Lawsuit: In Session Moyfr v. The Crown, Case 4 (Ch. 2025)

[huesca12]

In the Chancery of the Kingdom of Alexandria
COMPLAINT ANSWER RE: Moyer v. Crown

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 - "The existing constitution of the Kingdom of Alexandria lacks a clear definition and criteria for granting citizenship."

The Defense does not contest the first fact.

II - "The existing constitution of the Kingdom of Alexandria does not give Parliament the authority to grant citizenship."

The Defense denies the second fact.

Section 3 of Part I of the Constitution empowers the Parliament with "the authority to create, amend, and repeal laws." Barring any explicit provision for the extension of citizenship to players, it is entirely within the constitutional purview of the Crown to legislate on questions of citizenship. Naturally, such legislation must itself be constitutionally sound, but the idea that the current Constitution prohibits the Parliament from acting at all with respect to citizenship is a spurious one.

III - Provisions in the current immigration law violate the constitution directly. For example:

The constitution states," The following rights and freedoms are guaranteed, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society."

1. The right to participate in and run for office
2. The right to vote in elections and referendums provided the player meets the activity requirements set by law.
3. The right to secret ballot in elections and referendums
4. The right to appeal a charge made against them
5. No citizen can be made to produce self-incriminating evidence in a court of law, parliamentary hearing, subpoena, or impeachment trial
6. Freedom of political communication, press, and media
7. The right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer and to be informed of the nature of the charges brought against them
8. The right to peacefully assemble
9. Freedom of association
10. Every citizen is equal before and under the law
11. Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof
12. Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure
13. Every citizen has the right to be informed of the reason for a subpoena, detention, charge, or arrest made against them

The Immigration and Citizenship Act states:
Section (5) - Residents
(2) Residents have all rights and abilities of a citizen, but may not receive security clearances or run for public office.

This provision goes against the guaranteed freedoms and rights provided by the constitution, as it specifically does not mention that you need to be a citizen to run for office, whereas it specifies in later provisions that citizens are given specific rights. This illustrates two things: One, that the founders specifically included citizenship on some provisions but not others, giving the legislature no right to prevent rights from being given to non-citizens. Two, the law makes unreasonable limits which are not justified and go against our free society.

The Defense affirms the following aspects of the third fact:

1) The Plaintiff's citations of the Constitution and The Immigration and Citizenship Act.​

​

2) The Plaintiff's observation that the current Constitution does not require citizenship for political participation.​

The Defense denies the following aspects of the third fact:

1) The Plaintiff's claim that the absence of a requirement means political participation cannot be reserved for citizens.​

​

While it is true that the current Constitution does not require citizenship for political participation, it also reserves certain rights for citizens, notably including equality before the law. This, by itself, might superficially be construed as a glaring error in our Kingdom's constitutional framework, but it is in moments like these that it is appropriate to return to an originalist approach.​

​

Was the intent of the founders to wholly bar non-citizens from legal equality?​

​

No, non-citizens are clearly entitled to broad legal equality under the Constitution's self-description of the Kingdom as "a free and democratic society."​

​

If legal equality is guaranteed to non-citizens, what does it mean for citizens to be privileged before the law?​

​

Obviously, the founders did not intend to create a caste system. By framing certain rights first, including the possibility for absolute and universal political participation, they sought to establish the framework for the "free and democratic society" mentioned immediately beforehand. They then followed these with certain rights reserved constitutionally for citizens to permit a mechanism for the modification of non-citizen rights, entrusting customary and common law to guide the way on "reasonable limits prescribed by law."​

​

Constitutionally speaking, is The Immigration and Citizenship Act a reasonable limit?​

​

It is the opinion of the Defense that the ability to bar non-citizens from political participation on legislative discretion is a reasonable limit. Citizenship and political participation are key to sovereignty. If a government cannot regulate who is a citizen and whether non-citizens can vote, our entire democratic system would be weakened at a critical phase in its development. We are nearing our first election which will set the course for the future development of the nation's core institutions; ensuring those who have a say in government are committed to our future is a perfectly reasonable measure in a nascent democratic society. Moreover, it is common practice among other developed, liberal democracies.​

