Lawsuit: In Session Ayatha v. Rex, Case 6 (Ch. 2025)

kaiserin said:
Discovery is now over. We call upon the Claimant to produce their Opening Statements within seventy-two hours.


Now that Discovery has ended, we will also be granting this request to provide an amicus curiae brief. We call upon @Ibney0 to produce this brief within seventy-two hours. As a general unwritten rule, the Chancery will be inclined to allow amicus briefs only after Discovery has ended in any given case.

So ordered.
Click to expand...
Your honors,

As this Court has struck section 3 and 4 of the plaintiff's requested relief, we believe the amicus request is moot for points 2 and 3. However, we will respond to point 1.

Brief Amicus Curiae​

Your honors,

Power in the monarchy flows through the Monarch. While the Monarch's role may be limited as a result of the Alexandrian Constitution, that limitation is only undertaken through the Monarch himself. Parliament, the executive, and this very Court only exist so far as the Monarch limits his own absolute power. As such, the monarch himself is not a citizen; he is a King. The monarch is not subject to the jurisdiction of Alexandria's Courts as the power of the Courts flows through him.

Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the Monarch, as well as the Kingdom itself, is immune from both civil and criminal liabilities. The Monarch holds royal power under the Constitution of the Kingdom of Alexandria, and acts on behalf of the lawful and reasonable advice of his counselors. Alex. Const. Part IV, Sec. 19. The King commands his subjects to carry out the law in his stead, as the law itself and the authority under the law stem from the King. As a result, it is impossible to hold a Monarch to answer under the law without their own allowance.

This right of the King need not be written down. It stems from his absolute authority as Alexandria's Head of State. While the King has relinquished many of his absolute powers as a result of the Constitution, and as a result of its restrictions. Either Parliament must act, through the King's designated authority via the constitution, to allow for the Courts to bring suit against the King himself, or the King must affirmatively waive the right of sovereign immunity and allow this lawsuit to continue.

It is imperative that these rights be upheld, as it establishes the basic framework by which the government functions, and Parliament acts to function alongside the King. As such, this honorable Court should act to uphold this fundamental and axiomatic right of the Monarch, and of its own accord dismiss this lawsuit against the King unless he himself relents.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney
General Counsel
Sovereign Kingdom Party of Alexandria
 
Ibney0 said:
Your honors,

As this Court has struck section 3 and 4 of the plaintiff's requested relief, we believe the amicus request is moot for points 2 and 3. However, we will respond to point 1.

Brief Amicus Curiae​

Your honors,

Power in the monarchy flows through the Monarch. While the Monarch's role may be limited as a result of the Alexandrian Constitution, that limitation is only undertaken through the Monarch himself. Parliament, the executive, and this very Court only exist so far as the Monarch limits his own absolute power. As such, the monarch himself is not a citizen; he is a King. The monarch is not subject to the jurisdiction of Alexandria's Courts as the power of the Courts flows through him.

Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the Monarch, as well as the Kingdom itself, is immune from both civil and criminal liabilities. The Monarch holds royal power under the Constitution of the Kingdom of Alexandria, and acts on behalf of the lawful and reasonable advice of his counselors. Alex. Const. Part IV, Sec. 19. The King commands his subjects to carry out the law in his stead, as the law itself and the authority under the law stem from the King. As a result, it is impossible to hold a Monarch to answer under the law without their own allowance.

This right of the King need not be written down. It stems from his absolute authority as Alexandria's Head of State. While the King has relinquished many of his absolute powers as a result of the Constitution, and as a result of its restrictions. Either Parliament must act, through the King's designated authority via the constitution, to allow for the Courts to bring suit against the King himself, or the King must affirmatively waive the right of sovereign immunity and allow this lawsuit to continue.

It is imperative that these rights be upheld, as it establishes the basic framework by which the government functions, and Parliament acts to function alongside the King. As such, this honorable Court should act to uphold this fundamental and axiomatic right of the Monarch, and of its own accord dismiss this lawsuit against the King unless he himself relents.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney
General Counsel
Sovereign Kingdom Party of Alexandria
Click to expand...
Motion for a writ of striking to be applied to the above Amicus Curiae as it is not only an egregiously obvious advocation for an Absolute Monarch but contains a fundamental misunderstanding of Alexandrian Law and where power stems from.

