Lawsuit: Pending Lux Group v. Ministry of Development, Case 2 (Mag Ct., 2026)

[SrICEKING]

Claimant: LUX Group

Defendant: Ministry of Development (MOD)

I. Introduction

1. This action arises from the Ministry of Development’s (MOD) unlawful and frivolous enforcement of zoning regulations against the Claimant’s property located at c-11-victoria-st.
2. MOD has issued a warning alleging that the property exceeds the build height limit by seven blocks.
3. MOD has further threatened fines of £150 per day, despite its own regulations limiting such fines to £50 per day for build height violations.

II. Jurisdiction

1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the relevant Acts of Parliament governing zoning enforcement and administrative review.

III. Statement of Facts

1. , MOD issued a warning to the Claimant regarding alleged violations of the build height limit.
2. MOD claimed the property exceeded the permitted height by seven blocks.
3. MOD threatened to impose fines of £150 per day of non-compliance.
4. The applicable regulations, MOD Zoning Regulations of August 28, Section 2, expressly state:
   • Violations of the Build Height Limit shall subject the plot owner to a £50 fine per day, provided that notice has been issued and a grace period of 14 days has expired.
   • No provision authorizes MOD to impose fines exceeding £50 per day for build height violations.
5. MOD’s announcements of October 31 did not suspend or amend Section 2 of the August 28 regulations.

IV. Causes of Action

Count 1 – Frivolous Enforcement

1. MOD’s enforcement action is frivolous in nature, as it seeks to impose penalties beyond those authorized by its own regulations.
2. Such conduct constitutes an abuse of administrative discretion and undermines the principles of fair enforcement.

Count 2 – Exceeding Regulatory Authority

1. MOD’s threatened fines of £100 per day exceed the statutory and regulatory limits of £50 per day for build height violations.
2. MOD is empowered to issue fines not exceeding £200 per day in general, but Section 2 specifically caps build height violations at £50 per day.
3. By threatening fines in excess of this cap, MOD has acted ultra vires (beyond its legal authority).

V. Relief Requested

The Claimant respectfully requests that this Court:

· Declare MOD’s threatened enforcement action unlawful and void.

· Enjoin MOD from imposing fines exceeding £50 per day for build height violations.

· Order MOD to reimburse the Claimant’s legal expenses in the amount of £1500, representing the fees incurred in retaining legal services (SrICEKING) to contest MOD’s frivolous and excessive enforcement.

Award the Claimant £500 in compensatory damages for the emotional distress, mental anguish, and disruption of peace of mind caused by MOD’s unlawful threats and extravagenting of fines.

· Award any further relief this Court deems just and proper, including costs associated with defending against MOD’s extravagenting of fines beyond the regulatory limit.

VI. Conclusion

MOD’s actions represent both frivolous enforcement and enforcement exceeding regulation. The Claimant seeks judicial intervention to restrain MOD from continuing such unlawful practices.







Reference

Picture A

 

[Zodd]

This appears to be something that the Magistrates' court is capable of handling and is within their original jurisdiction of handling civil matters - K.A Const. §III Art. 16

As such this case will be remanded down to the Magistrates' Court for their review.​

 

[SrICEKING]

This is taking so long

 

[lcn]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF SUMMONS
The Ministry of Development is required to appear before the Magistrates' Court In the case of
Lux Group v. Ministry of Development, Case 2 (Mag Ct., 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 Magistrates).​

 

[lcn]

The Ministry of Development has failed to appear within 72 hours as required. The Ministry of Development is hereby charged with Contempt of a Judicial Officer and shall be fined £100. (See A.P. 01-006 §18)

The Ministry of Development has 72 hours to file their Answer to Complaint.

 

[SoggehToast]

Soggeh T. Oast for the Ministry of Development, your honor.

 

[lcn]

Soggeh T. Oast for the Ministry of Development, your honor.

Please file your Answer to Complaint.

The Ministry of Development has failed to appear within 72 hours as required. The Ministry of Development is hereby charged with Contempt of a Judicial Officer and shall be fined £100. (See A.P. 01-006 §18)

The Ministry of Development has 72 hours to file their Answer to Complaint.

You have 72 hours from this message to do so.

