Lawsuit: In Session The Crown v. Thritystone, Case 3 (Mag. Ct., 2026)

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY OF PROMPTING
ENTREATY OF STRIKING

Your Honor,

To my knowledge, responses to responses are not standard in this Court. I respectfully request clarification as to whether I may file a response to the Defendant's submission (#120), or alternatively, that the Defendant's submission be struck.

Respectfully Submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
Your Honor,

No part of the General Court Rules and Procedures prohibits clarifying responses. Furthermore#120 Was submitted within 24-hour timeframe of the originating questions #117, and should, if necessary, be read as an amendment to the original objection, as is permitted under the guiding principles of the Courts of Alexandria. The defense is permitted to issue objections (plural) within 24 hours. Our response to the crown's response fits within the 24 hours and should count as a second and continuation of our original objection, or if the court may insist, count as a second objection.

"Witness Testimony, Cross Examination, Writs & Objections: 24 hours"

Respectfully Submitted,
 
MagistrateSeal.png
IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RULING ON OBJECTION AND ENTREATIES
​
Before any rulings are made, the Court would like to make some clarifications. The fact that something is not expressly forbidden under our rules and procedures, does not mean that it is thus allowed and appropriate. The Court will make it clear to all parties when the case progresses, and when a filing is expected of them. Beyond this, the parties to the case are allowed to file objections and entreaties in line with our court rules and procedures. When a party files an objection or entreaty, other parties are allowed one response to this. Responses to responses are not appropriate. Any further inappropriate fillings that are not in line with our court rules and procedures will not be tolerated and will result in being held in contempt.

That being said, the Court, having considered filings #118, #119, #120, #121, and #122, rules as follows:

Objection - Relevancy (#118)
Overruled. It is not clear to the Court what exactly the Defendant is intending to object to. In #120 the Defendant states that "Our objection is not to the existence of the questions themselves, nor the answer, but to their potential use beyond permissible scope." The Court will not, and does not see how it could, preemptively grant an objection to something that may potentially happen in the future. Applying the relevancy objection to the matter quoted in #118, the Court still overrules this objection. It has been made clear by the Prosecution that their purpose of these questions is to establish the background and credibility of the witness. The Court finds this relevant.

Entreaty of Prompting (#121)
Denied. As the original objection has been overruled, the Court does not see a reason to allow the Prosecution a further response with regard to this matter.

Entreaty of Striking (#121)
Denied. The Court sees no reason to strike the filing in question at this time, as the original objection has been overruled.


So ordered,
Magistrate Gribble19​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top