1. "While the Monarch's role may be limited as a result of the Alexandrian Constitution, that limitation is only undertaken through the Monarch himself." Is patently false and untrue.
The Statecraft Constitution in no way was given royal assent by the King, was not authored by the King, and was not published by the King. The Monarch is limited by the Constitution which was penned to the best of my knowledge by representatives of the Alexandrian public, including the current Interim Prime Minister Casualgreyknight.

The King by default is just a Man with a Hat, and nothing in the constitution specifies anything further than his role as a ceremonial head of state, thus his role as a Citizen of Alexandria whilst also being King is undisputable, making him subject to the jurisdiction of Alexandria's Courts.

2. "Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the Monarch, as well as the Kingdom itself, is immune from both civil and criminal liabilities."
The above doctrine of sovereign immunity does not exist in Alexandria, has not been written into law with the Constitution or any following Laws at the time of writing, and will only exist if the High Court affirms it; however this action would run directly contrary to the pre-existing precedent where in Moyfr. V. The Crown where the Kingdom was held on trial and no such immunities invalidated the court proceedings and ended the case immediately.

3. "The Monarch holds royal power under the Constitution of the Kingdom of Alexandria, and acts on behalf of the lawful and reasonable advice of his counselors. Alex. Const. Part IV, Sec. 19."
The above does not correlate with the following statement that comes after it "The King commands his subjects to carry out the law in his stead, as the law itself and the authority under the law stem from the King."- which is baselessly asserted and does not spring from any of the prior mentioned points within the Alexandrian Constitution and is if anything a directly contrary statement to the Constitution specifically (Part 1, Section 1) and (Part 3, Section 14) where Legislative Power stems from Parliament and Judiciary Power stems from the Courts.

4. "This right of the King need not be written down. It stems from his absolute authority as Alexandria's Head of State."
Authority of which the King does not have, as this is a constitutional Monarchy first and foremost, and absolutely nothing in the constitution in any way insinuates that the Head of State has absolute authority.

5. "While the King has relinquished many of his absolute powers as a result of the Constitution, and as a result of its restrictions."
Powers the King never had cannot be relinquished. The King in no prior documents holds such power, and in no way by default holds such power.

6. "It is imperative that these rights be upheld, as it establishes the basic framework by which the government functions, and Parliament acts to function alongside the King."
It does not establish the basic framework by which the government functions, as the Constitution does that perfectly fine and would continue to do such after such a ruling is handed out. Monarchical primacy is a baseless assertion constructed from pre-existing biases due to other international examples that should not be affirmed by the court as Alexandria is different and should remain so.

7. Power in the Monarchy does not stem from the King, it stems from the people who maintain the King's position of power.
No man rules alone, no man rules by right, no man is individually powerful. Power comes from structures, institutions, documents and the writ of allowance by the People being ruled over. That is precisely why there is a clause in the constitution pertaining to vacating the Monarchy. That is why there is a constitution at all, as Power in Alexandria is derived from it. The assertion that power stems from the King is not only outright wrong, but it is dangerous to the entire structure of Alexandria as it directly enables the King retracting his consent to honouring parts of the constitution based upon this logic. It is the slipperiest slope we possible could have to a Royal Dictatorship.

This Amicus Curiae is not only wildly incorrect, but also simultaneously incredibly biased towards the Defendant of this case in the process. It should entirely be struck from the record and not be considered in the following proceedings.
 
The Amicus Curiae would oppose the motion to strike, and would assert it is procedurally improper. Disagreeing with an amicus curiae is not grounds to be stricken from the record. Applicants motion serves as nothing more than a response to our amicus.

If it would assist the Court, the amicus is willing to file a reply brief to the applicant, however, we would not assume the court wishes additional briefing beyond what we have been granted, and thank the Court for their time.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney
General Counsel
Sovereign Kingdom Party
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ibney0 said:
The Amicus Curiae would oppose the motion to strike, and would assert it is procedurally improper. Disagreeing with an amicus curiae is not grounds to be stricken from the record. Applicants motion serves as nothing more than a response to our amicus.