​

2) The Plaintiff's assertion that the distinction in citizen rights bars Parliament from modifying non-citizen rights.​

​

This is illogical on its face. If the founders intended for non-citizens to have the same rights as citizens at all times, they would have simply never made the distinction in the first place. In fact, the distinction is more probative of the Parliament's ability to modify than not, as it seems to be more of a structural appeal to the basic extension of certain rights to non-citizens during an early phase in the nation's life: a critical time when flexibility in citizenship definitions is required.​

​

3) The Plaintiff's assertion that "the law makes unreasonable limits which are not justified and go against our free society."​

Here, the Plaintiff does not further illustrate how the law makes unreasonable limits beyond the above discussion of citizenship and political participation. They also do not elaborate on how these undescribed limits "go against our free society."​

​

IV. The Immigration and Citizenship act places an undue burden on immigrants and residents of the Kingdom of Alexandria.

As it stands currently, the Immigration and Citizenship Act places two tests in the way of immigrants who arrive from foreign lands. The first being the Residency Exam and the second being the Citizenship Exam. These tests are akin to that of a poll tax or literacy test, are we such a low society to not realize that placing these barriers could serve to deter or push would-be citizens away?

May I further point out that the Residency Exam must be passed with a 100% score and the Citizenship Exam with an 80% score. What would happen to a poor soul who maybe mistypes or selects an answer question and is all of a sudden barred from becoming a citizen or resident? This is not only unfair but excessive punishment to immigrants or residents who wish to become citizens.

The Defense affirms the following aspects of the fourth fact:

1) The imposition of the Residency and Citizenship Exams by The Immigration and Citizenship Act.​

The Defense denies the following aspects of the fourth fact:

1) The Residency and Citizenship exams are equivalent to a poll tax or literacy test.​

​

This is a fundamentally misleading characterization by the Plaintiff. Neither exam is required to have a fee under the Act and, therefore, cannot be construed as poll taxes. The literacy test claim is similarly spurious. For instance, the Residency Exam consists of only two Yes/No questions asking if the given player is interested in becoming a citizen and for their acknowledgement to obey the law. This requires less literacy than it takes to even visit the Kingdom in the first place and cannot reasonably be viewed as a literacy test or "undue burden." There are also no limitations on the number of times exams may be taken, so the worry over mistyping is likewise unfounded.​

​

2) The Plaintiff's claim that the Residency and Citizenship Exams would deter potential citizens.​

​

As elaborated previously, the Residency Exam is trivially difficult. However, this should not be taken to mean that it is meaningless. Upon joining, new players will immediately have something to do: become a resident. This process rewards them with a title, motivating an engaged public. The Citizenship Exam is then a new goal for them to work towards as they establish themselves, explore, and otherwise integrate themselves into the Kingdom. Regardless of which argument one believes, both are also hypotheticals and cannot be used as the factual basis for a constitutional decision of such magnitude weighed against the real implications for sovereignty outlined earlier.​

​

V. The law bars "tourists" of Alexandria from voting in elections, becoming employed, opening bank accounts, opening a business, owning property, and receiving grants in the Kingdom of Alexandria.

This fundamentally goes against the "life, liberty, and security" clause of the Constitution as, not only does the clause gives no mention of "citizen", but there is no way a tourist could survive, thrive, or defend themselves without being able to access these fundamental services that are only given to citizens.

Furthermore, as a current player of StateCraft, I cannot do any of these things and have to rely on the timing and decision of someone else to determine whether I get these supposed "guaranteed rights" or not.

The Defense denies the fifth fact, as it is predicated on a clear misreading of the Constitution. The actual clause reads, "Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof." Therefore, it is a reserved right. Additionally, the point itself is irrelevant, as citizenship itself does not materially impact one's ability to "survive, thrive, or defend themselves." If this were not the case, everyone in the Kingdom today, which has yet to implement the citizenship system, would be struggling to survive.

VI. Those who do not agree with the political or governmental structure of the Kingdom of Alexandria are put at a disadvantage and can ultimately be discriminated against in any citizenship process.

