- Joined
- Apr 29, 2025
- Messages
- 99
IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
Defendant's Opening Statement
Your honour,
Ambiguity requires context. The Plaintiff asks that you avert your eyes to what screams the obvious: that Parliament wanted the swearing ceremony to be ceremonial and have no effect. The Legislative Branch Act, copied directly from a similar Redmont statute, had mistakes throughout that mentioned "Congress." See Legislative Branch Act ("LBA"), Sec. 15(1); Sec. 15(2); Sec. 16(1); Sec. 16(2); Sec 19(4). It does not take a genius to figure out why an act copied from Redmont mentions Redmont's legislature.
This case asks a fundamentally legal question. No real dispute in the facts exists, and this Court is bound by the interpretation requirements of the Chancery. This Court must use the principles of statutory canon, otherwise known as statutory interpretation, to determine 1) whether an ambiguity exists, and 2) whether through context, it may determine the intent of the legislature. See Ayatha v. Rex, Case 6 (Ch. 2025) (where the court found ambiguous language is interpreted using statutory canon, otherwise known as statutory interpretation).
"Congressional" is in no place defined by the act, and thus we must look to its plain meaning to understand its meaning. Black's Law Dictionary offers significant insight into what "congress" means:
Congress, Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024).
Additionally, "congressional" refers to something "of or relating to a congress." See Congressional, Dictionary.com. Its the Governments position that these definitions are dispositive, however, we shall address both levels of interpretation for thoroughness.
I. Congressional's Plain Meaning Includes Parliament
Under the first definition, a "congress" is any formal meaning of delegates or representatives within a convention. This definition perfectly encompasses parliament, who's members are tasked with representing their constituents. Alex. Const. Part I, Sec. 2(2). This representative role places parliament in the same function as a congress. Because the plain meaning is obvious from this definition, parliament acts as a congress in that it functions as a representative body for the legislative branch. The section applies, and the plaintiff's arguments fail.
II. Parliament Intended for Congressional to read as Parliament
Parliament "intended each word to have meaning and for no word or phrase to be simple surplusage" and assuming no plain meaning exists, this Courts interpretation must be informed by Parliamentary Intent. Ayatha, Case 6 (Ch. 2025). Simply from within the context of the Legislative Branch Act itself, which seeks to create standards for Alexandria's legislative branch of government, the intent of parliament is clear. This act defines parliamentary process and procedure, and any mention of congress, copied over from the Redmont Legislative Branch Act, was an accident and should be read in concert with the rest of the act. The Plaintiff can not assert that an obvious error in the drafting of the law intentionally established a separate body, as anything done in error can not be purposeful. "Congressional" obviously means "Parliamentary" in the meaning of the act.
Additionally, the mention of "congressional" at issue falls within Sec. 19 - Oaths of Office. Parliament must have intended all subsections of section 19 to relate back to one another, or else they would have created a separate section. Sections are organizational in nature, and to create a separate provision for an as of yet unestablished congressional body within Alexandria would be non-sensical. Congressional relates back to the rest of the section, and the rest of the section places the alleged restriction on Parliament.
III. Parliament's Membership Requirements are a Issue Parliament Must Decide on its Own
Notwithstanding any other arguments, Parliament, and Parliament alone, may determine its own process, procedure, and membership requirements, and this Court may respectfully not impede their determinations. Parliament must have the ability to determine what is their own prerogative, who constitutes a member, what processes they must take and why. This decision is not within the discretion of the Court itself.
IV. Conclusion
At the end of this trial, the apparent frivolity of this entire affair will be obvious. The law is clear, and the meaning apparent. Ambiguity requires context, and the plaintiff's attempts to hide that context make clear the strength of their case.
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph Ibney0
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
Defendant's Opening Statement
Your honour,
Ambiguity requires context. The Plaintiff asks that you avert your eyes to what screams the obvious: that Parliament wanted the swearing ceremony to be ceremonial and have no effect. The Legislative Branch Act, copied directly from a similar Redmont statute, had mistakes throughout that mentioned "Congress." See Legislative Branch Act ("LBA"), Sec. 15(1); Sec. 15(2); Sec. 16(1); Sec. 16(2); Sec 19(4). It does not take a genius to figure out why an act copied from Redmont mentions Redmont's legislature.
This case asks a fundamentally legal question. No real dispute in the facts exists, and this Court is bound by the interpretation requirements of the Chancery. This Court must use the principles of statutory canon, otherwise known as statutory interpretation, to determine 1) whether an ambiguity exists, and 2) whether through context, it may determine the intent of the legislature. See Ayatha v. Rex, Case 6 (Ch. 2025) (where the court found ambiguous language is interpreted using statutory canon, otherwise known as statutory interpretation).
"Congressional" is in no place defined by the act, and thus we must look to its plain meaning to understand its meaning. Black's Law Dictionary offers significant insight into what "congress" means:
Congress, Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024).
Additionally, "congressional" refers to something "of or relating to a congress." See Congressional, Dictionary.com. Its the Governments position that these definitions are dispositive, however, we shall address both levels of interpretation for thoroughness.
I. Congressional's Plain Meaning Includes Parliament
Under the first definition, a "congress" is any formal meaning of delegates or representatives within a convention. This definition perfectly encompasses parliament, who's members are tasked with representing their constituents. Alex. Const. Part I, Sec. 2(2). This representative role places parliament in the same function as a congress. Because the plain meaning is obvious from this definition, parliament acts as a congress in that it functions as a representative body for the legislative branch. The section applies, and the plaintiff's arguments fail.
II. Parliament Intended for Congressional to read as Parliament
Parliament "intended each word to have meaning and for no word or phrase to be simple surplusage" and assuming no plain meaning exists, this Courts interpretation must be informed by Parliamentary Intent. Ayatha, Case 6 (Ch. 2025). Simply from within the context of the Legislative Branch Act itself, which seeks to create standards for Alexandria's legislative branch of government, the intent of parliament is clear. This act defines parliamentary process and procedure, and any mention of congress, copied over from the Redmont Legislative Branch Act, was an accident and should be read in concert with the rest of the act. The Plaintiff can not assert that an obvious error in the drafting of the law intentionally established a separate body, as anything done in error can not be purposeful. "Congressional" obviously means "Parliamentary" in the meaning of the act.
Additionally, the mention of "congressional" at issue falls within Sec. 19 - Oaths of Office. Parliament must have intended all subsections of section 19 to relate back to one another, or else they would have created a separate section. Sections are organizational in nature, and to create a separate provision for an as of yet unestablished congressional body within Alexandria would be non-sensical. Congressional relates back to the rest of the section, and the rest of the section places the alleged restriction on Parliament.
III. Parliament's Membership Requirements are a Issue Parliament Must Decide on its Own
Notwithstanding any other arguments, Parliament, and Parliament alone, may determine its own process, procedure, and membership requirements, and this Court may respectfully not impede their determinations. Parliament must have the ability to determine what is their own prerogative, who constitutes a member, what processes they must take and why. This decision is not within the discretion of the Court itself.
IV. Conclusion
At the end of this trial, the apparent frivolity of this entire affair will be obvious. The law is clear, and the meaning apparent. Ambiguity requires context, and the plaintiff's attempts to hide that context make clear the strength of their case.
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph Ibney0
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
