Lawsuit: In Session Ameslap v. Crown, Case 12 (Ch. 2025)

IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CLOSING STATEMENT

INTRODUCTION
Throughout these proceedings, the Crown has demonstrated that the playtime requirement constitutes a constitutional, reasonable, and justified limitation on the constitutional right to run for office. The evidence establishes three key propositions:
  1. The requirement serves a legitimate purpose;
  2. It is based on objective, independently verifiable criteria;
  3. It was uniformly enforced across all candidates, without exception
WITNESS TESTIMONY

1. UNIQUELY SERVED A LEGITIMATE PURPOSE
Minister Thritystone testified that the playtime requirement clearly measures specific elements of competency that neither the waiting period nor the citizenship exam addresses. As he stated, playtime is a condition for participation in the administrative process. The Crown has repeatedly argued that without the playtime requirement, unqualified and uninformed individuals could become members of Parliament and jeopardize its efficacy and integrity. As a Minister and Member of Parliament, the witness's testimony clearly evidences a legitimate connection between playtime and legislative competency.

2. USE OF VERIFIABLE DATA
The Witness confirmed that the Ministry used data obtained through the /about command, which is accessible to all citizens. Additionally, he stated that violations of the playtime requirement were well documented with timestamped screenshots, creating an independently verifiable record.

3. NO PERSONAL OR DISCRETIONARY JUDGEMENT
Minister Thritystone confirmed unequivocally that no personal or discretionary judgment was exercised, and all decisions were made with strict adherence to the law.

4. UNIFORM APPLICATION ACROSS ALL CANDIDATES
The witness confirmed the playtime requirement was enforced across all candidates, without exception.

THE CITIZENSHIP EXAM AND JUDICIARY PRECEDENT
Ministry Thritystone’s testimony demonstrates that the playtime requirement clearly serves a distinct purpose that neither the citizenship exam nor the waiting period fulfills. The Minister, when asked what specific competency the playtime requirement measures that other requirements do not, explained that, unlike other qualification mechanisms, the playtime requirement measures candidates' knowledge of the effects of implemented policy.

The Crown reiterates that the playtime requirement uniquely serves a legitimate purpose. It argues, however, that whether or not the citizenship exam could theoretically serve a similar purpose to the playtime requirement is not at issue in this case. According to previous judicial precedent,
"Parliament may choose from a range of reasonable solutions for a given problem, even when one solution may obviously impact rights and liberties more than another." See ColonelKai v. Crown, Case 8 (Ch. 2025). In this case, the Chancery clearly stated that Parliament does not need to find some objective "minimum rights infringed." It was stated that "it is unreasonable to believe that Parliament must always find some objective 'minimum rights infringed' point along the spectrum of possible solutions to a given issue."

ON THE "TWO CLASSES OF CITIZENS" ARGUMENT
Plaintiff's claim that this law creates two classes of citizenship, wherein one has separate rights from the other, is patently false. Every citizen has equal protection under the law, under which they are free to exercise their right to run for office as they please, so long as they meet this reasonable standard imposed by Parliament. "Two classes of citizens" would imply some citizens have the right to run for office, while others do not, based on some immutable individual characteristic. The same reasonable standard has been imposed on all candidates across the board, regardless of any party affiliation or personal characteristics. The playtime requirement is a neutral, objective qualification that any citizen can satisfy.

SUMMARY:
  • Witness testimony has established that the playtime requirement is a reasonable, objective, and uniformly applied law that uniquely serves its legitimate purpose.
  • Previous precedent confirms that Parliament does not need to find some 'objective "minimum rights infringed" point along the spectrum.'
  • The playtime requirement clearly does not create "two classes of citizenship."
Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
Smallfries said:
The Crown shall have seventy-two hours to submit its closing statement.
Click to expand...

SoggehToast said:
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CLOSING STATEMENT

INTRODUCTION
Throughout these proceedings, the Crown has demonstrated that the playtime requirement constitutes a constitutional, reasonable, and justified limitation on the constitutional right to run for office. The evidence establishes three key propositions:
  1. The requirement serves a legitimate purpose;
  2. It is based on objective, independently verifiable criteria;
  3. It was uniformly enforced across all candidates, without exception
WITNESS TESTIMONY

1. UNIQUELY SERVED A LEGITIMATE PURPOSE
Minister Thritystone testified that the playtime requirement clearly measures specific elements of competency that neither the waiting period nor the citizenship exam addresses. As he stated, playtime is a condition for participation in the administrative process. The Crown has repeatedly argued that without the playtime requirement, unqualified and uninformed individuals could become members of Parliament and jeopardize its efficacy and integrity. As a Minister and Member of Parliament, the witness's testimony clearly evidences a legitimate connection between playtime and legislative competency.