When on the server, after saying my views of my distaste with the kingdom and recent legislation, I was threatened with having my life taken and also not being able to get citizenship as I was a "traitor".

The Defense denies the sixth fact. Any potential injuries here are not the responsibility of the Crown and are immaterial to the Constitutional question at hand here.

VII. This lawsuit is being made after RealImza v. Crown, Case 1 (Ch. 2025), in which the Immigrant and Citizenship Act was going through Parliament, the court stated that," The Chancery does not see the need to grant an answer to this question at this time." Further stating that." A proposal within Parliament has been brought that clarifies this question soundly fails the test of having a reasonable and effective means to challenge the law."

Further grounds to hold off a firm decision was due to the reasoning that," Put simply, this issue is one that has not directly harmed the Petitioner."

As a member of the minority who now falls under the new law's jurisdiction and who is also not legally a citizen, further as someone who has been directly affected by this new law, I believe I have firm grounds to challenge the law in court.

The Defense denies the seventh fact. It is impossible for someone to be affected by a law that has yet to actually be implemented in practice.

Statement of Defense:

With respect to the revised Claims for Relief, the Defense views the first Claim as having no factual or legal basis by cross-application of the Crown's contestation of the third Fact.

The Defense views the second Claim as having no factual basis by cross-application of the Crown's contestation of the seventh Fact, regarding the impossibility of being deprived of one's rights prior to the enforcement of a given law.

The Defense views the third Claim as having no factual basis due to the preponderance of all the facts denied in the contestation. In particular, it is impossible to be treated differently (and thereby injured) by a law that has yet to start affecting the lives of anyone.

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

 

[Moyfr]

As to the first, the Claimant shall amend their original complaint before the deadline for the Crown's Answer. Given that the Claimant has already said what their claims were, this should not be a problem for the Crown in the construction of their Answer due some 15 hours from now.

As to the second, it does not. If it did, the Court would have mentioned it when specifically outlining the Crown's deadline.

My apologies your honor, I perceived that comment as my claims that I wrote in objection to the defense was already taken into consideration as amended claims.

On top of IRL responsibilities coming up since it is finals week at my university, I ask the court's forgiveness in being late to the reply. I amend my original claims to the following:

Claims:
I. The Immigration and Citizenship Act, by abruptly and arbitrarily denying me, the plaintiff, an opportunity to obtain citizenship, unlawfully deprives my rights guaranteed by the Constitution, including equality under the law, participation in governance, and due process protections.

II. I, the plaintiff, assert that the Immigration and Citizenship Act, by its structure and timing, unfairly deprives me of the opportunity to obtain citizenship, and places an undue burden on Tourists and Residents to obtain citizenship, thereby denying my fundamental constitutional rights.

III. The Constitution of Alexandria, while silent on explicit citizenship criteria, enshrines core principles including equality under the law, participation in governance, and due process protections. By imposing new, restrictive standards that have directly impacted me, a player who joined after the law was signed into effect, the Act violates these constitutional guarantees. Specifically, if I would have joined a mere week sooner, I would have qualified for citizenship under the fact that all previous residents were automatically grandfathered in. In this notion, I am being treated completely differently and unfairly under the law compared to a "citizen" who was grandfathered in, and does not have to go through any of the troubles the Immigration and Citizenship Act outline.

Just to be extra sure, because I know that the defense loves to use the General Court Rules and Procedures card, I have ensured that these claims are within the outlined provisions and give me cause to sue in this court.

With this in mind, I request that the court rule on these following reliefs:
I. That the Immigration and Citizenship Act is unconstitutional and violates the my rights under the Constitution, specifically the right to equality, political participation, and due process.

II. That the Court issue an injunction preventing the enforcement of the Act as applied to individuals who were residents of Alexandria before the Act’s enactment, until a more equitable and constitutionally sound process is established.

III. That I be granted citizenship or provided an alternative means to gain citizenship under conditions that do not violate constitutional rights.

 

[Smallfries]

My apologies your honor, I perceived that comment as my claims that I wrote in objection to the defense was already taken into consideration as amended claims.

