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

[Aya]

Pretext: The Constitution specifically outlines the roles and functions of the different portions of government, however that fact has been called into question less than a month after its passing by Wackjap’s self-admitted frivolous pushing through of UBI, violating point 7 of the Monarchy clause, participating in a palace coup by seizing control over funds from Parliament causing the inflation of the money supply by 1.3-2%~.

Facts:

1. According to Part 1, Clause 3, Section 2 of the constitution it is clearly stated that: “Financial Power: Parliament controls government spending, taxation, and the budget.”
2. According to Part 4, Clause 19, Section 7 of the constitution it is clearly stated that: “Advisory Role. While the Monarch’s role is largely ceremonial, they may receive regular briefings and counsel from the Prime Minister and Cabinet, but must not exert influence over political decisions.”
3. With points one and two in mind, the action to institute UBI was not only frivolous but also directly contrary to the stated role of the king, and was in fact the role of the parliament.
4. This palace coup was not responded to by any of the presiding members of parliament and provided an influx of upwards of A£10,000~ into the economy, equivalent to 1.3%~ of the current economy but equal to 4%~ of the pre-hunter inflationary period.
5. Wackjap himself has clearly stated in his public press release that he himself knew that his actions were frivolous but did not in any way attempt to rectify the situation after it was pushed through unconstitutionally, and in fact bragged about his usurpation of parliamentary power via government channels and the @everyone command
6. According to the Alexandria Criminal Code (A.P.003) clause 8, section 1(B)(I) Treason is defined as “The act of abusing or attempting to abuse a government position to undermine the stability, security, or sovereignty of the Kingdom of Alexandria.”
7. According to the Alexandria Criminal Code (A.P.003) clause 8. section 1(A)(I) corruption is defined as “The act of abusing or attempting to abuse a government position for a private gain, where the action is inconsistent with the official duty of the position.”
8. With points six and seven in mind, Wackjap himself stood directly to gain from this institution of UBI as he is also a recipient of the UBI income, abusing his government position to undermine the stability via knowingly violating the constitution of the nation during its infant months for personal gain.
9. The Alexandria Criminal Code (A.P.003) was passed by parliament on April 14th and given ROYAL ASSENT on April 18th, meaning the King had to have read it by that date.
10. UBI was instituted on April the 28th, 10 days after the passing of the Alexandria Criminal Code: Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games (In the Original SC discord)
11. Wackjap himself claims he will do it again through indirect messaging in reply to another message here: https://discord.com/channels/1148937229616566273/1148937231315259432/1368734309891965028 (In the Original SC discord)

Claims for Relief:
With these facts in mind and clear and unobstructed evidence that Wackjap’s actions violate not only the laws of the land but also the nascent constitution I request the court to rule on the following reliefs:

1. The immediate removal of UBI until parliament makes and passes an act or law relating to it.
2. An immediate accounting of the amount of money injected into the economy by the Ministry of Trade and Finance.
3. Wackjap and the current ruling family should all lose their crowns, and a new Monarch should be elected from amongst the populace.
4. Wackjap should be charged with Conspiracy to Commit Corruption, Conspiracy to Commit Treason, Corruption and Treason and made to suffer the maximum penalty for all charges to set a harsh precedent against Monarchal overreach
5. Wackjap should be considered responsible for the inflation of the economy and should be saddled with repaying the total amount of UBI dispensed to the SC Government to be destroyed.

Post-Script: Alea iacta est, o’Imperator.

