Lawsuit: Dismissed Alliance 25 / The Greens for Alexandria v. Crown of Alexandria, Case VII (2026)

[Talion77]

IN THE HONORABLE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CIVIL ACTION


Alliance 25 / The Greens for Alexandria
Plaintiff

v.

The Crown
Defendant

I. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

K. A. Const. Part III, §16 provides that "All cases shall initially be heard in the Magistrates Court, unless otherwise specified by law or granted special leave by the Chancery."

Further, the A.P. 01-044 | Government Organization Act provides that "The Chancery Court shall have original jurisdiction over questions solely of a constitutional nature, as well as electoral questions." Plaintiff argues that "electoral questions" encompasses not only disputed returns, but also questions whether an election was correctly initiated, which is what this proceeding is about. As such, the Chancery has jurisdiction.

II. PARTIES

Alliance 25 / The Greens for Alexandria, a registered political party in the Kingdom of Alexandria (Plaintiff)
The Crown (Defendant)

III. FACTS

1. On July 20th 2026, at approximately 15:48 UTC, the Speaker of Parliament declared passage of a motion to impeach Member of Parliament FSXSteamBoss for lack of playtime. (P-001)
2. Section 11(1) of the A.P.00-018 | Alexandrian Electoral Act provides that "In the event of a vacancy in Parliament, if Parliament cannot agree on a replacement within 72 hours, a Special Election shall be held."
3. Parliament later, on July 31st at approximately 4:20 UTC, passed a motion to appoint TurtleDude241 to the vacant seat in Parliament. (P-002)
4. The motion to appoint TurtleDude241 passed approximately 10 days after Member of Parliament FSXSteamBoss was removed from their seat, over 7 days more than the allowed time under the Alexandrian Electoral Act.
5. The Speaker of Parliament permitted the motion to appoint TurtleDude241 with the reasoning "Now, I don't think we are quite there yet as I don't think Parliament has had enough time to agree or disagree to a replacement ...". (P-003)

IV. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-001

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discord.com

Spoiler: P-002

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discord.com

Spoiler: P-003

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discord.com

V. CLAIM FOR RELIEF

§11(1) of A.P.00-018 guarantees a special election is conducted if Parliament can not agree on a replacement for a vacant seat within 72 hours. Notwithstanding whether the procedure to agree upon a replacement was in contravention to the law, Parliament did not take less than 72 hours to agree upon a replacement. It took more than 240 hours. This is an openly illegal act.
Plaintiff was, through an illegal ruling of the Speaker of Parliament, blatantly deprived of their right to contest a special election as a political party. The Speaker justified his ruling with "I don't think Parliament has had enough time ...". Parliament set forth a statutory timeframe themselves, there is no room for the Speaker to unilaterally decide on a timeframe.

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. That the Court vacate the seat of illegally appointed Member of Parliament TurtleDude241 and order the Ministry of Internal Affairs to conduct a special election, inline with the procedure set forth in §11 of the Alexandrian Electoral Act.
2. £2,000 in legal fees.

Respectfully Submitted,

Talion77
First Head of the Greens
Alliance 25 / The Greens for Alexandria

 

[Smallfries]

The Crown is commanded to appear before the Chancery in the case of Alliance 25 / The Greens for Alexandria v. Crown of Alexandria, Case VII (2026).

Failure to appear within 72 hours may result in a default judgment based on the known facts of the case. All parties will make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures.

 

[Talion77]

IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
Entreaty for Default Judgement

Your honours,
the crown failed to respond to summons within the deadline provided. Plaintiff therefore entreaties the court to move into default judgement.

Signed,

Talion77
First Head of the Greens
Alliance 25 / The Greens for Alexandria

 

[ConsequencesInc]

The Crown is commanded to appear before the Chancery in the case of Alliance 25 / The Greens for Alexandria v. Crown of Alexandria, Case VII (2026).

Failure to appear within 72 hours may result in a default judgment based on the known facts of the case. All parties will make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures.

Your Honor,

I appologize for my tardiness, but a series of unfortunate events prevented the Crown from making the initial 72 hour window.