On top of IRL responsibilities coming up since it is finals week at my university, I ask the court's forgiveness in being late to the reply. I amend my original claims to the following:

Claims:
I. The Immigration and Citizenship Act, by abruptly and arbitrarily denying me, the plaintiff, an opportunity to obtain citizenship, unlawfully deprives my rights guaranteed by the Constitution, including equality under the law, participation in governance, and due process protections.

II. I, the plaintiff, assert that the Immigration and Citizenship Act, by its structure and timing, unfairly deprives me of the opportunity to obtain citizenship, and places an undue burden on Tourists and Residents to obtain citizenship, thereby denying my fundamental constitutional rights.

III. The Constitution of Alexandria, while silent on explicit citizenship criteria, enshrines core principles including equality under the law, participation in governance, and due process protections. By imposing new, restrictive standards that have directly impacted me, a player who joined after the law was signed into effect, the Act violates these constitutional guarantees. Specifically, if I would have joined a mere week sooner, I would have qualified for citizenship under the fact that all previous residents were automatically grandfathered in. In this notion, I am being treated completely differently and unfairly under the law compared to a "citizen" who was grandfathered in, and does not have to go through any of the troubles the Immigration and Citizenship Act outline.

Just to be extra sure, because I know that the defense loves to use the General Court Rules and Procedures card, I have ensured that these claims are within the outlined provisions and give me cause to sue in this court.

With this in mind, I request that the court rule on these following reliefs:
I. That the Immigration and Citizenship Act is unconstitutional and violates the my rights under the Constitution, specifically the right to equality, political participation, and due process.

II. That the Court issue an injunction preventing the enforcement of the Act as applied to individuals who were residents of Alexandria before the Act’s enactment, until a more equitable and constitutionally sound process is established.

III. That I be granted citizenship or provided an alternative means to gain citizenship under conditions that do not violate constitutional rights.

The Claimant is reminded, yet again, to pretty please amend their original complaint. There is a button at the bottom of your original post (attached) that will allow you to edit your original complaint in order to satisfy the Court.

Spoiler: Attached

 

[kaiserin]

With Chancellor Smallfries's plea noted and pending, the Court now enters Discovery for a period of 72 hours.

 

[Moyfr]

The Claimant is reminded, yet again, to pretty please amend their original complaint. There is a button at the bottom of your original post (attached) that will allow you to edit your original complaint in order to satisfy the Court.

Spoiler: Attached

Once again my deepest apologies your honor, I was not aware of that feature. It has been done.

 

[huesca12]

In the Chancery of the Kingdom of Alexandria
ENTREATY OF PROMPTING

Given the lack of requests for discovery, the Crown would like to propose that discovery be ended early for the sake of expediency. We pray that the Plaintiff and this Court are amenable to this idea.
​

 

[kaiserin]

Would the Claimant consent to an early ending of Discovery?

 

[Moyfr]

Would the Claimant consent to an early ending of Discovery?

No objections your honor,

I would just like to be mindful that the Crown has submitted a response to my pre-edited claims rather than the edited ones, as it me at fault here since I was preoccupied with IRL endeavors, I would like to give the Crown some time to respond again perhaps? If they feel the argument they made is still sufficient then I still have no objections.

Best Regards,

Moyfr
Plaintiff

 

[huesca12]

In the Chancery of the Kingdom of Alexandria
ENTREATIES OF STRIKING, COMPULSION, AND PROMPTING

The Crown humbly begs that this Court consider the following Entreaties:

In response to an earlier Entreaty of Compulsion, this Court granted the Crown's request to have the original Complaint updated, stipulating that any changes should be made "as ... elaborated in [the Claimant's] response."
​

Second, the Defense requests a Writ of Compulsion which we grant. The Claimant seems to have consented to the alteration of their original Complaint, and may do so as they have elaborated in their response.