 

[Smallfries]

IN THE CHANCERY OF
THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The King, Wackjap I, is asked to appear before the court within seventy-two hours.​

 

[Ibney0]

Your honors,

I tender a request to this Court to provide briefing amicus curiae. I intend to offer briefing on the following:

1. The immunity of the sovereign from civil and criminal liabilities;
2. The original jurisdiction of this Honorable Court;
3. The constitutionality of the relief requested by the plaintiff.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney
General Counsel
Sovereign Kingdom Party of Alexandria

 

[WackJap]

I'm not disregarding Ibney at all, but I'm also here to say if the honorable smallfries sees the above points moot,

"I, WackJap, on behalf of the Crown, authorise MikamiLaw to represent me for the case Ayatha v. Rex, Case 6 (Ch. 2025)"

Response to applicant's post-script: "quidquid, homonculus"

 

[ColonelKai]

Date.06/05/2025
Docket. 6 Ch. 2025​

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA​

BETWEEN

Ayatha​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Applicants​

v.
Rex​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Respondents​

ENTREARY FOR DISMISSAL
The respondent's counsel hereby respectfully alleges that;

1. The applicant, in their above-listed complaint to the courts, have failed to explicitly satisfy the requirements as pursuant to the section of general court rules and procedures titled "Standing Application" (See. Preliminary Clauses, Section 8. The two paragraphs herein listed as 8a and 8b). The applicant has not demonstrated why their case satisfies 8a in clear terms, and therefore has breached the only requirement set forward for an initial complaint (See. "Filing and Answer", "Initial Complaint Format and Requirements").
2. Even if the aforementioned breach is not accepted by the courts and it is of the belief that the standing was implied, the respondent's counsel requests that the Claim for Relief numbered 3 be struck as a failure to meet Standing Application clause 8b, "Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favourable decision." The constitution lays out clear methods of a monarch being removed, and a court decision is not one of them.
3. Even if the aforementioned breach is not accepted by the courts and it is of the belief that the standing was implied, the respondent's counsel requests that the Claim for Relief numbered 4 be struck as the applicant is, to the knowledge of the respondent's counsel, not a member of the crown's ministry of justice, and therefore has no right to litigate under criminal law. Furthermore, the applicant has not demonstrated any tort claims resulting from such alleged violations. Even if they were demonstrated, the listed Claim for Relief would not be an applicable relief to extinguish any damages.


Respectfully submitted for your information,
This 6th of May, 2025.

Mikami Law Firm, Trafalgar Street, Plot C5, Akra Tower​

 

[Smallfries]

I'm not disregarding Ibney at all, but I'm also here to say if the honorable smallfries sees the above points moot,

"I, WackJap, on behalf of the Crown, authorise MikamiLaw to represent me for the case Ayatha v. Rex, Case 6 (Ch. 2025)"

Rex shall have seventy-two hours from this post to reveal their Answer.

 

[Aya]

Date.06/05/2025
Docket. 6 Ch. 2025​

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA​

BETWEEN

Ayatha​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Applicants​

v.
Rex​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Respondents​

ENTREARY FOR DISMISSAL
The respondent's counsel hereby respectfully alleges that;

1. The applicant, in their above-listed complaint to the courts, have failed to explicitly satisfy the requirements as pursuant to the section of general court rules and procedures titled "Standing Application" (See. Preliminary Clauses, Section 8. The two paragraphs herein listed as 8a and 8b). The applicant has not demonstrated why their case satisfies 8a in clear terms, and therefore has breached the only requirement set forward for an initial complaint (See. "Filing and Answer", "Initial Complaint Format and Requirements").
2. Even if the aforementioned breach is not accepted by the courts and it is of the belief that the standing was implied, the respondent's counsel requests that the Claim for Relief numbered 3 be struck as a failure to meet Standing Application clause 8b, "Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favourable decision." The constitution lays out clear methods of a monarch being removed, and a court decision is not one of them.
3. Even if the aforementioned breach is not accepted by the courts and it is of the belief that the standing was implied, the respondent's counsel requests that the Claim for Relief numbered 4 be struck as the applicant is, to the knowledge of the respondent's counsel, not a member of the crown's ministry of justice, and therefore has no right to litigate under criminal law. Furthermore, the applicant has not demonstrated any tort claims resulting from such alleged violations. Even if they were demonstrated, the listed Claim for Relief would not be an applicable relief to extinguish any damages.