If it would assist the Court, the amicus is willing to file a reply brief to the applicant, however, we would not assume the court wishes additional briefing beyond what we have been granted, and thank the Court for their time.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney
General Counsel
Sovereign Kingdom Party
Click to expand...
Reply to the Amicus Curiae's Opposition of the Motion to Strike:

The Plaintiff maintains that it is both procedurally proper and correct to strike outright false information from the court record, and to have the court ignore said Amicus Curiae if it is fundamentally unsound as it is a direct claim of the state of the law.

I will reiterate that I did not ask for the writ of striking because I disagreed with it, but instead because it is outright false and based off of wild assertions that have no basis in Alexandrian Law. The fact that the Amicus Curiae either did not understand that, or ignored it in their almost immediate response should be noted for the courts proceedings moving forward.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ibney0 said:
The Amicus Curiae would oppose the motion to strike, and would assert it is procedurally improper. Disagreeing with an amicus curiae is not grounds to be stricken from the record. Applicants motion serves as nothing more than a response to our amicus.

If it would assist the Court, the amicus is willing to file a reply brief to the applicant, however, we would not assume the court wishes additional briefing beyond what we have been granted, and thank the Court for their time.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney
General Counsel
Sovereign Kingdom Party
Click to expand...
As you are not a party to this case, please do not speak unless called upon by the court. The two preceding comments will be struck.
 
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
OPENING STATEMENTS

Given that the Plaintiff's Opening Statements in reality contained a majority of poorly concealed jabs at the Defence's alleged incompetence and very little argument, the Defence will adopt a simple doctrine of summarily refuting all the charges against my client with simple facts and logic.

First, the 1st Claim for Relief is quite irrelevant at this stage. A UBI bill already exists in the Pay Scale Act, which has been passed by Parliament and assented by the King approximately 2 weeks ago. The Defence requests that this prayer be subsequently struck.

In addressing the 2nd Claim for Relief, the Defence finds it bears no relevance to my client, as the Ministry of Trade and Finance is separate to my client, and therefore, bears no objection to this prayer. The Chancery is free to interpret the Ministry's inaction in this alleged economical fiasco however it sees fit.

When directly addressing the Plaintiff's apparent 'formula' to individually calculating damages allegedly caused by my client's brave actions, the Defence must regrettably request this entire line be thrown out. The Plaintiff failed to submit any evidence as to how the relevant numbers such as average player counts were acquired, or how the formula was derived. As the Plaintiff is no member of the Ministry of Trade and Finance, or any other form of economical expert, the Defence requests that this line of argument be struck by the Chancery. It is plain and simple speculation that serves to mislead the Chancery by conjuring false numbers in an underhanded attempt to provide weight to an otherwise weightless argument.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff claims the King acted in their own personal interests, yet has apparently missed out quite a critical factor. Universal Basic Income, is well, put quite simply, universal. There is no realm of possibility where my client has reasonably caused any form of unfair profit to themselves, as the alleged profit is given to everyone, equally. In truth, my client acted in the best interests of the people, and made use of his authority to assist the masses by providing them the meager sum of 1 Alexandrian Pound per Minute. It is at this point that the Defence would like to draw the Chancery's attention to the aforementioned Pay Scale Act. Passed into law on 07/05/2025, it set UBI at a comfortable 2 and a half Alexandrian Pounds per Minute. A quite sizable, 150% increase in comparison to my client's temporary interjection. This only serves to show that if my client had any impact on the economy, a fact which remains undetermined due to a lack of expert analysis regarding the matter, it would have been negligible in comparison to the effect the current UBI has made. My client's careful, measured decision to introduce UBI at a rate significantly lower than the eventual parliamentary established UBI.