However, the Claimant has more recently stated that they made "edited" changes, distinguishing them from their so-called "pre-edited claims." Beyond merely causing terminological confusion that wastes this Court's precious time by proxy, this legal editorialization directly violates the relevant Writ's terms, which were clear on calling for a simple transcription of the originally outlined claims from "their response."
​

I would just like to be mindful that the Crown has submitted a response to my pre-edited claims rather than the edited ones

It is also worth noting that the "edited" changes were provided by the Claimant on Wednesday at 8:38 PM, which is roughly 17 hours past the deadline of 3:35 AM. Considering that specific instructions were given to "amend their original complaint before the deadline for the Crown's answer," this shows wanton disregard for the time of this Court and that of the Crown's Office of Litigation.
​

As to the first, the Claimant shall amend their original complaint before the deadline for the Crown's Answer. Given that the Claimant has already said what their claims were, this should not be a problem for the Crown in the construction of their Answer due some 15 hours from now.

Moreover, the Claimant is also unable to plead ignorance of this requirement, as they acknowledged the relevant publication by this Court:
​

Spoiler: P-001

Additionally, it is the opinion of the Crown that the Claimant's request is not permitted under the General Court Rules & Procedures for two reasons. First, these proposed changes would fall under the Amendment Exception, which prohibits amendments that change information that was already submitted. Since it is the opinion of this Court that the "Claimant ... consented to the alteration of their original Complaint," one may take the aforementioned confirmation on behalf of the Claimant as constituting a submission. Second, these "edited" changes were also never formally declared and explained to the Court. The Claimant simply apologizes for missing the deadline, offers an explanation for their tardiness, and finally provides the edited Claims. However, they make no reference to an actual justification for the changes themselves in the relevant filing, invalidating them procedurally.
​

My apologies your honor, I perceived that comment as my claims that I wrote in objection to the defense was already taken into consideration as amended claims.

On top of IRL responsibilities coming up since it is finals week at my university, I ask the court's forgiveness in being late to the reply. I amend my original claims to the following:

Claims:
I. The Immigration and Citizenship Act, by abruptly and arbitrarily denying me, the plaintiff, an opportunity to obtain citizenship, unlawfully deprives my rights guaranteed by the Constitution, including equality under the law, participation in governance, and due process protections.

II. I, the plaintiff, assert that the Immigration and Citizenship Act, by its structure and timing, unfairly deprives me of the opportunity to obtain citizenship, and places an undue burden on Tourists and Residents to obtain citizenship, thereby denying my fundamental constitutional rights.

III. The Constitution of Alexandria, while silent on explicit citizenship criteria, enshrines core principles including equality under the law, participation in governance, and due process protections. By imposing new, restrictive standards that have directly impacted me, a player who joined after the law was signed into effect, the Act violates these constitutional guarantees. Specifically, if I would have joined a mere week sooner, I would have qualified for citizenship under the fact that all previous residents were automatically grandfathered in. In this notion, I am being treated completely differently and unfairly under the law compared to a "citizen" who was grandfathered in, and does not have to go through any of the troubles the Immigration and Citizenship Act outline.

Just to be extra sure, because I know that the defense loves to use the General Court Rules and Procedures card, I have ensured that these claims are within the outlined provisions and give me cause to sue in this court.

With this in mind, I request that the court rule on these following reliefs:
I. That the Immigration and Citizenship Act is unconstitutional and violates the my rights under the Constitution, specifically the right to equality, political participation, and due process.

II. That the Court issue an injunction preventing the enforcement of the Act as applied to individuals who were residents of Alexandria before the Act’s enactment, until a more equitable and constitutionally sound process is established.

III. That I be granted citizenship or provided an alternative means to gain citizenship under conditions that do not violate constitutional rights.

With these arguments in mind, the Crown bows to this Court and implores that it may grant the following Writs:

1. A Writ of Striking, removing the Claimant's request for a new Answer from consideration.​
2. A Writ of Compulsion, forcing the Claimant to update the original Complaint to reflect the first changes to the Claims (what the Crown's Answer replies to and the mutual standard until the Claimant's ex post facto revisions).​
3. A Writ of Prompting, requesting that this Court advance the case as to expeditiously resolve the questions at hand prior to the upcoming election.​

 

[Moyfr]

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENSE'S ENTREATIES​

Your honor, if I may, I find the Defense's all of a sudden new urge to object and strike everything absurd. I would like to dispel the misinformation here as well as beg for the court's leniency in regards to my edits.