Respectfully submitted for your information,
This 6th of May, 2025.

Mikami Law Firm, Trafalgar Street, Plot C5, Akra Tower​

Motion of Opposition to the Entreaty for Dismissal:
1.
A. The inflation of the economy directly effects every single player and thus this is pursuant underneath Section 8A in that it effects myself directly. This is not implied, inflation effects everyone present in the economy, this is basic economics that we would expect the crown's defence to understand. This is also pursuant underneath 8B, as the Alexandria Criminal Code directly provides remedies underneath applicable law.

B. The violation of the constitution directly effects every single players rights due to the parliament's power which is supposedly granted via mandate of the people being subverted by an unelected and ceremonial head of state and thus this is pursuant underneath Section 8A in that it violates my rights indirectly, and 8B as the Alexandria Criminal Code directly provides remedies underneath applicable law.

2. Point ceded, relief number three should be struck from the record.

3. Relief 4 should not be struck precisely because I am not litigating, I am suggesting a course of action. Note the word "Should" instead of the words "will be"; While a citizen cannot prosecute there is nothing against appealing for the High Court to court order a prosecution on their behalf, if they couldn't, how would any criminal cases ever be raised without direct government witnesses? The added recommended sentencing is also permitted, as while citizens cannot prosecute, there is nothing in the law stating that a citizen cannot weigh in on a potential court case.

 

[Nacho]

Pretext: The Constitution specifically outlines the roles and functions of the different portions of government, however that fact has been called into question less than a month after its passing by Wackjap’s self-admitted frivolous pushing through of UBI, violating point 7 of the Monarchy clause, participating in a palace coup by seizing control over funds from Parliament causing the inflation of the money supply by 1.3-2%~.

Facts:

1. According to Part 1, Clause 3, Section 2 of the constitution it is clearly stated that: “Financial Power: Parliament controls government spending, taxation, and the budget.”
2. According to Part 4, Clause 19, Section 7 of the constitution it is clearly stated that: “Advisory Role. While the Monarch’s role is largely ceremonial, they may receive regular briefings and counsel from the Prime Minister and Cabinet, but must not exert influence over political decisions.”
3. With points one and two in mind, the action to institute UBI was not only frivolous but also directly contrary to the stated role of the king, and was in fact the role of the parliament.
4. This palace coup was not responded to by any of the presiding members of parliament and provided an influx of upwards of A£10,000~ into the economy, equivalent to 1.3%~ of the current economy but equal to 4%~ of the pre-hunter inflationary period.
5. Wackjap himself has clearly stated in his public press release that he himself knew that his actions were frivolous but did not in any way attempt to rectify the situation after it was pushed through unconstitutionally, and in fact bragged about his usurpation of parliamentary power via government channels and the @everyone command
6. According to the Alexandria Criminal Code (A.P.003) clause 8, section 1(B)(I) Treason is defined as “The act of abusing or attempting to abuse a government position to undermine the stability, security, or sovereignty of the Kingdom of Alexandria.”
7. According to the Alexandria Criminal Code (A.P.003) clause 8. section 1(A)(I) corruption is defined as “The act of abusing or attempting to abuse a government position for a private gain, where the action is inconsistent with the official duty of the position.”
8. With points six and seven in mind, Wackjap himself stood directly to gain from this institution of UBI as he is also a recipient of the UBI income, abusing his government position to undermine the stability via knowingly violating the constitution of the nation during its infant months for personal gain.
9. The Alexandria Criminal Code (A.P.003) was passed by parliament on April 14th and given ROYAL ASSENT on April 18th, meaning the King had to have read it by that date.
10. UBI was instituted on April the 28th, 10 days after the passing of the Alexandria Criminal Code: Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games (In the Original SC discord)
11. Wackjap himself claims he will do it again through indirect messaging in reply to another message here: https://discord.com/channels/1148937229616566273/1148937231315259432/1368734309891965028 (In the Original SC discord)

