Lawsuit: Pending Ayatha v. The Crown, Case 15 (Ch. 2025)

Aya

Aya

New member
Ayatha
Ayatha
Member of Parliament
Joined
Apr 14, 2025
Messages
28
Ayatha
V.
the Crown​
1. Jurisdiction
As a constitutional case pertaining to the powers of parliament as enshrined by the constitution, this case lay within the chancery's jurisdiction.

2. Parties
Applicants,
Ayatha, as an Independent Candidate for the Alexandrian Parliament

Respondents,
The Crown,
The 3rd Parliament of the Sovereign Kingdom of Alexandria

3. Facts
1. The constitution is a document that outlines the rights of both the citizens, and all organs of the Alexandrian government with explicit guidelines for what the organs of the government are allowed to do; with the presumption that the organizations of which derive their legitimacy from the document require passing a constitutional amendment (which is also outlined within the constitution) to change or add new capabilities that are not derived from it exactly.
2. The specific portion of the constitution in question (Part 1, Section 3, Point 7) explicitly reads: "Power to Impeach: Parliament has the authority to remove Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Officers for misconduct."
3. Legislative Officers have been defined out of existence according to the SpeakR-Act, and as such there are currently no Legislative Officers within Alexandria as there are none outlined.
4. Ayatha at no point was a member of the Cabinet, or the Judiciary, and thus at no point held the position of being a Judicial or Executive Officer
5. Ayatha was unlawfully removed from their position as MP utilising an illegal Motion to Remove passed by parliament when parliament does not have the right to remove MP's

4. Claims for Relief
1. An immediate recognition by the courts that Motions to Remove in their current form are illegal.
2. An immediate reinstatement of Ayatha's rightfully earned political office following their appointment by a near unanimous vote within Parliament.
3. The voiding of the Motion to Remove as it is recognised as illegal.

Prayer for Relief
I hope the Chancery will see the failings as clearly as Ameslap and everyone in the Politics channel does as this is a clearly illegal action underneath the constitution. If Parliament wishes to grant itself the capability to remove MPs, they should rightfully have it enshrined into the constitution as it is a very important thing to keep in mind for all individuals seeking public office, and there is no information that such a thing is even possible in any laws or the constitution itself; and parliament is drawing its authority from what seems to be nothing to do such.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: Nim
Entreaty for Default Judgement
As I seek to expedite this as much as possible to save both my and the courts time, I will be motioning for a writ of default judgement as I am very clearly in the right, and I see literally no way for the Crown to disprove an argument so ironclad the Queen agrees to it. This is an open and shut case.
 
CCA.png
IN THE CHANCERY OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF SUMMONS
The Crown (@SoggehToast) is required to appear before the Chancery In the case of

Ayatha v. The Crown, Case 15 (Ch. 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 Chancery).


In agreement, the Chancery implements Rule 1 to this case. High Chancellor AsexualDinosaur is assigned as presiding officer.

The Crown is expected to provide an answer to the complaint and to respond to the entreaty for default judgement.​
 
Entreaty for Striking

As events have transpired from the initial filings of this case, I will recognise and request the striking of claim for relief #2 as I have been reconfirmed on my seat and as such require no reinstatement, and do not wish to waste the courts time with issues that have already been solved through other channels.
 
Zodd said:
View attachment 979
IN THE CHANCERY OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF SUMMONS
The Crown (@SoggehToast) is required to appear before the Chancery In the case of

Ayatha v. The Crown, Case 15 (Ch. 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 Chancery).


In agreement, the Chancery implements Rule 1 to this case. High Chancellor AsexualDinosaur is assigned as presiding officer.

The Crown is expected to provide an answer to the complaint and to respond to the entreaty for default judgement.​
Click to expand...

Your honour,
Rubilubi55 present to represent the Crown.
 
Aya said:
Entreaty for Default Judgement
As I seek to expedite this as much as possible to save both my and the courts time, I will be motioning for a writ of default judgement as I am very clearly in the right, and I see literally no way for the Crown to disprove an argument so ironclad the Queen agrees to it. This is an open and shut case.
Click to expand...

Answer to the Entreaty for Default Judgement

Your honours,
the General Court Rules and Procedures read the following about Writs and Entreaty for Default Judgement:
"A request to seek a decision without a full trial if there is no defence."

The Crown asks this court to not grant this Entreaty. A Entreaty for Default Judgement is to be filed when the defense does not present itself in front of the court within the given time. When the Entreaty has been filed the defense has not even been summoned yet and a Writ for Default Judgement would be unreasonable. Besides that the plaintiff does also argue that " [...] [She is] very clearly in the right [...]". However, this trial exists to determine who is in the right. Not allowing the Crown to answer would violate a fair trial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nim
Aya said:
Entreaty for Striking

As events have transpired from the initial filings of this case, I will recognise and request the striking of claim for relief #2 as I have been reconfirmed on my seat and as such require no reinstatement, and do not wish to waste the courts time with issues that have already been solved through other channels.
Click to expand...
The court will permit the amendment to the complaint.​
 
Entreaty for Default Judgement
It's been approximately 48 hours since the crown was supposed to appear in court to present their case, and according to the Crown themselves "A Entreaty for Default Judgement is to be filed when the defense does not present itself in front of the court within the given time."
 