 

[SoggehToast]

ENTREATY FOR PROMPTING

Your honor,

To my knowledge, it has always been the procedure of this Court to fine the Crown Counsel, rather than the Crown for Contempt of a Judicial Officer. In this case, I am the Crown Counsel who is litigating this case.

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[lcn]

ENTREATY FOR PROMPTING

Your honor,

To my knowledge, it has always been the procedure of this Court to fine the Crown Council, rather than the Crown for Contempt of a Judicial Officer. In this case, I am the Crown Council who is litigating this case.

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria

The court does not concur, noting recent precedents from Ameslap v. Crown, Case 12 (Ch. 2025) (#84) and The Crown v. pricelessAgrari, Case 20 (Mag. Ct., 2025) (#17).

 

[SoggehToast]

ENTREATY FOR PROMPTING

Your honor,

I do not have personal knowledge of the details of The Crown v. pricelessAgrari, Case 20 (Mag. Ct., 2025), as I was not the litigator in that matter.

However, with respect to Ameslap v. Crown, Case 12 (Ch. 2025), I can attest that I was fined by the Court for that violation. Although this post reflects that the “Crown,” as a legal entity, was fined, I was the individual upon whom the fine was ultimately imposed by this Court.

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[SrICEKING]

Your Honor, the defendant in this matter is attempting to circumvent clearly established policies, namely the Zoning Regulations promulgated by the Ministry of Development. This action constitutes a flagrant violation of the specific covenants to which the Lux Group agreed upon its Incorporation and registration.

We respectfully petition this Court to uphold the rule of law and hold accountable any individual who would misuse their official position to target and unfairly discredit a legitimate business owner.

Furthermore, we humbly request the Court's consideration of the aforementioned awards, which we believe are pertinent to these proceedings.

Respectfully submitted,

 

[lcn]

Your Honor, the defendant in this matter is attempting to circumvent clearly established policies, namely the Zoning Regulations promulgated by the Ministry of Development. This action constitutes a flagrant violation of the specific covenants to which the Lux Group agreed upon its Incorporation and registration.

We respectfully petition this Court to uphold the rule of law and hold accountable any individual who would misuse their official position to target and unfairly discredit a legitimate business owner.

Furthermore, we humbly request the Court's consideration of the aforementioned awards, which we believe are pertinent to these proceedings.

Respectfully submitted,

Please do not speak unless you have been called to do so by the court. Doing so again may result in a Contempt of a Judicial Officer charge. This filing is struck from the record.

 

[lcn]

ENTREATY FOR PROMPTING

Your honor,

I do not have personal knowledge of the details of The Crown v. pricelessAgrari, Case 20 (Mag. Ct., 2025), as I was not the litigator in that matter.

However, with respect to Ameslap v. Crown, Case 12 (Ch. 2025), I can attest that I was fined by the Court for that violation. Although this post reflects that the “Crown,” as a legal entity, was fined, I was the individual upon whom the fine was ultimately imposed by this Court.

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria

The court still does not concur but will remind the Minister that Contempt of a Judicial Officer charges may be appealed in accordance with A.P. 01-006 §18.(1).

 

[SoggehToast]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT

Lux Group
Applicant/Plaintiff
v.

Ministry of Development
Respondent/Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Crown AFFIRMS the MOD issued a warning to the Claimant regarding alleged violations of the build height limit.
2. The Crown AFFIRMS the MOD claimed the property exceeded the permitted height by seven blocks.
3. The Crown AFFIRMS that the MOD advised that non-compliance would result in fines of £150 per day.
4. The Crown AFFIRMS that MOD Zoning Regulations of August 28, Section 2, expressly state:

• Violations of the Build Height Limit shall subject the plot owner to a £50 fine per day, provided that notice has been issued and a grace period of 14 days has expired.

However, the Crown DENIES the MOD Zoning Regulations of August 28 expressly state that no provision authorizes MOD to impose fines exceeding £50 per day for build height violations; however, the Crown acknowledges that MOD Zoning Regulations of August 28, Section 2 contain no provision that expressly authorizes MOD to impose fines exceeding £50 per day specifically for build height violations.
5. The Crown AFFIRMS the MOD’s announcements of October 31 did not suspend or amend Section 2 of the August 28 regulations.