Response to Writ of Striking and Writ of Compulsion:​

Your honor, the Defense makes the above claims hoping that I am not granted any leniency, even though the Defense has been late to replies on MULTIPLE occasions, as evidence here:

The Crown is held in contempt of court, and is fined £100. For every full hour that elapses from the time of this post, they will be fined an additional £50 for contempt.

So ordered.

I find it interesting that the Defense fails to make multiple 72 hour deadlines, but all of a sudden wants to punish me for a 14 hour deadline that I completed in 17 hours to which I stated that I had unforeseen circumstances IRL which hindered my ability to respond.

Moreover, and perhaps I am at a misunderstanding, but why is the defense wanting to strike edits that I have made to the original claim even though that is specifically what the court has asked me to do? Furthermore, the court mentioned in previous opinions that:

Next, we agree with the Crown that there is no properly stated claim. In a more strict, storied, and robust legal framework, the Claimant would fail here and we would dismiss the case at hand. However, Alexandria is a burgeoning and novel nation, and strict adherence to myopic guidelines would be both catastrophic and potentially fatal to justice. It is evident to the Chancery that while Claimant did not properly state their claims, they do indeed have claims. It is quite obvious, particularly through analysis of the Claimant's prayer for relief, that the Claimant's claim for relief comes from the law depriving them of Citizenship they would otherwise have were the law to be more lenient or to be passed mere days later. This deprivation of Citizenship, and thus some rights, is a clear claim for which they may file suit. Confusingly, the Crown implies Sua Sponte as a necessary remedy in the previous section, where it would rather be applicable and appropriate here.

It is clear that the simple facts and therefore claims of my case are fundamentally the same, I just followed the court's advice of being more clarified and specific with the claims that I have made previously. As mentioned by Chancellor Kaiserin, that "strict adherence to myopic guidelines would be both catastrophic and potentially fatal to justice. It is evident to the Chancery that while the Claimant did not properly state their claims, they do indeed have claims."

The defense thus wishes for a strict adherence to these guidelines which, mentioned previously, would be fatal to justice.

Reminder of the struggles of a new nation:​

I believe, as Chancellor Kaiserin has been so graceful in opinions, the court said it best that:

A Message to All

Further, the Claimant is reminded that Claims for Relief are to be those crucial underlying points that show to the nation what damages, wrongs, or injustices befell them, or other necessary showings of current, future, or potential harm that could befall them. These claims should naturally flow into their Prayers for Relief. Here, the facts make it evident that the Claimant's Claim for Relief is that A.P.004 removed their rights through restricting Citizenship, as this directly flows into their Prayer where they ask for the Court to declare them as a Citizen.

Observers should note that while Alexandria is young and formats and legal jurisprudence are untested and unshaped, the Courts will be lenient and attempt to offer a hand to litigators as we have here in a fair, impartial, and neutral manner. However, all observers are expected to keenly study what we say and what we ask for, as over time, the maturation of our Kingdom will lead to a tightening of standards in Court. To that end, the Crown is reminded that an Answer to Complaint is not simply any motion or response at all, but rather a specific legal document that outlines their defences and responses to the initial Complaint of the Claimant. The deadline for that filing was around an hour ago, but in the same spirit of leniency and benevolence as extended to the Claimant, the Court will graciously stave off Contempt charges for twenty-four hours from this post. The Crown is not bound to any specific format, and is encouraged to confer with other legal minds in the community or look to other cases for guidance.

While I admit that, when originally filing my claim, I did not properly understand the concept of Claims and Prayer of Relief, it is clear that this court has noticed and, to an extent, agreed with the claims that I have made and offered the right and leniency to amend those claims. The claims I made do not fundamentally change any part of my argument, but rather clarifies the claims that I originally made.

To go further, when entering my edited claims into the record, there was not once any objection from the court OR the defense about them, even Chancellor Smallfries's only objection was that I did not revise them into my original post via the edit feature.

The Claimant is reminded, yet again, to pretty please amend their original complaint. There is a button at the bottom of your original post (attached) that will allow you to edit your original complaint in order to satisfy the Court.