Claims for Relief:
With these facts in mind and clear and unobstructed evidence that Wackjap’s actions violate not only the laws of the land but also the nascent constitution I request the court to rule on the following reliefs:

1. The immediate removal of UBI until parliament makes and passes an act or law relating to it.
2. An immediate accounting of the amount of money injected into the economy by the Ministry of Trade and Finance.
3. Wackjap and the current ruling family should all lose their crowns, and a new Monarch should be elected from amongst the populace.
4. Wackjap should be charged with Conspiracy to Commit Corruption, Conspiracy to Commit Treason, Corruption and Treason and made to suffer the maximum penalty for all charges to set a harsh precedent against Monarchal overreach
5. Wackjap should be considered responsible for the inflation of the economy and should be saddled with repaying the total amount of UBI dispensed to the SC Government to be destroyed.

Post-Script: Alea iacta est, o’Imperator.

Plz cope thanks

 

[juniperfig]

BY ORDER OF THE CHANCERY​

Nacho is hereby charged with contempt of the Court for speaking out of turn and in a proceeding in which they were not invited.

The charged shall be fined £100.

Pro aeterna secta justitiae, et coronae aeternae vitae.​

 

[ColonelKai]

Date.09/05/2025
Docket. 6 Ch. 2025​

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA​

BETWEEN

Ayatha​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Applicants​

v.
Rex​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Respondents​

ENTREARY FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINE
The respondent's counsel hereby respectfully requests that;

1. The deadline set forth for the respondent's filings for an answer be extended by fourty-eight hours, or more or less as necessary for the Entreary for Dismissal to be granted or rejected as the outcome of the said Entreary for Dismissal is quite critical to the case and would change the approach of the respondent's counsel towards the case.


Respectfully submitted for your information,
This 9th of May, 2025.

Mikami Law Firm, Trafalgar Street, Plot C5, Akra Tower​

 

[Smallfries]

IN THE CHANCERY OF
THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO WRIT
​

The Defense has filed (what we believe is meant to be) an Entreaty of Continuance. We hesitantly grant this Writ, extending the deadline for the Defense's answer for forty-eight hours from the original deadline, or Sunday, 11:33 AM Eastern Standard Time. It should be noted that in Moyfr v. Crown, Case 4 (Ch. 2025), a similar Entreaty was filed to the Court. There, we denied the Entreaty because we believed it was "solely for our benefit," and asked that if the moving party needed more time, they should file for an Entreaty of Continuance on their own behalf. We stated firmly there that "Parties should always assume they will be required to file the next piece of their work in Court." (emphasis added).

We re-iterate and affirm this point; All parties must continue on with their work regardless of any outstanding business solely within the discretion of the Court at hand. It does not do to sit idly by while a motion or Entreaty is pending. You are only delaying the case further if you sit and wait for the presiding Judge(s) to rule on a motion or Entreaty while there is still work you could be doing.

We grant this Writ solely because we are prepared now to rule on the Entreaty of Dismissal as well. Had we not, we would have found the Defense in Contempt of Court.

-​

As to the Entreaty of Dismissal: There are three portions here. (1) An alleged failure of the Claimant to properly state the requirements of the Standing Application section of the general court rules and procedures, (2) a desire to strike the third claim for relief, and (3) a desire to strike the fourth claim for relief.

First, we agree with the Defense that the Claimant did not explicitly state the grounds on which they were suing. In the Chancery, it is important for clarity's sake that Claimants state clearly why they are suing, and what exactly grants them the right to sue if they are not appealing. However, as we have said before, the nation is new and procedures are fluid, and we find the Claimant's point is clearly implied that they are suing—and have standing—because they are a concerned citizen with a genuine interest, alleging a constitutional violation against the King with which they have no reasonable or effective alternative means to challenge.