II. DEFENSES
The Applicant simply has not articulated a coherent legal theory which establishes the necessity for any form of relief whatsoever. It is true that a warning was issued by the Ministry of Development, which advised that non-compliance would result in fines which succeed regulations imposed by their own internal ministry policy; however, these fines were never executed, the claimant never suffered financial loss, and the Applicant has failed to demonstrate any entitlement to relief. The Applicant has also argued the Ministry acted ultra vires, which is incorrect. The Ministry did not exceed its statutory authority granted by Parliament, and any departure from its own internal procedures, while problematic and potentially relevant to other matters, does not constitute ultra vires conduct.

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[lcn]

Discovery shall now begin and last for seventy-two hours. Discovery may be abridged at the request of both parties, or extended if just cause is given.

 

[lcn]

Discovery has ended. Claimant has seventy-two hours to file their opening statement.

 

[SrICEKING]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA

Lux Group, Applicant/Plaintiff
v.
Ministry of Development, Respondent/Defendant

APPLICANT’S OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

The Applicant, Lux Group LLC, respectfully submits this Opening Statement to clarify the core legal issues at stake and to demonstrate why the Respondent’s Answer is insufficient as a matter of law and fact.

I. The Central Issue: A Threat of Unlawful Action
This case does not concern whether a fine was collected, but whether a government ministry threatened to impose a fine it had no legal authority to impose. The Respondent’s Defense erroneously frames this as a mere internal procedural error with no consequence. This is a fundamental mischaracterization.

The Ministry of Development’s own promulgated Zoning Regulations of August 28 create a specific, limited penalty for build height violations: £50 per day, following notice and a 14-day grace period (Section 2). The Ministry’s warning to the Applicant explicitly threatened a fine of £150 per day—a penalty three times the lawful maximum.

A government agency’s formal threat to enforce a penalty that exceeds its statutory or regulatory authority is a quintessential example of ultra vires conduct. It is an assertion of a power not granted by law. The threat itself creates a tangible injury: it coerces compliance under an unlawful penalty scheme, distorts the legal relationship between the state and the citizen, and undermines the rule of law by placing the ministry above its own regulations.

II. The Respondent’s Admission and Flawed Defense
The Respondent’s Answer effectively concedes the pivotal fact. It AFFIRMS the warning threatened a £150/day fine. It AFFIRMS the August 28 regulations set a £50/day fine. It AFFIRMS no subsequent regulation amended this penalty. Its only hedge is a denial that the regulations “expressly state that no provision authorizes” a higher fine—a lawyerly distinction without a difference. The principle of delegated authority is clear: a ministry possesses only the powers expressly or necessarily granted. There is no grant of authority for a 300% penalty increase.

The Defense that “no fine was ever executed” and “no financial loss was suffered” is irrelevant and dangerously flawed. It suggests a ministry may threaten any unlawful action with impunity, so long as it does not finally execute it. This would eviscerate judicial review and allow the state to bully citizens with baseless threats. The injury is the threat of unlawful action, not merely its culmination.

Furthermore, the Defense’s claim that departing from “internal procedures… does not constitute ultra vires conduct” is incorrect. When those “internal procedures” are in fact the publicly promulgated regulations that define the scope of the ministry’s enforcement powers, a violation is a direct act beyond its legal authority.

III. The Need for Relief
The Applicant seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court. We require a clear ruling that:

1. The Ministry of Development’s threatened fine of £150 per day for a build height violation exceeded its authority under the Zoning Regulations of August 28.
2. The Ministry is bound by the penalties set forth in its own regulations.

Such a declaration is necessary and proper. It will prevent the Ministry from applying this unlawful penalty against the Applicant or any other citizen in the future. It reaffirms that the government and its citizens are equally bound by the law as written.

The Respondent’s position—that it can threaten penalties it cannot lawfully impose—is unsustainable. The Court should reject it, clarify the law, and grant the requested relief.

Respectfully submitted,

SrICEKING
Chairman / CEO, Lux Group LLC

 

[lcn]

Defendant now has seventy-two hours to file their opening statement.

 

[lcn]

Please note I have resigned from magistrate and am no longer on this case