Lawsuit: In Session Pepecuu v. The Crown, Case 15 (Mag. Ct., 2025)

[Pepecuu]

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CIVIL ACTION

Pepecuu
Plaintiff

v.

The Crown
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The First Parliamentary Election was concluded on the 24th of May 2025, 1.24am UTC. However, these members of Parliament were never sworn in, which is a requirement according to the Legislative Branch Act. Therefore, in the eyes of the law, they're not considered legitimate Members of Parliament and cannot propose or vote on any Bills, making all Bills after the end of the Interim Government null and void.

I. PARTIES
1. Pepecuu (Claimant)
2. The Crown (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. The First Parliamentary Election was concluded on the 24th of May 2025, 1.24am UTC (P-001).
2. These members of Parliament were never sworn in prior to 11th July 2025, 6.09pm UTC (P-002 and P-003).
3. The exemption in Section 19(4) of the Legislative Branch Act ("Congressional swearing-ins are entirely ceremonial and shall have no legal effect.") do not apply to the people that were elected through the First Parliamentary Election as Alexandria has a Parliament rather than a Congress, therefore there are no Congressional swearing-ins to officiate the start of the First Elected Parliament of Alexandria.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Section 19(1) of the Legislative Branch Act states: "A swearing-in ceremony must be conducted at the start of each new term. This ceremony may take place in-game or in a publicly accessible voice chat or channel."
2. Section 19(3) of the Legislative Branch Act states : "If a new Member of Parliament is elected or appointed to replace a former one, they shall say this same oath before assuming legislative or executive duties."

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. Overturn any and all bills proposed, voted on, or assented by the Parliament after the 24th of May 2025, 1.24am UTC.
2. Any other type of relief that the Court may deem appropriate.

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

 

[Pepecuu]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Claimant humbly requests that the Court order the Government to temporarily suspend the enforcement or utility of all bills assented after 24th May 2025, 1.24am UTC, to limit any harm that could be done to the people of Alexandria from possibly illegitimate bills passed by a Parliament that was not officially recognized according to Alexandrian law. This Emergency Injunction shall be lifted after either the Verdict or Dismissal of the case has been posted by the Presiding Judicial Officer.

 

[Ibney0]

Joseph Ibney for the Crown, your honour,

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO ENTREATY (STYLED AS MOTION) FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF (STYLED AS INJUNCTION)

Your honour, the Crown requests you deny the entreaty (Styled as motion) for emergency relief (styled as injunction). In order for a plaintiff to enjoy emergency relief, they must show, "[...][t]hat they suffer some great harm that is intolerable for a reasonable person to bear under the circumstances. " Sovereign Kingdom Party v. Crown, Case 9 (Ch. 2025) (Response to Writ)

Here, plaintiff presents no evidence of harm as a result of the lack of administration of the oaths. They present no legal theory as to how it harms them in any way, and simply present bare and naked allegations of harm. Additionally, plaintiff requests that this Court restrict the enforcement of all bills assented after the 24th of the month, without providing any evidence which suggests oath swearing did not occur.

Plaintiffs request for emergency relief is insufficient, and asks this Court hault government because they allege without evidence oaths did not occur. They ask extraordinary action by this Court with nothing to show for it.

The Crown requests this Court deny plaintiffs request.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney0
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandira

 

[Ibney0]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT



I. FACTS
1. The First Parliamentary Election was concluded on the 24th of May 2025, 1.24am UTC (P-001) - Admitted
2. These members of Parliament were never sworn in prior to 11th July 2025, 6.09pm UTC (P-002 and P-003) - Neither Affirms or Denies at this time.
3. The exemption in Section 19(4) of the Legislative Standards Act ("Congressional swearing-ins are entirely ceremonial and shall have no legal effect.") do not apply to the people that were elected through the First Parliamentary Election as Alexandria has a Parliament rather than a Congress, therefore there are no Congressional swearing-ins to officiate the start of the First Elected Parliament of Alexandria - Denied. Also not a fact, but a legal argument.

II. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Section 19(1) of the Legislative Standards Act states: "A swearing-in ceremony must be conducted at the start of each new term. This ceremony may take place in-game or in a publicly accessible voice chat or channel." - Admitted
2. Section 19(3) of the Legislative Standards Act states : "If a new Member of Parliament is elected or appointed to replace a former one, they shall say this same oath before assuming legislative or executive duties." - Admitted

