Lawsuit: Pending Dartanboy v. Crown, Case 1 (Ch. 2026)

Dartanboy

Dartanboy

New member
Member of Parliament
Parliamentarian
Dartanboy
Dartanboy
Member of Parliament
Joined
Apr 12, 2025
Messages
27
IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CIVIL ACTION

Case No. 16

Dartanboy
Claimant

v.

The Crown
Defendant

CASE FILING
1. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
Constitution, Part III, Section 15 states that the Chancery has "exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional questions, including the interpretation and application of the Constitution". This case is about the application of Constitutional Law and how it relates to the actions of the Speaker of Parliament.

2. PARTIES
1. Dartanboy (The Claimant)
2. The Crown of the Kingdom of Alexandria (The Crown; The Defendant).

3. FACTS​

(all times are in Central Time as that is my time zone)
1. The Constitution of Alexandria (the "Constitution") is the supreme law of the land.
2. Constitution, Part V, Section 22 states "Every player has freedom of political communication, press, and media".
3. Constitution, Part I, Section 4 states "The Speaker protects the rights of Members of Parliament to speak freely within the Parliament."
4. The Claimant was elected to the Parliament by the people of Alexandria on October 21, 2025 in the October 2025 Election.
5. On October 26, 2025, at 11:51 AM the Claimant responded to a message sent by Prime Minister Capt11543, where the Claimant claimed "The Prime Minister is lying" and asked a rhetorical question to get the point across (see Open List Act Debate screenshots below).
6. After just 23 minutes, the Speaker of Parliament stated "Accusing someone of intentionally lying in such a disrespectful and unprofessional manner will not be tolerated in this chamber. Member of Parliament Dartanboy is ordered to strike his message and refrain from such conduct in the future" (see Open List Act Debate screenshots below).
7. Immediately thereafter, the Claimant stated "Political communication is a Constitutional Right, and the purpose of this right is precisely to prevent the Parliament from abusing its power to silence those who criticize it. I will not strike my statement and I will not be silent when I see injustice" (see Open List Act Debate screenshots below).
8. Shortly thereafter, the Speaker of Parliament stated "The Constitutional Right of Political Communication can still be exercised while communicating in a respectful and professional manner. Member of Parliament Dartanboy is hereby being formally warned and is still ordered to strike his statement" (see Open List Act Debate screenshots below).
9. The Claimant, wishing to exercise his right to political communication and to speak freely in the Parliament, responded with a single word: "No" (see Open List Act Debate screenshots below).
10. The Speaker suspended the Claimant for twenty-four hours (nearly 21 hours remaining at the time of filing this suit), although claimed to do so for eight hours (see Open List Act Debate screenshots below).

4. EVIDENCE​

1761512787801.png
1761512883353.png

5. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Text in Part V, Section 22 of the Constitution guarantees the Freedom of Political Communication, yet the Speaker of Parliament denied the Claimant this freedom.
2. Text in Part I, Section 4 of the Constitution guarantees the Speaker "protects the rights of Members of Parliament to speak freely within the Parliament" yet the Speaker of Parliament denied the Claimant the opportunity to speak freely.

6. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

1. The Speaker of Parliament publicly apologize in #government-announcements for their overreach of power, failure to uphold Constitutional rights, and failure to do their duty as prescribed by the Constitution.
2. 100 pounds in Legal Fees for the time and effort the Claimant is putting into this case.

7. STATEMENT OF TRUTH​

I believe that the facts stated in this Claim are true. I swear that any and all statements to the court are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I understand the ramifications of violation of such oath.
SIGNED. Dartanboy. Self-Representing.
This 26th day of October, 2025.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE CHANCELLERY FOR REVIEW.
 
IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR AN EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

As an elected representative of the people in the Parliament, it is vital that I be permitted to speak in its chambers. Not being able to do so prevents me from voting on resolutions, motions, and bills. It prevents the people who voted for me and the Independent Bloc from having their voice heard in Parliament. It prevents me, as a member of the opposition, from addressing the Majority with due vigor.

As Parliament will continue to take actions and do votes while I am suspended, this can cause immense and irreversible harm not only to me, but to the entire Kingdom, by silencing their voices and part of the Government's built-in accountability.

As such, I request that my permissions to speak freely in the Parliament be restored for the duration of this lawsuit.
 
Your honours,
I, as the Speaker of the Parliament and a Journalist, would like to ask for permission to file an amicus curae brief about "the boundaries of Freedom of Speech and Political Communication".
 
AsexualDinosaur said:
@Dartanboy
Is there still a wish to move forward with this case?​
Click to expand...
I do, however the Emergency Injunction is no longer required.