Drawing attention to the Plaintiff's claims that the King's decision was a frivolous one, while yes the King did state "...asking frivolously...", let the Chancery note, that once again, my client's use of a Trollface Cat indicates a joking nature. In reality, the King's actions were deliberately measured to ensure that the public received the UBI it had been clamoring for. The claim that he would do it again is evidenced by an out of context statement, that once again, makes use of the same Trollface Cat. Since the Plaintiff is very clearly unable to fathom the meaning of this image, the Defence has full faith that the Chancery is well educated and aware of the meaning of the Trollface.

In conclusion, to suggest that my client, the King of Alexandria, acted to destabilize the nation for his own profit, is a ludicrous claim made by the Plaintiff with in reality, little to no evidence backing it up. The King acted in the best interests of the nation, taking measured action to ensure that the public's needs were met without causing any damage. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff has alleged damage without any evidence to support it. The Plaintiff had countless hours to gather the required evidence to support their claims. And since they failed to submit any evidence to support their allegations, this lawsuit remains nothing but a heartless prosecution by a member of the public seeking to destabilize the nation and punish it's Monarch for looking after it's people.

The Defense humbly asks that the Chancery, namely Chancellor Smallfries, to see through the Plaintiff's rudely worded and frankly meaningless fluff they call an arguement, to quite literally, see through the lies of the Plaintiff, and to make the ruling that is just and right.

Good Day.
 
Dr.Eksplosive said:
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
OPENING STATEMENTS

Given that the Plaintiff's Opening Statements in reality contained a majority of poorly concealed jabs at the Defence's alleged incompetence and very little argument, the Defence will adopt a simple doctrine of summarily refuting all the charges against my client with simple facts and logic.

First, the 1st Claim for Relief is quite irrelevant at this stage. A UBI bill already exists in the Pay Scale Act, which has been passed by Parliament and assented by the King approximately 2 weeks ago. The Defence requests that this prayer be subsequently struck.

In addressing the 2nd Claim for Relief, the Defence finds it bears no relevance to my client, as the Ministry of Trade and Finance is separate to my client, and therefore, bears no objection to this prayer. The Chancery is free to interpret the Ministry's inaction in this alleged economical fiasco however it sees fit.

When directly addressing the Plaintiff's apparent 'formula' to individually calculating damages allegedly caused by my client's brave actions, the Defence must regrettably request this entire line be thrown out. The Plaintiff failed to submit any evidence as to how the relevant numbers such as average player counts were acquired, or how the formula was derived. As the Plaintiff is no member of the Ministry of Trade and Finance, or any other form of economical expert, the Defence requests that this line of argument be struck by the Chancery. It is plain and simple speculation that serves to mislead the Chancery by conjuring false numbers in an underhanded attempt to provide weight to an otherwise weightless argument.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff claims the King acted in their own personal interests, yet has apparently missed out quite a critical factor. Universal Basic Income, is well, put quite simply, universal. There is no realm of possibility where my client has reasonably caused any form of unfair profit to themselves, as the alleged profit is given to everyone, equally. In truth, my client acted in the best interests of the people, and made use of his authority to assist the masses by providing them the meager sum of 1 Alexandrian Pound per Minute. It is at this point that the Defence would like to draw the Chancery's attention to the aforementioned Pay Scale Act. Passed into law on 07/05/2025, it set UBI at a comfortable 2 and a half Alexandrian Pounds per Minute. A quite sizable, 150% increase in comparison to my client's temporary interjection. This only serves to show that if my client had any impact on the economy, a fact which remains undetermined due to a lack of expert analysis regarding the matter, it would have been negligible in comparison to the effect the current UBI has made. My client's careful, measured decision to introduce UBI at a rate significantly lower than the eventual parliamentary established UBI.

Drawing attention to the Plaintiff's claims that the King's decision was a frivolous one, while yes the King did state "...asking frivolously...", let the Chancery note, that once again, my client's use of a Trollface Cat indicates a joking nature. In reality, the King's actions were deliberately measured to ensure that the public received the UBI it had been clamoring for. The claim that he would do it again is evidenced by an out of context statement, that once again, makes use of the same Trollface Cat. Since the Plaintiff is very clearly unable to fathom the meaning of this image, the Defence has full faith that the Chancery is well educated and aware of the meaning of the Trollface.