Regardless of if this action undertaken by the King was either unconstitutional or is even still legally relevant due to action by Parliament, if the Claimant's statements are true then clearly they would have a genuine interest as a citizen to respond to claimed unconstitutional acts. This is distinguished from a scenario in which Parliament may commit an unconstitutional act, recognize it as such, and then walk it back. It is further distinguished from ColonelKai v. Crown, Case 5 (Ch. 2025), as in that case even if the alleged grievances by Parliament were taken as unconstitutional, Parliament undoubtedly provided a clear alternative relief for the Claimant's grievance, meriting no standing in a court.

In that ruling, we also stated "such vagueness leaves the Court guessing as to what to even begin deliberating on." Here, it is quite clear that the Claimant alleges the King took unconstitutional action, and it is clear as to what the Claimant believes the unconstitutional action is and how it is unconstitutional, and that the claimed unconstitutionality, even if now remedied by other action, should not stand uncontested. As a result, we will refuse to grant the Writ as to this point, though we ask the Claimant (and observers) in the future to please clearly spell out your claims and a base logical framework for how they may be true. A claimant is not required to fully lay out their case, nor do they need to absolutely prove their contention correct in their filing, but their claims must rise at least to the level of logical possibility, and must clearly and logically explain why they have standing in an explicit manner.

Second, the Claimant appears to concede with the Defense, so we shall grant the Writ of Dismissal as to section two and strike the third claim for relief due to the agreement of the parties. It should be noted that we do not answer any question of law with this ruling, and merely rule in the way we do because of the agreement betwixt the parties.

Third, the Chancery holds that it surely has the power to issue a Writ commanding a public servant to pursue any task that is under their legal responsibilities, or halt any task as required by justice or that is outside their responsibilities that they are doing within their scope of public employment. This is in some jurisdictions referred to as a Writ of Mandamus, and though not explicitly written in our Court's list of writs at this moment, is surely within the scope of what we can do.

However, we refuse to do so at this time. Writs of Mandamus, or whatever we should call them, are only necessary to grant before the Court reaches a verdict in matters of emergency, such as the continued unlawful action of a government employee, or the failure to act which causes continued harm.

Despite the claim of relief in a vacuum being potentially viable, in this case it is not. It is not appropriate at all to ask that someone is held criminally liable for deeds allegedly done in a civil or constitutional case. Criminal proceedings must be initiated by the Government except in the cases of Court Crimes, which the Claimant is not alleging. Because the Claimant is quite clearly asking us to both demand the Government charge the King with these crimes and then make him "suffer the maximum penalty for all charges" within a single claim, we cannot in good conscience allow this claim to survive, and instead grant the Writ of Dismissal as to this point.

So ordered.

 

[Smallfries]

The Defendant is found in Contempt of Court and is fined £250. If after twenty-four hours from this order the Defense has not procured an Answer, they will receive another Contempt charge, and this Court will give Default Judgment to the Plaintiff.

 

[Dr.Eksplosive]

View attachment 99
In the Chancery of the Kingdom of Alexandria
COMPLAINT ANSWER RE: Ayatha v. Rex

Prior to the presentation of this answer, the Crown would like to express its appreciation for the ongoing flexibility displayed by the Plaintiff and the Court in these proceedings.
​

Contestation of Facts:

I. 'According to Part 1, Clause 3, Section 2 of the constitution it is clearly stated that: “Financial Power: Parliament controls government spending, taxation, and the budget.”'

The Defence does not dispute this fact.

II. According to Part 4, Clause 19, Section 7 of the constitution it is clearly stated that: “Advisory Role. While the Monarch’s role is largely ceremonial, they may receive regular briefings and counsel from the Prime Minister and Cabinet, but must not exert influence over political decisions.”

The Defence does not dispute this fact.