As for the Writ of Prompting, I find it humorous that all of a sudden NOW the Defense wishes to speed up the process, and not when I had been waiting 72 hours+ for a response each time from them. Interesting, isn't it?

Respectfully Submitted,

Moyfr
Plaintiff

 

[Smallfries]

CHANCERY OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO WRIT
​

The Crown asks for the Chancery to order three writs: One of Striking, one of Compulsion, and one of Prompting.

First, the Crown asks for a Writ of Striking to "remov[e] the Claimant's request for a new Answer from consideration." The Claimant, in a response to my sister on the bench, informally suggested that the Crown be given time to re-write their Answer to comply with the updated Complaint the former submitted, notably to change their Claims for relief. The Claimant's response in this matter seems to betray a misunderstanding of the situation. The Crown, as the Court sees it, seeks only to remove the Claimant's request to give the Crown time to amend their Answer.

We grant this Writ. The Claimant should have made a request for a Writ of Continuance in this case to properly be heard. While we applaud the Claimant on their chivalry and good sportsmanship, it is not appropriate to throw in unrelated questions or statements when speaking in Court. When a Judicial Officer asks something of you, it is expected you respond appropriately or risk Contempt. However, even if the Claimant had properly made their voice heard such a request would likely have been denied, as the Crown should have seen what the future amendments to the Complaint would be.

The request is struck from the record.

Second, the Crown asks for a "Writ of Compulsion." We assume the Crown meant to file a Writ to Compel. The Crown asks for the Claimant's original Complaint to be updated to "reflect the first changes to the Claims." The Court's charitable interpretation of this request is that the Crown believes, or believed at the time of filing, that the Claimant had not updated their Claims for Relief from their Original Complaint to the claims the Claimant later expanded upon at the Court's request. Additionally, perhaps the Crown believed that the Claimant did do so, but did so incorrectly and in bad faith, providing an altered or incorrect update.

The former is obviously incorrect, as the Claimant had updated their Complaint by Wednesday. Though some twenty hours after the Crown's Answer, as previously noted by the bench the Crown had access to the accepted and updated claims some two days prior, and indeed referenced the updated Claims in their Answer. The only explanation the Court sees for this request from the Crown is the latter option, that Claimant incorrectly copied their updated claims as ordered.

Here, the Crown is correct. The Court sees that the Claimant did not perfectly copy and paste their updated Claims into their edit on their Complaint. However, this mistake is harmless. The Crown, interestingly, raises the red flag in regards to "pre-edited claims." It appears here this is also some miscommunication. The Crown states that the Claimant's updated Claims were provided late Wednesday. While this is technically correct, the same updated Claims were posted early Monday, and the writings of Monday and Wednesday are entirely identical.

As to the posts from Monday/Wednesday and the proper edit of the original Complaint itself, after careful studying of the edit history of this case, the Court has determined that the only inconsistency is that the original updated claims had a header reading "Claims:," while the current header says "Claims for Relief:." This is a minor cosmetic change, that at this time the Court sees no reason to punish. We refuse this Writ.

The Court further extends its mercy to Claimant Moyfr as to their tardiness in properly editing their post. The Court understands that sometimes life events occur that may delay one's response. However, in the interest of mutual respect of time, the Court asks all future participants in the Courts to make a request for a Writ of Continuance for however much reasonable time is needed. The Court once again highly encourages all observers to learn from this case as we all trudge forwards and discover what works best in the pursuit of Justice.

Third, the Crown asks for a Writ of Prompting. As the time for Discovery has elapsed without an expressed desire to extend it, the Court grants this Writ. The Claimant has seventy-two hours from the time of posting to make their Opening Statement.


Finally, the Court wants to make one thing clear:

there was not once any objection from the court

it is clear that this court has noticed and, to an extent, agreed with the claims that I have made

These contentions should not be taken at face value. Claimant is reminded as to the first quote that Chancellor Smallfries' reminder to amend their original complaint was surely an objection from the Court. As to the second, this Court has made no determination as to the truth, validity, or jurisprudential viability of the Claimant's claims; only that we determined they were reasonable enough to stand and face scrutiny in Court. The Court asks the Claimant to please refrain from attempting to bend the Court's words or actions.

So ordered.