III. Defense - Section 19 (4) Applies
1. The Crown asserts that the operative meaning of Sec. 19(4) of the Legislative Standards Act, which was heavily copied from the Commonwealth of Redmont's Legislative Standards Act.
2. When interpreting a statute, the Court should first look to the plain meaning of a statute to determine if the language is unambiguous. If they determine the language has two or more reasonable meanings, the Court should then look to legislative intent.
3. What "congressional" means is not clear on its face within the act. Such language, likely copied without being edited from the Redmont Legislative Standards Act, could indeed mean some as of yet unestablished body that previously never had been mentioned. However, it could also mean "congressional" as those within a governing body, such as a congress. Thus, it is ambiguous, can have more than one plain meaning, and the Court should look to legislative intent.
4. Its clear from its inclusion within the "legislative" standards act that Parliament intended for "congress" to be read as "parliament" and "congressional" to be read as "Parliamentary." They copied much of the Legislative standards act from Redmont, and additionally did not establish any "congressional" body for this section to apply to. The Court should assume Parliament intended for their own act to be operable and did not include provisions simply for fun.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney0
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[Ibney0]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF CLAIM

Your honour,

Defense seeks dismissal of this action for lack of claim. As a matter of law, "Congressional" in the context of the Legislative Branch Act should plainly be read to mean "parliamentary." There is no requirement for members of parliament to actually swear an oath to begin their duties. Additionally, whether someone is a legal member of parliament is a question outside the jurisdiction of this court, as it is a purely political issue for Parliament to determine.

Respectfully Submitted,

Joseph Ibney0
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[Pepecuu]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT'S ENTREATY TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

The Defendant have argued that the "Congressional" should be "plainly read to mean "parliamentary" " in the context of the Legislative Branch Act. However, the Plaintiff argues that the law has been written and should be read as such (until further precedent is created that goes against this), rather than a "context" that has been proposed by the Defendant without any legal ruling or proof by the Defendant to back their claims.

Secondly, the Defendant states that "There is no requirement for members of parliament to actually swear an oath to begin their duties.", this cannot be immediately used as truth, as that is the dispute that is ongoing within this case, where the Court will have to rule based on the arguments and facts given by both parties.

Lastly, the Defendant states "whether someone is a legal member of parliament is a question outside the jurisdiction of this court, as it is a purely political issue for Parliament to determine." This is an appalling statement that the Defendant's counsel has made, as the phrase "Member of Parliament" is mentioned 12 (TWELVE) times in the Legislative Branch Act alone (not including the amendment threads afterward), and given the Court's role to "interpret‌ ‌the‌ ‌law‌ ‌as‌ ‌written‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌legislature‌" (Constitution Section 14), the legal definition of "Member of Parliament" (which currently is not defined by any Acts of Parliament) will fall under the jurisdiction of the Courts, therefore clearly invalidating the claim by the Defendant that it is a "purely political issue for Parliament to determine".

In light of these reasons, the Claimant humbly requests the Court to deny the Defendant's Entreaty to Dismiss in its entirety.

 

[Gribble19]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S ENTREATY FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
​

The court has reviewed the Plaintiff's "motion" for emergency injunction (#2) and Defendant's Response to this request (#3).

The court would like to start by reminding both parties that following the procedures and rules of this court is not optional. The rules and procedures of this court clearly state that "Requests must be titled 'Entreaty of [Subject]'". Plaintiff's request to the court did not follow this procedure, however for the sake of efficiency the court will hereby respond to the request. In the future however, any similar breaches of the court rules and procedures may result in being charged with Contempt of Court.

Plaintiff has requested the court grant an emergency injunction. As Defendant has noted, a similar request has previously been ruled upon by the Chancery, where it was stated that "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" (Sovereign Kingdom Party v. Crown, Case 9 (Ch. 2025), #9). The Claimant in this request has requested the court order the Government to temporarily suspend the enforcement or utility of all bills assented after 24th May 2025, 1.24am UTC. The Claimant however has not alleged any harm in their request for emergency relief and the Complaint filed by the Claimant also does not allege any harm caused by the enforcement or utility of those bills. In line with the previous ruling the court therefore finds that granting a writ of emergency relief is not appropriate in this situation.

Accordingly,
Plaintiff's request for Emergency Injunction is hereby DENIED.

 

[Gribble19]

We will now enter Discovery for a period of 72 hours. Discovery may be extended or ended early through the methods prescribed by the court rules and procedures.

 

[Ibney0]

We will now enter Discovery for a period of 72 hours. Discovery may be extended or ended early through the methods prescribed by the court rules and procedures.

Your honour,

Prior to discovery, the Government requests a ruling on the entreaty to dismiss for lack of claim. This issue could very well be dispositive, and may result in saved work time should your honour dismiss it.

 

[Gribble19]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S ENTREATY OF DISMISSAL
​

The court has reviewed the Defendant's Entreaty of Dismissal (#5) and Plaintiff's Response to this Entreaty(#6).

The Defendant in their entreaty requested that this case be dismissed for a lack of claim. Defendant argues that Plaintiff's claim is invalid due to an incorrect interpretation of the law in Plaintiff's arguments, and alleges that this leads to a lack of claim. The Court does not agree with this line of reasoning. Although the Defendant might disagree with the claim, or the legal interpretations on which it is based, this does not mean that there is a lack of claim.