III. With points one and two in mind, the action to institute UBI was not only frivolous but also directly contrary to the stated role of the king, and was in fact the role of the parliament.
The Defence disputes this fact. The Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate, through evidence or testimony, how this act was frivolous or contrary to the role of the King. The Defence intends to prove the necessity of this action if the Chancery deems this frivolous case of merit to proceed.

IV. This palace coup was not responded to by any of the presiding members of parliament and provided an influx of upwards of A£10,000~ into the economy, equivalent to 1.3%~ of the current economy but equal to 4%~ of the pre-hunter inflationary period.

The Defence disputes this fact. The Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate, through evidence or testimony, how these numbers were obtained. The Defence does not dispute the inaction of the parliament.

V. Wackjap himself has clearly stated in his public press release that he himself knew that his actions were frivolous but did not in any way attempt to rectify the situation after it was pushed through unconstitutionally, and in fact bragged about his usurpation of parliamentary power via government channels and the @everyone command

The Defence disputes this fact.

VI. According to the Alexandria Criminal Code (A.P.003) clause 8, section 1(B)(I) Treason is defined as “The act of abusing or attempting to abuse a government position to undermine the stability, security, or sovereignty of the Kingdom of Alexandria.”

The Defence does not dispute this fact.

VII. According to the Alexandria Criminal Code (A.P.003) clause 8. section 1(A)(I) corruption is defined as “The act of abusing or attempting to abuse a government position for a private gain, where the action is inconsistent with the official duty of the position.”

The Defence does not dispute this fact.

VIII. With points six and seven in mind, Wackjap himself stood directly to gain from this institution of UBI as he is also a recipient of the UBI income, abusing his government position to undermine the stability via knowingly violating the constitution of the nation during its infant months for personal gain.

The Defence disputes this fact. The King made this decision to help the general public who had been complaining for days for some form of UBI. To suggest that the King did so for personal profit is slanderous.

IX. The Alexandria Criminal Code (A.P.003) was passed by parliament on April 14th and given ROYAL ASSENT on April 18th, meaning the King had to have read it by that date.

The Defence does not dispute this fact.

X. UBI was instituted on April the 28th, 10 days after the passing of the Alexandria Criminal Code: Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games (In the Original SC discord)

The Defence does not dispute this fact.

XI. Wackjap himself claims he will do it again through indirect messaging in reply to another message here: https://discord.com/channels/1148937229616566273/1148937231315259432/1368734309891965028 (In the Original SC discord)

The Defence disputes this fact. The King is clearly being comedic and/or sarcastic, as proven by the use of the 'trollface cat'. To interpret it as serious would be rather silly.


Statement of Defense:

Your Honour, the actions of the King WackJap cannot be alleged as 'corrupt' or 'treasonous' when he did, in reality, take action and help resolve an issue that many had been complaining about for weeks - the lack of income for citizens. His actions were to give a minute, small UBI stimulus for citizens so that they may engage in lawful commerce with each other and the government without severely impacting the government's plans for the economy. And, as we can now see, the King's decision to provide UBI at 1 pound/min is far less than the government decision to do so at 2.5 pounds/min. (Act of Parliament - A.P.017 | Pay Scale Act). As such, the argument that the King caused damage to the nations economy is simply moot, as the government has demonstrated that it was actually an insufficient amount to be given to the citizens. As such, any argument that the King had caused damage to the economy is irrelevant as it is shown that his "injections" were far less than the current benchmark, and did not overlap. In no way has the King abused his position to benefit himself, and to accuse him of such without presenting evidence is simply conjecture, and borderline slander.

A supporting factor to this is the Crown Counsel's apparent inaction in pursuing any legal repercussions against the King. The Crown Counsel is by no means inactive, but it simply chose not to pursue this particular suit for it's own reasons. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any form of damage or harm that the King's proactive measures to preserve the happiness of his people caused. The Defence humbly requests that the Chancery toss this meaningless case against the King.

The Defence thanks the Plaintiff and this Court for their time once again and leaves the determination of adequate relief to the Court.