2. USE OF VERIFIABLE DATA
The Witness confirmed that the Ministry used data obtained through the /about command, which is accessible to all citizens. Additionally, he stated that violations of the playtime requirement were well documented with timestamped screenshots, creating an independently verifiable record.

3. NO PERSONAL OR DISCRETIONARY JUDGEMENT
Minister Thritystone confirmed unequivocally that no personal or discretionary judgment was exercised, and all decisions were made with strict adherence to the law.

4. UNIFORM APPLICATION ACROSS ALL CANDIDATES
The witness confirmed the playtime requirement was enforced across all candidates, without exception.

THE CITIZENSHIP EXAM AND JUDICIARY PRECEDENT
Ministry Thritystone’s testimony demonstrates that the playtime requirement clearly serves a distinct purpose that neither the citizenship exam nor the waiting period fulfills. The Minister, when asked what specific competency the playtime requirement measures that other requirements do not, explained that, unlike other qualification mechanisms, the playtime requirement measures candidates' knowledge of the effects of implemented policy.

The Crown reiterates that the playtime requirement uniquely serves a legitimate purpose. It argues, however, that whether or not the citizenship exam could theoretically serve a similar purpose to the playtime requirement is not at issue in this case. According to previous judicial precedent,
"Parliament may choose from a range of reasonable solutions for a given problem, even when one solution may obviously impact rights and liberties more than another." See ColonelKai v. Crown, Case 8 (Ch. 2025). In this case, the Chancery clearly stated that Parliament does not need to find some objective "minimum rights infringed." It was stated that "it is unreasonable to believe that Parliament must always find some objective 'minimum rights infringed' point along the spectrum of possible solutions to a given issue."

ON THE "TWO CLASSES OF CITIZENS" ARGUMENT
Plaintiff's claim that this law creates two classes of citizenship, wherein one has separate rights from the other, is patently false. Every citizen has equal protection under the law, under which they are free to exercise their right to run for office as they please, so long as they meet this reasonable standard imposed by Parliament. "Two classes of citizens" would imply some citizens have the right to run for office, while others do not, based on some immutable individual characteristic. The same reasonable standard has been imposed on all candidates across the board, regardless of any party affiliation or personal characteristics. The playtime requirement is a neutral, objective qualification that any citizen can satisfy.

SUMMARY:
  • Witness testimony has established that the playtime requirement is a reasonable, objective, and uniformly applied law that uniquely serves its legitimate purpose.
  • Previous precedent confirms that Parliament does not need to find some 'objective "minimum rights infringed" point along the spectrum.'
  • The playtime requirement clearly does not create "two classes of citizenship."
Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
Click to expand...
OBJECTION - Procedural Breach

The Crown was late to post their closing remarks and I ask that they be struck from the record and have sanctions brought against them.

Time to Post started at 9:31 PM on October 9.

Posted at 12:33 AM on October 13.
All times in MDT

Time to Post In Hours: 75.033. This is more than the 72 permitted. Note that the Crown did not request an extension or give any reason for their delay when posting them.

Thank you,
Ameslap
 
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION - PROCEDURAL BREACH

The Crown's closing statement was indeed made a few hours after the 72-hour mark. Various factors caused this, but it was due primarily to a timezone issue on my side of the forums, resulting in the displayed time of the Chancery's instruction for closing statements being several hours off. This delay was the result of an unintended timezone discrepancy on my side of the forums, which caused the deadline to appear later than it in fact was. This issue has been addressed by changing my forum's timezone settings. It will not occur again, and I personally take full responsibility.

Moreover, the Ministry has been suffering from manpower issues. The Kingdom's recent political chaos, including the dissolution of Parliament and the resignation of our Solicitor General last night, has further temporarily burdened the functions of the Ministry and contributed to this delayed explanation.

This mistake has no bearing on the merits of this case, and the three-hour delay constitutes only an immaterial procedural irregularity at most. It certainly does not warrant the striking of the Crown's closing statements on a case of such significance.

