is why we are not charging Claimant with contempt or otherwise punishing them. However, deadlines do matter, and things need to be moved along. We understand this may be seen as harsh, but we find it important to meet deadlines set to give fairness to all parties in a proceeding.

Court is in recess pending verdict.
 
Smallfries said:
We strike Claimant's brief given its tardiness, noting the extended period in which we granted for it to be filed. We note that of course real-life happens, and other obligations arise. That is why we are not charging Claimant with contempt or otherwise punishing them. However, deadlines do matter, and things need to be moved along. We understand this may be seen as harsh, but we find it important to meet deadlines set to give fairness to all parties in a proceeding.

Court is in recess pending verdict.
Click to expand...
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR RECONSIDERATION

The Chancery allowed this case to sit for 5 months, and then again for 2 months, for a total of 7 months ignoring the case and not responding to my filings.

It is incredibly unjust to do this and then strike a filing for being 17 minutes late.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top