 

[Dr.Eksplosive]

The Defendant is found in Contempt of Court and is fined £250. If after twenty-four hours from this order the Defense has not procured an Answer, they will receive another Contempt charge, and this Court will give Default Judgment to the Plaintiff.

The Defence requests that the Chancery reconsider this ruling, as the Defence had assumed the 48 hours extension was granted from your Honour's message, not the original Entreary of Continuance, as is common practice in most legal systems, and since anything else was not specified.

 

[Smallfries]

The Defence requests that the Chancery reconsider this ruling, as the Defence had assumed the 48 hours extension was granted from your Honour's message, not the original Entreary of Continuance, as is common practice in most legal systems, and since anything else was not specified.

In our previous post on this thread ruling on the Entreaty of Continuance, the second sentence of that response contains the following: "We hesitantly grant this Writ, extending the deadline for the Defense's answer for forty eight hours from the original deadline, or Sunday, 11:33 AM Eastern Standard Time."

The Chancery cannot imagine where the Defense may have come to the understanding, or rather, the assumption, that the extension was granted relevant to the message granting the extension, nor can we understand how the Defense believed that in the first two sentences of that response "[nothing] else [was specified]."

We believe we were quite clear as to what frame of reference the extension was to be made—and if we were not, a clear, unambiguous, and precise statement of the exact time at which the Defense's Answer was due was given.

The Chancery will not be entertaining a reconsideration of the Contempt charge.

Further, the Chancery finds itself confused as to the situation of the Defense's counsel. We understood that the good sir ColonelKai was to represent the King. Are you authorized to speak on Sir Kai's behalf? If not, are you acting in your stead as an agent of the Government? If so, is the Government now taking the position that they shall represent the King and any other public servant in any matter in which they find themselves assaulted by litigation?

We will hold off on beginning discovery until our queries are satisfied.

 

[Dr.Eksplosive]

In our previous post on this thread ruling on the Entreaty of Continuance, the second sentence of that response contains the following: "We hesitantly grant this Writ, extending the deadline for the Defense's answer for forty eight hours from the original deadline, or Sunday, 11:33 AM Eastern Standard Time."

The Chancery cannot imagine where the Defense may have come to the understanding, or rather, the assumption, that the extension was granted relevant to the message granting the extension, nor can we understand how the Defense believed that in the first two sentences of that response "[nothing] else [was specified]."

We believe we were quite clear as to what frame of reference the extension was to be made—and if we were not, a clear, unambiguous, and precise statement of the exact time at which the Defense's Answer was due was given.

The Chancery will not be entertaining a reconsideration of the Contempt charge.

Further, the Chancery finds itself confused as to the situation of the Defense's counsel. We understood that the good sir ColonelKai was to represent the King. Are you authorized to speak on Sir Kai's behalf? If not, are you acting in your stead as an agent of the Government? If so, is the Government now taking the position that they shall represent the King and any other public servant in any matter in which they find themselves assaulted by litigation?

We will hold off on beginning discovery until our queries are satisfied.

Apologies about the confusion regarding the deadline. We would like to retract the motion if possible and apologise for wasting the court's time in that regard.

Regard the situation, ColonelKai was not the represent the King, but rather MikamiLaw. As the current Vice President and Founder of MikamiLaw, I am authorized to do so. To aid in the confusion, I have attatched our conversation, in which I confirmed I would take over the case.



I am not acting on behalf of the government in any way, shape or form in this case.

 

[Smallfries]

Regard the situation, ColonelKai was not the represent the King, but rather MikamiLaw. As the current Vice President and Founder of MikamiLaw, I am authorized to do so. To aid in the confusion, I have attatched our conversation, in which I confirmed I would take over the case.

I am not acting on behalf of the government in any way, shape or form in this case.

Thank you.

Discovery will last for seventy-two hours. Parties may end discovery early if they both consent, or one may request an extension.