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
ameslap said:
OBJECTION - Procedural Breach

The Crown was late to post their closing remarks and I ask that they be struck from the record and have sanctions brought against them.

Time to Post started at 9:31 PM on October 9.

Posted at 12:33 AM on October 13.
All times in MDT

Time to Post In Hours: 75.033. This is more than the 72 permitted. Note that the Crown did not request an extension or give any reason for their delay when posting them.

Thank you,
Ameslap
Click to expand...
SoggehToast said:
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION - PROCEDURAL BREACH

The Crown's closing statement was indeed made a few hours after the 72-hour mark. Various factors caused this, but it was due primarily to a timezone issue on my side of the forums, resulting in the displayed time of the Chancery's instruction for closing statements being several hours off. This delay was the result of an unintended timezone discrepancy on my side of the forums, which caused the deadline to appear later than it in fact was. This issue has been addressed by changing my forum's timezone settings. It will not occur again, and I personally take full responsibility.

Moreover, the Ministry has been suffering from manpower issues. The Kingdom's recent political chaos, including the dissolution of Parliament and the resignation of our Solicitor General last night, has further temporarily burdened the functions of the Ministry and contributed to this delayed explanation.

This mistake has no bearing on the merits of this case, and the three-hour delay constitutes only an immaterial procedural irregularity at most. It certainly does not warrant the striking of the Crown's closing statements on a case of such significance.

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
Click to expand...
This objection is sustained in part. The Crown is clearly late in their response, and did not ask for an extension. While the Court understands very clearly the manpower issues and is sympathetic, it is necessary to hold the Crown in contempt, and fine them £100. However, it would be ridiculous to remove the Crown's ability to respond, especially for a mere few hours. We will not strike their filing.

This Court shall now stand in recess until a verdict is rendered.
 
Smallfries said:
it is necessary to hold the Crown in contempt, and fine them £100
Click to expand...
ENTREATY OF PROMPTING
Your Honor, I request some information on this.

Is the Crown, as an entity, in contempt and fined, or is the individual counsel found in contempt and fined.

Materially, this makes a big difference.

  • If the Crown as an entity is found in contempt, I request that the fine be paid either to the opposing counsel or put in a reserve fund for Parliament to designate at a later point. While accounts may be seperate, the Government as a whole holds all of the funds for itself. For the Crown to fine themselves would be akin to giving myself £100, which is to say that nothing happened.
  • If the counsel is held in contempt, I request that that be clarified so the Crown knows to fine the individual.

Thank you,
Ameslap
 
ameslap said:
ENTREATY OF PROMPTING
Your Honor, I request some information on this.

Is the Crown, as an entity, in contempt and fined, or is the individual counsel found in contempt and fined.

Materially, this makes a big difference.

  • If the Crown as an entity is found in contempt, I request that the fine be paid either to the opposing counsel or put in a reserve fund for Parliament to designate at a later point. While accounts may be seperate, the Government as a whole holds all of the funds for itself. For the Crown to fine themselves would be akin to giving myself £100, which is to say that nothing happened.
  • If the counsel is held in contempt, I request that that be clarified so the Crown knows to fine the individual.

Thank you,
Ameslap
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but as a private citizen suing in a private matter, you do not have standing to ask for clarification on this subject. It is a matter wholly unrelated to you and your issues here.
 
ENTREATY OF AMENDMENT
Your honor,

Since this case first began, another instance of harm on the same basis and methodology has occurred.

Given the request and ruling in Plura72 v Crown. The Plaintiff requests to amend their complaint, both to add Plura as an additional Plaintiff, to amend the facts to show when Plura72 was harmed, as this happened during a different time than the initial set of facts presented here, and to finally amend the claims for relief to include relief that satisfies the new Plaintiff.

1761923791820.png
 
ameslap said:
ENTREATY OF AMENDMENT
Your honor,

Since this case first began, another instance of harm on the same basis and methodology has occurred.

Given the request and ruling in Plura72 v Crown. The Plaintiff requests to amend their complaint, both to add Plura as an additional Plaintiff, to amend the facts to show when Plura72 was harmed, as this happened during a different time than the initial set of facts presented here, and to finally amend the claims for relief to include relief that satisfies the new Plaintiff.

View attachment 948
Click to expand...
This case is in recess. This is denied.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top