In conclusion, to suggest that my client, the King of Alexandria, acted to destabilize the nation for his own profit, is a ludicrous claim made by the Plaintiff with in reality, little to no evidence backing it up. The King acted in the best interests of the nation, taking measured action to ensure that the public's needs were met without causing any damage. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff has alleged damage without any evidence to support it. The Plaintiff had countless hours to gather the required evidence to support their claims. And since they failed to submit any evidence to support their allegations, this lawsuit remains nothing but a heartless prosecution by a member of the public seeking to destabilize the nation and punish it's Monarch for looking after it's people.

The Defense humbly asks that the Chancery, namely Chancellor Smallfries, to see through the Plaintiff's rudely worded and frankly meaningless fluff they call an arguement, to quite literally, see through the lies of the Plaintiff, and to make the ruling that is just and right.

Good Day.
Click to expand...

Closing Statement.

As expected, the defendant's counsel has once again utterly failed to represent their position with either the facts or logic claimed to be in use. I say this not to disparage the defence but in fact to illuminate the utter lack of a position they hold, made plainly visible by summarily backpedalling from each and every failed position they've held while maintaining the same tired angle- regrettably including the main argument which will decide this case. The big question was, "Was the King constitutionally allowed to institute UBI?" and the defence has utterly failed to argue in any way that the answer was yes. By failing to acknowledge the direct counter to their first dispute's claims, the defence has killed any chance they have in potentially wresting anything from this suit but the obvious verdict.

But I like arguing. I do it for the love of the game, and apparently I'm far better than the top law firm the King could hire. Here's my victory lap.

They say I have provided no argument, when my opening statement was a summary execution of their entire list of disputed facts and directly detailing how and where the King broke the law.

Instead of acknowledging the plainly obvious fact that inflation had happened at the time due to the King's illegal actions, they request an entire request of inquiry be thrown out due to it being a rough estimate despite it being directly admitted to being an estimate in the initial filings and requesting an entire enquiry by the MInistry of Finance due to said incredible potential for variation in the actual number of illegally printed A£ based upon player counts.

Note how the defence here chooses to attempt to discard the point directly before the numbers can be verified when this is asking for a more in depth enquiry.

Note how the fact of inflation being caused is not even in question anymore, when that inflation is in fact the core weight of this supposedly 'weightless' case.

Note how an estimation based upon limited information is demoted to speculation within less than a breath.

You don't need to have a position in the Ministry of Finance to know that inflation is going to happen if UBI is instituted, and certifications to become an economist to my knowledge literally do not even exist yet- so asking for credentials is in effect yet again another misdirect.

Next I need only point to my prior statement to the defence, did or did the King not directly receive financial benefit from his illegal actions?
Damn, the Defence really did just directly admit that the King received an equal share of the UBI funds injected into the economy, illegally, thus privately benefiting from his actions. Please note how the defence tries to reframe this into requiring the defendant to be gaining supposedly an "unfair" profit to themselves, when the question was did the defendant profit at all? Which... the defence has answered affirmatively. Unfortunate.

Finally, I'm not even going to entertain the frankly audacious attempts to continue to argue that the trollface cat in any way shows that wackjap is joking in a manner that does not belie his actual intent, as shown by prior proof.

To the defence, you have no facts to support you. Your disputes are meaningless, your arguments vapid and your statement ultimately based upon nothing but baseless assertions. Make no mistake, those jabs were not poorly concealed, they were intended to be as obvious as the incompetence that sparked them.

To the Honourable Chancellor presiding over the case:
See the laws broken,
See the abundant misdirects that never answer the queries present,
See the facts of this case that the defence has continuously ceded from the very start of this case with their foolish entreaty for dismissal,
See the failure of the defence to present any form of documentation to prove their client had not broken the constitution,
See the utter lack of argument presented about any of the core issues within this case,
See the constitution itself broken by the actions of the Defendant; and please render judgement.
 
The Crown shall have their final seventy-two hours to post their closing statement, whereupon this court will enter into recess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top