Also, as I am no longer an MP, I seek to modify the Prayer for Relief as follows:

1. The Speaker of Parliament publicly apologize in #government-announcements for their overreach of power, failure to uphold Constitutional rights, and failure to do their duty as prescribed by the Constitution by preventing (former) Member of Parliament Dartanboy from speaking freely in the Parliament.
2. 250 pounds in Legal Fees for the time and effort the Claimant is putting into this case.
3. A public commitment in #government-announcements from the Parliament to upholding the Constitution and a commitment to no longer muting Members of Parliament for political speech.
4. An additional public apology from former Speaker Rubilubi55 for failure to uphold the Constitution while Speaker.
 
CCA.png
IN THE CHANCERY OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF SUMMONS
The Crown (@SoggehToast) is required to appear before the Chancery In the case of

Dartanboy v. Crown, Case 1 (Ch. 2026)

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.​
 
IN THE HONORABLE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO SUMMONS

Your Honor,

Soggeh T. Oast here, ready to represent the Crown.

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
SoggehToast said:
IN THE HONORABLE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO SUMMONS

Your Honor,

Soggeh T. Oast here, ready to represent the Crown.

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
Click to expand...
Please file an answer to the complaint within 48 hours.​
 
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY OF DISMISSAL

Your Honor,

The Crown respectfully believes that the plaintiff has not met the standing requirements under the Court Rules and Procedure, in connection with applicable law. The Plaintiff has asked this Court to rule on internal parliamentary matters, but they are statutorily prohibited from doing so. Based on that prohibition, there is no legally cognizable injury the plaintiff may legally establish, and no remedy this court can provide.

I. NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY
A.P. 01-044 provides that that "all procedural rules of parliament are to be adjudicated by parliament, and no other body shall have the authority to make determinations on the internal procedures of the Parliamentary body." This provision establishes Parliament's exclusive authority over its internal procedures and prevents the Chancery from ruling on this issue.

This Chancery has previously affirmed that the Constitution provides a similar protection for internal Parliamentary procedure. In Rubilubi55 v. Crown, Case 13 (Ch. 2025), the Court held that "standing orders are parliamentary procedure and are not law and do not grant Parliament any more power than they already have, they are a set of rules and order to maintain quorum within its chambers." The Speaker of Parliament has a constitutional responsibility to maintain order, facilitate debate, and ensure Parliamentary procedure is upheld under K.A. Const. § I Art. 4. When the Speaker muted the Claimant, they were acting in their official parliamentary capacity, pursuant to their constitutional prerogatives and duties. Adjudicating on Parliamentary procedure would constitute making determinations on the internal procedures of Parliament, which is expressly prohibited under statute, and implied by the structure of the Constitution.

II. FAILURE TO MEET STANDING REQUIREMENTS
The General Court Rules and Procedures provide the following requirements which Claimant's must meet to have standing:
Standing Application
In order for a plaintiff to pursue a case, they must show the following to the court:
  • Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; is affected by an application of law; or has a genuine interest as a citizen and there are no reasonable and effective alternative means to challenge the law.
  • Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favourable decision.
Sua Sponte Dismissal
Failure to meet all parts of ‘Standing Application’ can be grounds for a Sua Sponte dismissal.
Click to expand...
The Speaker muting the Claimant according to internal Parliamentary procedures cannot constitute a legally cognizable injury, because this would require a finding that the conduct alleged was unlawful.

Determining whether the Speaker's conduct was unlawful would necessarily demand that the Chancery adjudicate on the internal procedures of Parliament. This Court is barred from making any such determination. If the Court cannot establish that a legally cognizable injury exists, it is not possible for the first standing requirement to be satisfied. The other standing requirements apply to laws. However, this Court has previously affirmed that Parliamentary procedures "are not law." See Rubilubi55 v. Crown, Case 13 (Ch. 2025). Therefore, the standing requirements provided in the General Court Rules and Procedures cannot, even theoretically, be satisfied. Likewise, without a finding of wrongdoing, there is no remedy available that the Claimant is entitled to under applicable law.

IN SUMMARY:
  • A.P. 01-044 and the Constitution prevent this Court from adjudicating on internal parliamentary procedure.
  • The Speaker's muting constitutes internal parliamentary procedure.
  • No legally cognizable injury or remedy can be provided without a finding of unlawful conduct.
The Crown respectfully requests for this case to be missed with prejudice, as the conduct in question is within the exclusive purview of Parliament to establish internally.

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY OF CONTINUANCE

Your Honor,

The Crown respectfully requests a continuance of the deadline to produce its Response to Complaint until 24 hours after this Court's ruling on the pending Entreaty of Dismissal. The defense we select necessarily depends on the outcome of that Entreaty.

Respectfully submitted,

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