Lawsuit: Adjourned Rubilubi55 v. Crown, Case 13 (Ch. 2025)

Status
Not open for further replies.
IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honours,
first I would like to point out the following: In their Opening statement the defendant submitted.

Parliament would not seek to create legal obligations on the Chancery for how they should vote. The Crown would not seek to enforce such a law on the judiciary. Yet, plaintiff asks this Court to allow itself to interpret the standing orders of parliament, which are nothing more than a rules resolution with no legal functionality.
Click to expand...
This comparison is partially incorrect; using it the other way around would imply that I asked the Judiciary to impose obligations on the parliament regarding how to vote. This is not right. This case is about allowing the Judiciary to legally interpret the parliament's standing orders. This is important, as the standing orders are not just resolutions, at least not yet. This is mainly what this court case is about. Do we allow Parliament, especially the speaker, to ignore by parliament set standing orders, or do we allow the Judiciary to interfere, should they do so?

As the Standing orders, the Government Organization Act, and the Crown recognize, the Standing orders themselves are not laws. Similar to a resolution of parliament, they have no legal effect and the executive does not enforce them.
Click to expand...
I would also like to answer to this part, even though the standing orders are technically not laws, the Judiciary should still have the power to interpret them. This is the same as with Executive Policies, these are not passed by parliament but are also under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary. So why should we check the Executive's internal procedures but not the Parliament ones? In addition, the Judiciary also rules on Contracts, which, with the plaintiff's interpretation, should not fall under the Judiciary's jurisdiction either.

Therefore, I ask this court to rule in favour of the plaintiff. We need to keep a working system of Checks and Balances, a working system in a sense of not giving parliament the power to operate and possibly cause harm without juridical interference. A system where the Speaker could not do what they want. Because the standing orders are not just "rules resolution", these are called traditions.

Respectfully submitted,
Rubi Semsrott-Sloth (Rubilubi55)

I would like to apologise again for such a big delay, as well as a seemingly rushed Closing Statement due to limited time.
 
Your honour,

I have resigned and left the server. Please instruct the government to find a new counsel for this case.

Best of luck,

Joseph Ibney0
 
Following the resignation of the Crown's current legal counsel, the Government is hereby ordered to provide new legal counsel within 72 hours, extendable via a Writ of Continuance.
 
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR CONTINUANCE

Your Honor, given that there is an election on at the moment, it is uncertain who will be leading the Ministry of Justice. Accordingly, the Crown requests continuance in this case until a new government is formed and the incoming Minister of Justice can assign someone to this case.
 
Capt11543 said:
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR CONTINUANCE

Your Honor, given that there is an election on at the moment, it is uncertain who will be leading the Ministry of Justice. Accordingly, the Crown requests continuance in this case until a new government is formed and the incoming Minister of Justice can assign someone to this case.
Click to expand...
This is granted.
 
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CLOSING STATEMENT

JURISDICTION

The Constitution vests the Chancery with the authority to interpret law, not to adjudicate on internal parliamentary procedures. Standing Orders are not laws because their force does not come from Parliament’s legislative power vested by the Constitution, but from its inherent constitutional privilege to regulate its own operations.

While the Chancery may exercise some jurisdiction over internal executive policies, the same does not extend to Parliament’s Standing Orders. Executive policies have legal effect, as they are enforced by the Executive and can directly impact the rights of players. On the other hand, Standing Orders restrict only the internal operations of Parliament and do not restrict outside of its own legislative process. They have no legal effect, and therefore any intervention would intrude on the clear boundary established by the Constitution between the Chancery and Parliament.

SEPARATION OF POWERS

Following K.A. Const. § I Art. 3.1, Parliament holds the exclusive power to “pass laws by debating, scrutinizing, and voting on bills.” Parliament's authority to make laws is not subject to inference by any other branch of government. Any restriction imposed by the Chancery on the time, manner, or method by which Parliament conducts its own internal legislative operations would undermine its sovereignty.

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
CCA.png
IN THE CHANCERY OF
THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
VERDICT

High Chancellor AsexualDinosaur writes this opinion, joined by Chancellor Juniperfig

K.A Const § III Art. 14 “Judicial power is vested in the courts, consisting‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ Chancery and the Magistrates Court. These institutions interpret‌ ‌the‌ ‌law‌ ‌as‌ ‌written‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌legislature‌ ‌and‌ ‌administered‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌Executive.‌”

id. at § I Art. 2.10 “Constitutional Checks and Balances: Parliament ensures no branch of government has unchecked power.”

The key points here are that standing orders are parliamentary procedure and are not law and do not grant Parliament any more power than they already have, they are a set of rules and order to maintain quorum within its chambers. This is also key in addressing the arguments of checks and balances.

This should not be interpreted to mean that the judiciary is unable to ensure that the rights and freedoms outlined in the constitution are being upheld, or that damages resulting from ‘illegal’ procedure are unable to be heard

A.P.01-044 § 6.3 “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.”

The constitution does not explicitly permit the Judiciary to interpret the rules of Parliament, that is a job for Parliament to handle internally, decide upon, and modify as they see fit.​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top