Lawsuit: In Session Ko531 v. The Crown, Case 8 (Mag. Ct., 2025)

Your honor,

Before we proceed with our closing arguments, I feel compelled to motion for this cases dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

This case presents a constitutional question to the Magistrate Court. This question can not be resolved by the Magistrate Court, as the Chancery Court holds "exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional questions." Alex. Const. Part III Sec. 15. Respectfully, your honor, this Court holds no authority to answer this question, and this case should be dismissed without prejudice to be presented within the Chancery Court.

Obviously, the government would have made this motion sooner if I had been aware of this cases central issue before taking office, but as I begin processing what the interim government left, the issue jumped out to me as glaring. As such, the Crown asks this Court to dismiss this case without prejudice to be presented within the Chancery Court.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney0
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
​
Ibney0 said:
Your honor,

Before we proceed with our closing arguments, I feel compelled to motion for this cases dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

This case presents a constitutional question to the Magistrate Court. This question can not be resolved by the Magistrate Court, as the Chancery Court holds "exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional questions." Alex. Const. Part III Sec. 15. Respectfully, your honor, this Court holds no authority to answer this question, and this case should be dismissed without prejudice to be presented within the Chancery Court.

Obviously, the government would have made this motion sooner if I had been aware of this cases central issue before taking office, but as I begin processing what the interim government left, the issue jumped out to me as glaring. As such, the Crown asks this Court to dismiss this case without prejudice to be presented within the Chancery Court.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney0
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
Click to expand...
The ‘motion’ is denied.

My courtroom hears entreaties- not motions. I can appreciate that you’ve taken over new responsibilities, but that is not an excuse for not familiarizing yourself with the rules and procedures of the court.

I am sympathetic to a late-submission for an entreaty to dismiss in this case, but I do not find that this is sufficient for this case in particular for a number of reasons.


While the Chancery is tasked with hearing constitutional questions, this case is not primarily one of constitutionality. The question is whether or not the information was justly classified. The Government Information Act (§9.3) explicitly states that this is the role of the Magistrates' court. - ‘Any citizen or government body with a significant interest in classified information can request the Magistrates Court to determine whether or not said information is justly classified. This request pertains to all classifications.’

The dismissal does not include any explanation as to why this would be a constitutional issue, and I would be left to assume- which I will not do.


As the Crown has opted not to ask for an extension for their closing statements after I offered additional time, I see no need to wait further to resolve this petition.

The court will now recess pending the decision for this petition.​
 
Your honor,

Entreaties to reconsider. It is clear from the verbiage of my message that I both intended to give a closing statement, and that it was two days before the deadline in this case. Furthermore, your honor did not respond within those two days, and only responded 7 minutes after the closer of the deadline.

There is good reason to sua sponte grant an extension, and the failure to do so clearly prejudices the Crown in this case. Especially considering the timeline of events.

Furthermore, your honor, this court should additionally consider an entreaties to reconsider their ruling, as it fails to take into account that it was the Chancery who made the ruling, and is based on a lack of jurisdiction to override the Chancery under the constitution.

We request your honor please allow for proper briefing as doing otherwise risks the validity of this case.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney0
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
Ibney0 said:
Your honor,

Entreaties to reconsider. It is clear from the verbiage of my message that I both intended to give a closing statement, and that it was two days before the deadline in this case. Furthermore, your honor did not respond within those two days, and only responded 7 minutes after the closer of the deadline.

There is good reason to sua sponte grant an extension, and the failure to do so clearly prejudices the Crown in this case. Especially considering the timeline of events.

Furthermore, your honor, this court should additionally consider an entreaties to reconsider their ruling, as it fails to take into account that it was the Chancery who made the ruling, and is based on a lack of jurisdiction to override the Chancery under the constitution.

We request your honor please allow for proper briefing as doing otherwise risks the validity of this case.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney0
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
Click to expand...
Your deadline was over 24 hours ago and this court reminded you that the deadline stood and that if you required an extension that you should have asked for it.
To be clear, the previous response came not 7 minutes after your deadline, but rather over 24 hours.
I will allow the Crown to provide a response within 24 hours from this post, but I will not entertain another extension.
If this court receives a late filing the Crown will be held in contempt, fined £250, and we will move on.

On the matter of reconsideration for dismissal,
The only evidence of the Chancery's decision to classify this was provided by a third party P-001, I do not consider this to be a valid 'ruling' from the Chancery.
This entreaty is declined.​
 
IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CLOSING STATEMENT FOR THE CROWN

Your honor,

Lets go over the facts:
1. This Court has found that there was no ruling from the Chancery. See Denial of Entreaty to Reconsider Entreaty to Dismiss ("The only evidence of the Chancery's decision to classify this was provided by a third party P-001, I do not consider this to be a valid 'ruling' from the Chancery.")
2. The plaintiff appeals a ruling of the Chancery to classify all information relating to their decision.
3. This case does not involve a constitutional question. See Denial of Entreaty to Dismiss ("While the Chancery is tasked with hearing constitutional questions, this case is not primarily one of constitutionality.")
4. The Crowns entire case revolves around the fact that the Magistrate Court may not order the Chancery to do anything, under the constitution. See Defense Entreaty to Dismiss.

Based on these Courts rulings there is no case at controversy. The Court determined that the Chancery made no ruling in this case. There is thus no ruling to review by the Magistrate Court. The only evidence provided by the Plaintiff in this matter a ruling took place by the Chancery Court for review was P-001, which this Court determined was not a ruling.

Of course, if there is a ruling, then this Court must grapple with the fact that they can not override the Chancery. The Magistrate Court is subservient to the Chancery Court, and despite this case arising out of a Constitutional question of whether or not the as applied Government Information Act is unconstitutional, this Court has determined that the Government Information Act gives them authority over that question. This authority paradoxically supersedes the authority of the Chancery to make these decisions, despite it arising from a law subservient to the Constitution.

Either there is no decision, and thus the plaintiff has not proven its case, or there is a decision, and the act is unconstitutional as applied to the Chancery. If its unconstitutional, then this is a constitutional question that this court has no authority over and thus should dismiss the case without a ruling. If there is no question, then the Court should find in favor of the defendant. There is no legal mechanism by which this Court can legally finds for the plaintiff.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney0
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top