Aya said:
Entreaty for Default Judgement
It's been approximately 48 hours since the crown was supposed to appear in court to present their case, and according to the Crown themselves "A Entreaty for Default Judgement is to be filed when the defense does not present itself in front of the court within the given time."
Click to expand...
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
Response to the Entreaty for Default Judgement

Your honours,
the Crown is present and therefore asks for this Entreaty to not be sustained.

CoolCat

Lawsuit: Pending Post in thread 'Ayatha v. The Crown, Case 15 (Ch. 2025)'

Zodd said:
View attachment 979
IN THE CHANCERY OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF SUMMONS
The Crown (@SoggehToast) is required to appear before the Chancery In the case of

Ayatha v. The Crown, Case 15 (Ch. 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 Chancery).


In agreement, the Chancery implements Rule 1 to this case. High Chancellor AsexualDinosaur is assigned as presiding officer.

The Crown is...​
Click to expand...

If the plaintiff however speaks about how no Response to the Complaint has been filed yet...
Your honours,
please be reminded that the Crown has not been obligated to file the Response to the Complaint yet. As seen in nearly every other court case the presiding judicial officer will always obligate the defense to file a Response to the Complaint. We have already appeared before this Court and have done everything we have been told to do.
 
Last edited:
CoolCat said:
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
Response to the Entreaty for Default Judgement

Your honours,
the Crown is present and therefore asks for this Entreaty to not be sustained.

CoolCat

Lawsuit: Pending Post in thread 'Ayatha v. The Crown, Case 15 (Ch. 2025)'

Zodd said:
View attachment 979
IN THE CHANCERY OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF SUMMONS
The Crown (@SoggehToast) is required to appear before the Chancery In the case of

Ayatha v. The Crown, Case 15 (Ch. 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 Chancery).


In agreement, the Chancery implements Rule 1 to this case. High Chancellor AsexualDinosaur is assigned as presiding officer.

The Crown is...​
Click to expand...

If the plaintiff however speaks about how no Response to the Complaint has been filed yet...
Your honours,
please be reminded that the Crown has not been obligated to file the Response to the Complaint yet. As seen in nearly every other court case the presiding judicial officer will always obligate the defense to file a Response to the Complaint. We have already appeared before this Court and have done everything we have been told to do.
Click to expand...
Zodd said:
The Crown is expected to provide an answer to the complaint and to respond to the entreaty for default judgement.​
Click to expand...
Please file an answer within 48 hours, the court has been waiting.
@CoolCat​
 
Zodd said:
Please file an answer within 48 hours, the court has been waiting.
@CoolCat​
Click to expand...
Entreaty for Prompting

Your honour, I do not understand why the Court is granting an unrequested writ of continuance to the defense when they have failed to substantiate their case in full in the time provided and have similarly failed to file an Entreaty For Continuance. This is blatant favouritism towards the Crown, as if it were any other proceedings filed by any other individual the Entreaty for Default Judgement would have been carried out.

They have already been granted an abnormally long time period to respond, 24 hours longer than the outlined time period given for criminal cases, and now they are being granted even more time without requesting it?

Am I not entitled to a speedy and fair trial as per the constitution? Why must I suffer for the failings of the Crown?
 
IN THE HONORABLE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT
Case No.:15

Ayatha
Applicant/Plaintiff
v.

The Crown
Respondent/Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Crown AFFIRMS that the Constitution establishes the framework of Alexandrian government, enumerating the rights of citizens and delimiting the authority of governmental institutions.
2. The Crown AFFIRMS that the specific provision of the Constitution, K.A. Const. § I Art. 3.7., in question explicitly reads: "Power to Impeach: Parliament has the authority to remove Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Officers for misconduct by supermajority vote." The term "Legislative Officers" remains in K.A. Const. § I Art. 3.7.
3. The Crown DENIES that Legislative Officers were "defined out of existence" by the SpeakR-Act.
4. The Crown AFFIRMS that Ayatha at no point held membership in the Cabinet or the Judiciary, and thus never held the position of Executive Officer or Judicial Officer.
5. The Crown DENIES that Ayatha was unlawfully removed from her position and DENIES that Parliament does not have the right to remove Members of Parliament.
​
II. DEFENSES
The Constitution provides clear, explicit authority to Parliament to remove Legislative Officer. The term "Legislative Officers" was not removed from the Constitution. See K.A. Const. § I Art. 3.7. Prior to A.P. 01-019, the term had an explicit constitutional definition, which was removed from the Constitution by Parliament through an amendment. Legal terms retain their ordinary meaning, even when constitutional definitions are removed. Members of Parliament are Legislative Officers by the plain and ordinary meaning of those words. Parliament did not abolish the category of "Legislative Officers" itself; the term remains in the constitutional text referring to officers of the legislative branch, i.e., Members of Parliament.