 

[kaiserin]

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

Your honors,

I tender a request to this Court to provide briefing amicus curiae. I intend to offer briefing on the following:

1. The immunity of the sovereign from civil and criminal liabilities;
2. The original jurisdiction of this Honorable Court;
3. The constitutionality of the relief requested by the plaintiff.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney
General Counsel
Sovereign Kingdom Party of Alexandria

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.

 

[Aya]

The Plaintiff would like to request a 24 hour writ of continuance to produce opening remarks as I was incredibly busy this week and haven't had time to actually catch up on this court case, and today is my first day off in a while.

Actually, scratch that, I finished it far faster than I thought I would.

 

[Aya]

Opening Statement:

To the honorable Chancellor of the High Court, I ask you to observe the lack of effort the defence has provided in actually contesting the reality of what has occurred, preferring to instead wage lawfare by providing a bevy of nonsensical disagreements in an attempt to sow unwarranted doubt to protect the patron of their firm.

Take for example their first dispute; The statement that it was frivolous itself comes from the very horses mouth, the King literally called his initial request frivolous in his phrasing, which should set the scene for everything else. The King acting with executive impetus to institute UBI which falls underneath Parliament's authority, which they do not dispute with point 1, is somehow NOT contrary to the stated advisory and ceremonial role which explicitly "must not exert influence over political decisions" specified in point 2?

I'm sorry, but is the defence expecting this argument that would not get past toddlers to fly? I find it baffling that in writing the Defence would willingly contradict themselves, and expect anyone to fall for it. You do not need to be capable of high level logic to understand that exerting influence over a necessarily parliamentary and thus political matter is directly contrary to his stated role of being a Ceremonial, Advisory one?

Their next dispute however with point 4 is at least somewhat reasonable, as I didn't include my methodology with the initial case file. The methodology used to generate the estimate is as follows [(p*u)*24]*D where p = 20 as an average of players at both peak and non-peak hours, u is the UBI at £1 and D is the amount of days passed from when UBI was enacted, then rounded down to the nearest ten thousandths place as this was an incredibly rough initial calculation of which was to be followed up by a Ministry of Trade audit, as specified in my claims for relief.

The dispute after that however with point 5, they torch any sort of credibility they should have by disputing facts literally backed up by a public press release mentioned by the plaintiff, that the plaintiff was under the assumption nobody missed due to the ripples it left and the fact that it was literally within government channels. Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Next, "The Defence disputes this fact. The King made this decision to help the general public who had been complaining for days for some form of UBI. To suggest that the King did so for personal profit is slanderous." the reason why he made the decision does not counter the fact that the King is a direct recipient of UBI, and thus is personally profiting from this.

Finally, the defence pulls something that I was halfway certain was a joke until I realised they were being serious. "He was just kidding!" As a defence to a man explicitly stating that he will repeat his own actions of which he is on trial for which he initially did whilst posting the very same image- and attempting to claim that his quote unquote "jokes" don't actually contain his real motives and actions he's planning on? Wackjap "joked" about adding UBI, then let it happen after it was pushed through illegally, and now he's "joking" about continuing to violate the constitution; is that not a repeat of what happened before?

Your Honour, I ask you to see reason and to deliver the ruling that is obviously the only correct one as the Defence has so utterly failed in their job in providing any form of convincing argument, resorting to outright ignoring the points they do cede in a fleeting attempt to make their disputes in any way shape or form make sense. This is even true in their floundering attempt at a statement of defence which does not even attempt to interface with the legalities of the King's actions whilst attempting to downplay the effect upon the economy as if the King's actions were excusable even if it were a paltry sum. They have shown disrespect to both you, myself and the law of Alexandria in total by presenting these arguments as if they were to be seriously considered when at best they are mere intellectual stumbling blocks manufactured to misdirect and to create doubt where there should be none.

See reason, see through their nonsense.