Case: Pending Anthony Org v. Azalea Isles (2026) CV 17
- Thread starter multiman155
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2024
- Messages
- 294
Your Honor,
Despite attempts from the Plaintiff to confuse the law, it is clear here, and the Defense will show that.
With respect to the Plaintiff, their arguments to this bear inherent contradictions. Section 5(b) bears no binding requirement on the Speaker to wait for an MP’s notification. Plaintiff claims that the existence of the option for an MP to notify the Speaker means the Speaker must await the notification, despite that language not existing in the law. However, Plaintiff then rejects the idea that the same permissive wording in Section 9(d) binds the Plaintiff’s procedural dispute. The Plaintiff cannot have both of these claims simultaneously; either permissive wording creates a binding legislative force or it does not. Your Honor’s rejection of the Defense’s Motion to Dismiss provides a clear foundation to reject this permissive claim around 5(b) - “The permissive wording indicates that this mechanism is optional rather than a mandatory requirement…” To then issue a ruling in favor of the Plaintiff’s claims on Section 5(b) would be a legal contradiction, conflicting with a ruling just issued in this court last week.
Plaintiff claims their reading upholds anti-surplusage canon and ensures every provision has an effect. Plaintiff again ignores the contradiction in the arguments they just delivered. If a provision (with permissive wording) creates an option, but not a requirement, as Plaintiff argued for Section 9(d) and the court upheld, then why now does a different provision with permissive wording create a binding requirement, rather than an option? Section 9(d), under this court’s interpretation, serves no real purpose if individual MPs can escape needing the support of two other MPs to reverse an action, simply by filing a lawsuit. Again - upholding Plaintiff’s interpretation means upholding an inherently flawed and contradictory position that undermines the legal foundation this court has already set in this case.
Plaintiff claims that the Speaker has acted impartially, rejecting the publicly available evidence that another MP called one of the Speaker’s own bills into to debate and the Speaker allowed it. Any and all claims that the Speaker was acting impartially fly in the face of the facts, and attempt to undermine the law’s clear position that the Speaker has the full rights and privileges of the other MPs, which include disliking a bill and stating so in debate. The Speaker acted in accordance with an interpretation that impacted his own legislation, and showed no bias. The only evidence the Plaintiff has provided to this court was the Speaker exercising his right to debate - there is nothing to show that opening debate early was a premeditated act of sabotage rather than an action consistent with the Speaker’s procedural interpretation
In all, Your Honor, as the court has seen fit to establish judicial review of Parliament procedures, the Defense has clearly outlined the problems with ruling in favor of the Plaintiff on this case. We look forward to continuing to demonstrate to Your Honor why a judgement should be returned in favor of the Defense.
(apologies for the delay, it has been an unfortunate week which I am happy to review with Your Honor in private if an excuse is needed)
Despite attempts from the Plaintiff to confuse the law, it is clear here, and the Defense will show that.
With respect to the Plaintiff, their arguments to this bear inherent contradictions. Section 5(b) bears no binding requirement on the Speaker to wait for an MP’s notification. Plaintiff claims that the existence of the option for an MP to notify the Speaker means the Speaker must await the notification, despite that language not existing in the law. However, Plaintiff then rejects the idea that the same permissive wording in Section 9(d) binds the Plaintiff’s procedural dispute. The Plaintiff cannot have both of these claims simultaneously; either permissive wording creates a binding legislative force or it does not. Your Honor’s rejection of the Defense’s Motion to Dismiss provides a clear foundation to reject this permissive claim around 5(b) - “The permissive wording indicates that this mechanism is optional rather than a mandatory requirement…” To then issue a ruling in favor of the Plaintiff’s claims on Section 5(b) would be a legal contradiction, conflicting with a ruling just issued in this court last week.
Plaintiff claims their reading upholds anti-surplusage canon and ensures every provision has an effect. Plaintiff again ignores the contradiction in the arguments they just delivered. If a provision (with permissive wording) creates an option, but not a requirement, as Plaintiff argued for Section 9(d) and the court upheld, then why now does a different provision with permissive wording create a binding requirement, rather than an option? Section 9(d), under this court’s interpretation, serves no real purpose if individual MPs can escape needing the support of two other MPs to reverse an action, simply by filing a lawsuit. Again - upholding Plaintiff’s interpretation means upholding an inherently flawed and contradictory position that undermines the legal foundation this court has already set in this case.
Plaintiff claims that the Speaker has acted impartially, rejecting the publicly available evidence that another MP called one of the Speaker’s own bills into to debate and the Speaker allowed it. Any and all claims that the Speaker was acting impartially fly in the face of the facts, and attempt to undermine the law’s clear position that the Speaker has the full rights and privileges of the other MPs, which include disliking a bill and stating so in debate. The Speaker acted in accordance with an interpretation that impacted his own legislation, and showed no bias. The only evidence the Plaintiff has provided to this court was the Speaker exercising his right to debate - there is nothing to show that opening debate early was a premeditated act of sabotage rather than an action consistent with the Speaker’s procedural interpretation
In all, Your Honor, as the court has seen fit to establish judicial review of Parliament procedures, the Defense has clearly outlined the problems with ruling in favor of the Plaintiff on this case. We look forward to continuing to demonstrate to Your Honor why a judgement should be returned in favor of the Defense.
(apologies for the delay, it has been an unfortunate week which I am happy to review with Your Honor in private if an excuse is needed)