Moreover, even if the Chancery were to conclude that Parliament lacked the authority under K.A. Const. § I Art. 3.7 to remove Legislative Officers, which the Crown denies, Ayatha resigned from Parliament by conduct when she left the Parliament server, demonstrating her intent to vacate office. Members of Parliament cannot fulfill their constitutional duties without server access. The Motion to Remove would be valid, even if considered a mere recognition of this vacancy. Having voluntarily abandoned her office, the Plaintiff has no grounds for relief.

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
Your Honor,

While Rubilubi55 has represented the Crown thus far in this case, the delay in filing was entirely my fault, not his. I take full responsibility for the late submission and apologize to the Court.

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
Entreaty for Striking

Not only is this not the selected representative of the Crown who presented themselves initially with no information being presented to the court of the defenses apparent reshuffling of lawyers, but this was also published 1 hour and 24 minutes AFTER the allotted time granted by the UNREQUESTED writ of continuance that the court granted the Crown. They filed outside of the answer period, and thus their entire response should be struck from the record immediately.

If this is not done, it will obliterate any credibility the Court has as being unbiased and fair. Your honor, you've already given them so much slack and they've still failed to uphold the generous time constraints. Is 96 hours not enough time for the Crown to be reasonably expected to respond within?
 
IN THE HONORABLE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO ENTREATY FOR STRIKING

Your Honor,

Ayatha lacks the capacity to adjudicate the credibility of the Court and is incorrect on all the major assertions of this Entreaty for Striking.

1. The Crown was not granted an unrequested writ of continuance but directed to file the Response to Complaint within the traditional timeframe.​
2. The Crown was given 48 hours to submit its Response to Complaint, not 96.​
3. The Crown has not "reshuffled lawyers." Both Rubilibi55 and I have the capacity to simultaneously represent the Crown. The Plaintiff is not entitled to dictate the Crown's choice of counsel.​
4. Following established judicial precedent, the punishment for late filings on the part of the Defendant has historically been contempt, not striking. See Ameslap v. Crown, Case 12 (Ch. 2025); Ayatha v. Rex, Case 6 (Ch. 2025),​
​
The Crown's late filing, while warranting a Contempt of Court charge, does not affect the substance of its defense and thus does not warrant a writ of striking.

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
IN THE HONORABLE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
Case No.:15

Ayatha
Applicant/Plaintiff

v.

The Crown
Respondent/Defendant

The Crown respectfully entreats the Chancery to grant summary judgement on the dispositive legal question of whether the Plaintiff resigned by conduct.

I. UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

1. While serving as a Member of Parliament, Ayatha left the Parliament and StateCraft servers.​
2. Noticing his departure, Parliament subsequently conducted a vote on a Motion to Remove Ayatha from his seat in Parliament.​
3. Ayatha later rejoined the Parliament server and filed this Complaint.​

II. THE LEGAL QUESTION PRESENTED
Does leaving the Parliament server constitute a resignation by conduct?

Members of Parliament cannot fulfill their constitutional duties without access to StateCraft or Parliament servers. Without access to the Parliament server, a Member cannot vote on legislation, debate on the Parliament floor, introduce bills, or execute any responsibilities of the office.

By voluntarily leaving StateCraft, Ayatha abandoned the means necessary to perform his constitutional duties. This voluntary abandonment of his office constitutes a resignation by conduct.

III. APPLICATION OF LAW TO UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
The Plaintiff has asked the Court to declare whether Parliament has the constitutional authority to remove Members of Parliament. However, if Ayatha resigned by conduct, that question is not at issue in this case. Parliament did not exercise removal power over a sitting member. The motion operated on a vacancy and was thus legally inoperative.

A. No Standing.
The Plaintiff is seeking an opinion on Parliament's constitutional authority, but this Court cannot issue an opinion on this matter because the actions the Plaintiff is challenging did not actually exercise that authority.

B. No Justiciable Controversy.
If Ayatha had already vacated his office, the Motion to Remove had no legal effect. Separation of powers prevents this Court from reviewing internal legislative procedures that produce no independent legal results.

IV. NO DISPUTE OF MATERIAL FACTS
If this Court rules that Ayatha did indeed resign by conduct, there is no factual dispute that demands a trial. Both parties agree on what happened, and the only question of legal significance would be whether or not his departure constitutes a resignation by conduct.

V. CONCLUSION
If Ayatha resigned by conduct, then: (1) he has no standing; (2) the Motion had no legal effect; (3) no justiciable controversy exists; and (4) the Complaint must be dismissed.

The Crown respectfully requests this Honorable Chancery to:

1. Determine as a matter of law that Ayatha's voluntary abandonment of office constitutes a resignation by conduct; and​
2. Dismiss the Complaint, in its entirety, with prejudice.​

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top