An Entreaty of Dismissal may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against a claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge (General Court Rules and Procedures, Lack of Claim). Plaintiff has clearly stated a Claim for Relief in their Complaint and Defendant has not alleged that no such claim is stated, but instead that the claim is incorrect. Defendant's Entreaty also does not allege that there is insufficient evidence to support the civil charge.

Accordingly,
Defendant's Entreaty of Dismissal is hereby DENIED;

 

[Ibney0]

Your honour,

The Government is ready to proceed and has no discovery to provide.

 

[Pepecuu]

Your Honour,

The Claimant has no additional evidence to provide, but would like to submit a witness list as follows:
- MrRoyaltys
- Thritystone (aka StonedBoy)

 

[Pepecuu]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY TO END DISCOVERY EARLY

Pursuant to 'Discovery Rules' under the General Court Rules and Procedures, and given that the Claimant and the Defendant have no additional discovery to provide, the Claimant would like to humbly request to end discovery early, should the Defendant agree to the proposition.

 

[Ibney0]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY TO END DISCOVERY EARLY

Pursuant to 'Discovery Rules' under the General Court Rules and Procedures, and given that the Claimant and the Defendant have no additional discovery to provide, the Claimant would like to humbly request to end discovery early, should the Defendant agree to the proposition.

No objection, your honour.

 

[Gribble19]

As both parties consent to end Discovery early, Discovery is hereby ended. The Plaintiff shall have 72 hours from now to file their Opening Statement.

 

[Pepecuu]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
Entreaty for the Request for Writ of Continuance

The Claimant would like to request a Writ to extend the deadline for their Opening Statement by 48 (FORTY-EIGHT) hours, due to ongoing commitments IRL.

The Claimant would like to apologize for such a late notice.

 

[Gribble19]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF CONTINUANCE
​

The court has reviewed Plaintiff's Request for a Writ of Continuance (#16). Defendant did not respond to the request within 24 hours.

The Plaintiff requested a Writ of Continuance to extend the deadline for their Opening Statement due to ongoing IRL commitments. The court finds this a reasonable request.

However, the Plaintiff has for the second time in this case filed a request to the court without following the proper procedure laid out in our court's rules and procedures which, as previously mentioned in the warning to both parties in #7 of this case, state that "Requests must be titled 'Entreaty of [Subject]'". In line with the previous warning the Court will therefore hold Plaintiff in contempt for failing to follow our court rules and procedures.

Accordingly,
Plaintiff's Request for a Writ of Continuance is GRANTED;
The Deadline for Plaintiff's Opening Statement is extended by 48 hours from the original deadline;
Pepecuu is held in contempt and shall be fined £100.

 

[Pepecuu]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF CONTINUANCE
​

The court has reviewed Plaintiff's Request for a Writ of Continuance (#16). Defendant did not respond to the request within 24 hours.

The Plaintiff requested a Writ of Continuance to extend the deadline for their Opening Statement due to ongoing IRL commitments. The court finds this a reasonable request.

However, the Plaintiff has for the second time in this case filed a request to the court without following the proper procedure laid out in our court's rules and procedures which, as previously mentioned in the warning to both parties in #7 of this case, state that "Requests must be titled 'Entreaty of [Subject]'". In line with the previous warning the Court will therefore hold Plaintiff in contempt for failing to follow our court rules and procedures.

Accordingly,
Plaintiff's Request for a Writ of Continuance is GRANTED;
The Deadline for Plaintiff's Opening Statement is extended by 48 hours from the original deadline;
Pepecuu is held in contempt and shall be fined £100.

My apologies, your honor, the earlier request has been amended to be an entreaty.

 

[Pepecuu]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
Claimant's Opening Statement

Your Honor,
This case can be summed up in one simple question: Can the Crown sidestep existing law and allow unsworn individuals to exercise legislative power? We respectfully submit that it cannot.

The law is unambiguous. §19.1 of the Legislative Branch Act clearly states: “A swearing-in ceremony must be conducted at the start of each new term.” §19.3 of the same act reinforces this, by requiring every new Member of Parliament to take an oath before assuming legislative duties. As written by the LSA, the swearing-in process is not an optional tradition that the individuals can overlook or decline to do at their convenience.

Yet, despite the conclusion of the First Parliamentary Election on 24th May 2025 at 1:24 AM UTC (P-001), no swearing-in took place until nearly seven weeks later, on 11th July (P-003). In that time, individuals lacking lawful status as Members of Parliament introduced, debated, and passed legislation. Such egregious actions that go against the law cannot be allowed to stand.

Accordingly, we ask this Court to declare that all legislation passed after the 24th of May 2025 null and void, as they were passed by individuals lacking lawful status to be considered Members of Parliament.

Thank you.

 

[Gribble19]

The Defendant shall have 72 hours from now to file their Opening Statement.