Until 9 hours after your initial summons, there was no Minister of Justice, Solicitor General, or Prosecutors. Simply put, the Crown as a functioning unit of a legal party to anything was non-existant for quite some time until appointments were made 68 hours ago.

I humbly request the grace and forgiveness of the Court on this matter. I know that you are a punctual judical officer and impose strict rules upon your courtroom, and with that in mind I would request that I be held in Contempt of Court on behalf of the Crown regardless of your ruling.

However, I must with my tophat in hand and a hung head that I plead to the court that this case not move forward to default judgement as it would be a grave miscairage of justice. While I understand that time is a strict constant, I request a modicum of amnesty for my tardiness in this case.


With the greatest amount of humility one can muster,
Stephen W. Spooner Jr.
Solicitor General.

 

[Smallfries]

Your Honor,

I appologize for my tardiness, but a series of unfortunate events prevented the Crown from making the initial 72 hour window.

Until 9 hours after your initial summons, there was no Minister of Justice, Solicitor General, or Prosecutors. Simply put, the Crown as a functioning unit of a legal party to anything was non-existant for quite some time until appointments were made 68 hours ago.

I humbly request the grace and forgiveness of the Court on this matter. I know that you are a punctual judical officer and impose strict rules upon your courtroom, and with that in mind I would request that I be held in Contempt of Court on behalf of the Crown regardless of your ruling.

However, I must with my tophat in hand and a hung head that I plead to the court that this case not move forward to default judgement as it would be a grave miscairage of justice. While I understand that time is a strict constant, I request a modicum of amnesty for my tardiness in this case.


With the greatest amount of humility one can muster,
Stephen W. Spooner Jr.
Solicitor General.

After conference, the Chancery grants a post-hoc nine hour stay, putting this appearance within the time allotted. As a result, we deny the entreaty for default judgment.

We will now proceed with the trial in a timely fashion. The Crown shall have forty-eight hours to give their answer. @ConsequencesInc

 

[ConsequencesInc]

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
Case No.: 7

BETWEEN:

Alliance 25 / The Greens for Alexandria
Plaintiff

v.

Crown
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. The Crown AFFIRMS that On July 20th 2026 at 15:48 UTC, the Speaker of Parliament declared passage of a motion to impeach Member of Parliament FSXSteamBoss
2. The Crown AFFIRMS that § 11(1) of the A.P.00-018 | Alexandrian Electoral Act provides that "In the event of a vacancy in Parliament, if Parliament cannot agree on a replacement within 72 hours, a Special Election shall be held."
3. The Crown NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that Parliament on July 31st at approximately 4:20 UTC, passed a motion to appoint TurtleDude241 to the vacant seat in Parliament.
4. The Crown:
   • NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES the motion to appoint TurtleDude241 passed approximately 10 days after Member of Parliament FSXSteamBoss was removed from their seat
   • DENIES the motion was over 7 days more than the allowed time under the Alexandrian Electoral Act.
5. The Crown NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that The Speaker of Parliament permitted the motion to appoint TurtleDude241 with the reasoning "Now, I don't think we are quite there yet as I don't think Parliament has had enough time to agree or disagree to a replacement ...".

II. DEFENSES

The Crown and the Defendant agree on a lot off things in this case. Most importantly, we agree on one thing: That the law guarantees a special election is conducted if Parliament can not agree on a replacement for a vacant seat within 72 hours. That is not in contention.

What we truly don't agree on, is what "within 72 hours" refers to.


1. The Statute Implies Parliament Has to Try and Find a Replacement

The statute in question states: "In the event of a vacancy in Parliament, if Parliament cannot agree on a replacement within 72 hours, a Special Election shall be held." See §11(1) A.P. 00-018.

The section noting that "if Parliament cannot agree on a replacement within 72 hours" stands alone, and leaves up to interpretation to when the 72 hours starts to tick.

If the legislation said "if Parliament cannot appoint a replacement within 72 hours of the vacancy event", we wouldn't be here today.

