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

ko531

ko531

New member
ko531
ko531
State Prosecutor
Joined
Apr 12, 2025
Messages
12
IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
PETITION

Ko531
Plaintiff

v.

The Crown
Defendant

INTRODUCTION
This is a Petition to the court to review the classification status of information. The information in question is the discussions between chancellors about Entreaty for Prior Ponderance 1 (Ch. 2025) in which was declassified immediately after the verdict as set in 4(7) of the Government Information Act. This same section also allows the Chancery to deem parts of the information classified. Yet the Chancery denied the entirety of this FOI request as classified information. It is hard to see how any of the information about potential damages in the outback would be deemed classified let alone all of it. So as set in 9(3) of the Government Information Act, I am petitioning the Magistrate court to review the classification level of these discussions.


I. PARTIES
1. Ko531
2. The Crown

II. FACTS
1. The Government Information Act section 4(7) states: " Judicial discussions for ongoing court cases are classified by default and no player outside the discussion may be given access to view them, regardless of clearance. The classification expires when the verdict is announced, however the Chancery may classify parts of the discussion to prevent confidential evidence from being released."
2. The verdict for Entreaty for Prior Ponderance 1 (Ch. 2025) was released on May 4th causing the classification on the Chancery's discussions to expire
3. On May 7th, I (ko531) made a FOI request to view the chancery's discussions on ENtraty for Prior Ponderance 1 (Ch. 2025)
4. This FOI request was denied as the entire discussion was deemed classified.
5. The Government Information act 9(3) states: "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."

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Section 9(3) of the Government Information act states: "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." As a citizen who has a significant interest in this classified information, I am Petitioning the Magistrates Court to review and determine whether or not the Chancery's discussion and deliberations on Entreaty for Prior Ponderance 1 (Ch. 2025) is justly classified.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. Release any and all information deemed not justly classified to myself (ko531) as per my FOI request made to the MOJ.

V. EVIDENCE
1746668500268.png
 
Your honour,

The Chancery requests to submit an Amicus Curiae brief regarding the following:

The constitutionality of the Government Information Act,
The separation of powers between Parliament and the Courts.

The Chancery understands that such a request is unusual before acknowledgement of a petition. However, the Chancery believes this unusual request is the lesser of two harms, and thus I humbly offer this request to you.

Pro aeterna secta justitiae, et coronae aeternae vitae.
 
juniperfig said:
Your honour,

The Chancery requests to submit an Amicus Curiae brief regarding the following:

The constitutionality of the Government Information Act,
The separation of powers between Parliament and the Courts.

The Chancery understands that such a request is unusual before acknowledgement of a petition. However, the Chancery believes this unusual request is the lesser of two harms, and thus I humbly offer this request to you.

Pro aeterna secta justitiae, et coronae aeternae vitae.
Click to expand...
Permission to respond to the Amicus Curiae request? I believe I have insight that would show that this type of brief can't be heard which would be important to consider before ruling on this request.
 
MCA.png
IN THE MAGISTRATES' COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF SUMMONS
The King's rightfully appointed Government are required to appear before the Magistrates' Court In the case of
Ko531 v. The Crown, Case 8 (Mag. Ct., 2025)

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 Magistrates).​
 
juniperfig said:
Your honour,

The Chancery requests to submit an Amicus Curiae brief regarding the following:

The constitutionality of the Government Information Act,
The separation of powers between Parliament and the Courts.

The Chancery understands that such a request is unusual before acknowledgement of a petition. However, the Chancery believes this unusual request is the lesser of two harms, and thus I humbly offer this request to you.

Pro aeterna secta justitiae, et coronae aeternae vitae.
Click to expand...
As The Chancery is a party of significant relevance to this case, the court denies this request for an Amicus Curiae brief.​

ko531 said:
Permission to respond to the Amicus Curiae request? I believe I have insight that would show that this type of brief can't be heard which would be important to consider before ruling on this request.
Click to expand...
With the Amicus Curiae brief having been denied, this request is subsequently redundant. The request to respond is denied.​


Dartanboy said:
I am present on behalf of the Crown.
Click to expand...
The Crown will have 48 hours to provide an Answer to the complaint.​
 
IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

ANSWER TO THE FACTS
1. AFFIRM The Government Information Act section 4(7) states: " Judicial discussions for ongoing court cases are classified by default and no player outside the discussion may be given access to view them, regardless of clearance. The classification expires when the verdict is announced, however the Chancery may classify parts of the discussion to prevent confidential evidence from being released."
2. AFFIRM The verdict for Entreaty for Prior Ponderance 1 (Ch. 2025) was released on May 4th, however NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY causing the classification on the Chancery's discussions to expire
3. AFFIRM On May 7th, I (ko531) made a FOI request to view the chancery's discussions on Entreaty for Prior Ponderance 1 (Ch. 2025)
4. AFFIRM This FOI request was denied as the entire discussion was deemed classified.
5. AFFIRM The Government Information act 9(3) states: "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."

DEFENSES
After significant investigation, the Crown believes the Government Information Act is unconstitutional, and thus cannot be enforced. We will elaborate in our Opening Statements.
 
Discovery will last for a period of 72 hours, unless both parties agree to end discovery early.​
 
As we're well past the period for discovery, the plaintiff will have 72 hours to provide their Opening statements.​
 
I request a 24 hour extension as I have been busy with Finals and family matters the last 3 days
 
Granted, you will have an additional 24 hours from the original deadline.​
 
IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
OPENING STATEMENT

This case is extremely clear, the Government Information Act deems the Magistrate court as the court of disputed returns when it comes to the classification status of information. I was denied my FOI request by the chancery with no reason attached so I am exercising my right challenging to see if the classified information is justly classified. The Government Information Act also gives the ability to classified certain parts of requested information but the Chancery failed to do this and classified everything. It is hard to believe that every message sent between one another when deciding the Entreaty for Prior Ponderance 1 (Ch. 2025) is justly classified.

The Defense is claiming the Government Information Act is unconstitutional yet this court can not hear or decide such arguments. Something like the constitutionality of a bill is something the Chancery must decide but yet they are an interested party in this matter.

For these reasons, this is why I am petitioning the Magistrate Court to review the classified information and deem exactly what is and isn't justly classified and to release the unclassified material to myself as per my FOI request.
 
The Crown will have 72 hours to provide their Opening Statements.​
 
IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
OPENING STATEMENT

ON CONSTITUTIONALITY
The Constitution establishes that "The Chancery is the highest court of the nation" (see Alexandrian Constitution, Part III, Section 15). As such, the Magistrate's Court is not able to override the Chancery's decisions.

The Government Information Act side-steps this Constitutional clause, stating "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" which allows the Magistrate's Court to overturn the Chancery's decision, which is unconstitutional.

ON THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT'S POWERS
The Plaintiff claims:
The Defense is claiming the Government Information Act is unconstitutional yet this court can not hear or decide such arguments. Something like the constitutionality of a bill is something the Chancery must decide but yet they are an interested party in this matter.
Click to expand...

And the Defense vehemently denies this claim. The Magistrate's court can hear and decide such arguments, so long as the Plaintiff's Case-in-Chief is not itself a question of constitutionality.

However, if the Plaintiff is correct (although the Defense argues they are not), then this lawsuit must be dismissed as this would put this case under the jurisdiction of the Chancery.
 
As no witnesses testimony has been requested by either party, the court will hear closing statements now.
Starting with the Plaintiff they will have 72 hours to provide their statements.
Following that, The Crown will have 72 hours to provide their statements.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top