- Joined
- Jul 8, 2025
- Messages
- 29
- Thread Author
- #1
IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CIVIL ACTION
Case No. 15
BETWEEN:
Rubilubi55
(Plaintiff)
V.
The Crown
(Defendant)
1. Jurisdictional Statement
According to K.A. Const. § III Art. 15 "The Chancery is the highest court of the nation, with exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional questions, including the interpretation and application of the Constitution", it should therefore rule on this case, as the claims are mostly based on Articles from the Alexandrian Constitution.
2. Parties
Rubilubi55
The Congress (represented by the Crown)
3. Facts
1. On the 28th of July 2025, King WackJap assented the Government Organization Act (A.P. 01-044).
2. Section 6, Article 3 of A.P. 01-044 cites the following: "All procedural rules of parliament are to be adjudicated by parliament, and no other body shall have the authority to make determinations on the internal procedures of the Parliamentary body.", and therefore disallows parliament to give any branch of government, including themselves, unchecked and unregulated power.
3. K.A. Const. § 1 Art. 2(10) cites: "Constitutional Checks and Balances: Parliament ensures no branch of government has unchecked power."
4. Section 6, Article 3 of A.P. 01-044 gives the parliament an unchecked power by disallowing other branches of government from interfering with the process.
5. Section 6, Article 3 of A.P. 01-044 is therefore unconstitutional and should be stricken from the Government Organizations Act (A.P. 01-044).
4. Claims for Relief
1. The plaintiff in this case has a reasonable interest in this case, as it violates the Constitution and the democratic principle of Checks and Balances, also violating his democratic rights as a citizen of Alexandria.
2. Even though the intent of Section 6, Article 3 of A.P. 01-044 may be to disallow the executive from changing the internal procedures of the parliament, the intent of this law does not matter. Matters is what this law objectively says. Due to a vague definition many things are unclear. The law could prohibit the Judiciary from interfering should the parliament not follow their standing orders, due to a very vague definition this could also allow the Parliament, or the Speaker, to not follow the laws set out for the Legislative in A.P. 01-044 or other significant laws and rules.
3. The parliament therefore violates their constitutional duty of keeping Checks and Balances, by technically giving themselves the power to not follow, the laws and rules set by them for them without fearing Judiciary intervention.
5. Prayers for Relief
1. Section 6, Article 3 of A.P. 01-044 to be struck as unconstitutional.
2. Apology from the Parliament for violating their constitutional responsibility to keep Checks and Balances.
Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of September 2025 by Rubilubi55.
Signed,
Rubi Semsrott-Sloth (Rubilubi55)
CIVIL ACTION
Case No. 15
BETWEEN:
Rubilubi55
(Plaintiff)
V.
The Crown
(Defendant)
1. Jurisdictional Statement
According to K.A. Const. § III Art. 15 "The Chancery is the highest court of the nation, with exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional questions, including the interpretation and application of the Constitution", it should therefore rule on this case, as the claims are mostly based on Articles from the Alexandrian Constitution.
2. Parties
Rubilubi55
The Congress (represented by the Crown)
3. Facts
1. On the 28th of July 2025, King WackJap assented the Government Organization Act (A.P. 01-044).
2. Section 6, Article 3 of A.P. 01-044 cites the following: "All procedural rules of parliament are to be adjudicated by parliament, and no other body shall have the authority to make determinations on the internal procedures of the Parliamentary body.", and therefore disallows parliament to give any branch of government, including themselves, unchecked and unregulated power.
3. K.A. Const. § 1 Art. 2(10) cites: "Constitutional Checks and Balances: Parliament ensures no branch of government has unchecked power."
4. Section 6, Article 3 of A.P. 01-044 gives the parliament an unchecked power by disallowing other branches of government from interfering with the process.
5. Section 6, Article 3 of A.P. 01-044 is therefore unconstitutional and should be stricken from the Government Organizations Act (A.P. 01-044).
4. Claims for Relief
1. The plaintiff in this case has a reasonable interest in this case, as it violates the Constitution and the democratic principle of Checks and Balances, also violating his democratic rights as a citizen of Alexandria.
2. Even though the intent of Section 6, Article 3 of A.P. 01-044 may be to disallow the executive from changing the internal procedures of the parliament, the intent of this law does not matter. Matters is what this law objectively says. Due to a vague definition many things are unclear. The law could prohibit the Judiciary from interfering should the parliament not follow their standing orders, due to a very vague definition this could also allow the Parliament, or the Speaker, to not follow the laws set out for the Legislative in A.P. 01-044 or other significant laws and rules.
3. The parliament therefore violates their constitutional duty of keeping Checks and Balances, by technically giving themselves the power to not follow, the laws and rules set by them for them without fearing Judiciary intervention.
5. Prayers for Relief
1. Section 6, Article 3 of A.P. 01-044 to be struck as unconstitutional.
2. Apology from the Parliament for violating their constitutional responsibility to keep Checks and Balances.
Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of September 2025 by Rubilubi55.
Signed,
Rubi Semsrott-Sloth (Rubilubi55)
