Lawsuit: Adjourned Entreaty of Removal for Case 3 (Mag. Ct., 2026)

[Nim]

IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY OF REMOVAL

---

​

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Thritystone petitions the Chancellor to remove from the Magistrates Court the question of emergency relief suspending the January 2026 General Election. The Constitution reserves election disputes exclusively to the Chancery. The Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to halt a national election.

---

​

II. BACKGROUND

On January 22, 2026, the Crown filed criminal charges against Thritystone in the Magistrates Court. See The Crown v. Thritystone, Case 3 (Mag. Ct., 2026) #1. The same day, the Crown sought emergency relief to suspend the January 2026 General Election, which the Magistrate granted. See id. at #5. On January 25, 2026, the Magistrate reaffirmed the suspension. The election remains halted.

---

​

III. ARGUMENT

K.A. Const. Art. 15 grants the Chancery "exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional questions... as well as disputed returns arising from elections, including challenges to election results."

K.A. Const. Art. 16 limits the Magistrates Court to "criminal and civil matters, except those explicitly reserved for the Chancery."

The Magistrate has jurisdiction over the criminal charges against Thritystone. The Magistrate does not have jurisdiction to suspend a national election. That is an election dispute—reserved exclusively to this Court.

---

​

IV. RELIEF REQUESTED

Defendant respectfully requests that the Chancellor:

1. REMOVE the question of emergency relief to the Chancery;
2. VACATE the Order suspending the election as issued without jurisdiction; and
3. ADJUDICATE whether election-related relief is warranted under the proper standard.

The criminal case may proceed in the Magistrates Court.

---

​

Respectfully submitted,

Nim

Counsel for Defendant Thritystone

January 25, 2026

 

[ColonelKai]

Date.26/01/2026
Docket. 3 Mag. 2026​

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA​

BETWEEN

the Crown​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Applicants​

v.
Thritystone​

⠀⠀Respondents​

RESPONSE TO ENTREATY
1. We, as the Crown and the original Applicant, would like to make a response to this entreaty. It is first and foremost important that this matter be dealt with swiftly as possible, without compromising the legal integrity, and as such, we will be filing our response directly & immediately. If a response is unwarranted and is to be rejected, then we ask that the rest of this message is struck.
2. The Applicant does not contest the idea that there may be overlap and inconsistency in the application of jurisdiction in this matter. The matter is originally criminal - whose court of original jurisdiction is the Magistrate - yet also deals with the results of an election as a secondary matter - whose jurisdiction lays within the Chancery. We also do not contest the idea that the matter of the electoral integrity can and perhaps should be removed from the original case and elevated into this court, however, it should be taken with great care as both cases would be quite intertwined, and without the criminal case having been finalised, it becomes quite difficult to adjudicate the validity of the election.
3. We ask that, as the emergency relief was granted twice by the Magistrate, the order is not vacated without being ruled on, creating an undue burden on both the applicant and the People of Alexandria.​

SIGNED. Sec. ColonelKai. Solicitor General
Office of Litigation, 5601 MoJ Building, New Hamilton
This 25th of January 2026.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE CHANCELLERY FOR REVIEW.

 

[AsexualDinosaur]

I am unsure as to what the defendant is attempting to remove from the Magistrates’ court in this matter. The question before the Magistrate is one of alleged electoral fraud and bribery - There is no dispute over the results of elections.

If the Magistrate sees fit to suspend the elections in consideration of a case brought before them, then that is within their purview.

The Magistrate correctly references Sovereign Kingdom Party v. Crown, Case 9 (Ch. 2025), #9 "To grant a Writ of Emergency Relief, a Claimant must show that they suffer some great harm that is intolerable for a reasonable person to bear under the circumstances" -- and ruled in consideration of this precedent.

The Chancery denies the defendant’s entreaty for removal.​