It is the crown's assertion that the legislation saying "if parliament cannot agree on a replacement" means that, in some way, shape or form, Parliament has to engage actively in the process of trying to find a replacement and disagree.

This is because, for Parliament to be unable to agree upon a replacement, some action has to be taken to find a replacement. Whether that be an unsuccessful search, an unsuccessful nomination, or the lack of a nomination after being called upon to do so.

For Parliament to not be able to agree to something, requires first that Parliament tries to agree on something. Since Parliament did put up a nomination that was then passed, despite there being some procedural delays, there was no disagreement.


2. The Speaker Presides Over Parliament

The Speaker of Parliament is the Presiding Officer, and such maintains order, enforces rules, and upholds traditions. See K.A. Const. § I Art. 4. Much like an officer of the Court, it is the duty of the Speaker of Parliament to rule on motions and Points of Order and to interpret the Standing Orders and other Legislation that applies to the day-to-day running of Parliament.

Sometimes, this takes time. As Judicial Officers in Alexandria know, sometimes things take time. As the Chancery has stated before "...the courts can take time. A lot of time, at moments. This is an unfortunate truth. However, our work does not have deadlines." See Dartanboy v. Crown, Case 1 (Ch. 2026).

The work of the Speaker, likewise, does not have deadlines while doing work while Parliament is in session. The Speaker's work also at times takes a lot of time.

The Speaker sometimes takes time getting to things, especially when things are clogged or personal life happens. Often times people need to remind the Speaker to do something they missed doing. This is not a new revelation to anyone who has sat in Parliament.

The case of this specific delayed request for a nomination to a vacant seat of Parliament is simply an action of a Speaker that took a bit longer than usual. The Seat, like many in government, sat vacant for awhile before the procedural action of the Speaker calling upon the proper party to nominate a replacement happened.

This was not an illegal act or illegal ruling. This was simply a governmental delay.


3. The Greens Didn't Object to the Appointment of TurtleDude241

Alliance 25/The Greens is not a new player in the political game. Tallion77 their head and the one who brought forth this suit is a former Speaker of Parliament. The Greens have and hold two seats in Parliament.

Not once did they object to the supposed "openly illegal act" that supposedly denied them a seat in-parliament. In fact, one of their members KaiserBismark voted in the affirmative to appointing TurtleDude241. See D-001.

The Greens had many actions of recourse within the Chamber of Parliament to stop this "illegal act". They could have raised a Point of Order, or Objected to the Proceedings, talked to the Speaker Mr. Shimmerclutch, nominated their own candidate to the empty seat, or other politiking.

The Greens did not do any of this, they went straight to the Parental Adjudicators that are the Courts instead of trying to work things out through the political system. This speaks a lot to their lack of good faith engagement with the governmental system at large.


III. SUMMARY

The Plaintiff in quite broad strokes has made it a point to demonize the Honorable Speaker of Parliament, Wigglesworth C. Shimmerclutch. Claiming his actions were "an openly illegal act", an "illegal ruling". They have also called a Member of Parliament turtledude241 an "illegal member".

These are serious allegations and churlish in nature, and show the hostile disposition of the Plaintiff towards many people in Government.

Let us call it for what it is: The Greens are really mad that a particular Speaker in Parliament didn't rule in their favor on something and they think its unfair. But just because someone is mad and doesn't think something is fair, doesn't mean that under the law it is wrong or illegal.


IV. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: D-001

Greens Member KaiserBismark agreeing to the nomination.

Respectfully submitted,
Stephen W. Spooner Jr.
Solicitor General.

 

[Talion77]

IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
Entreaty for Summary Judgement

Your honours,
this case contains no genuine factual disputes. The only fact the Crown denies is that the motion passed over 7 days later than the allowed time under the Alexandrian Electoral Act, which results from a different interpretation on the law. A full trial here would only waste everyones time, as such, I humbly petition the Court to allow for Summary Judgement.

I sincerely express my hope that the Crown concurs with this Entreaty, in the interest of efficient courtroom proceedings.

Signed,

Talion77
First Head of the Greens
Alliance 25 / The Greens for Alexandria

 

[Smallfries]

IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
Entreaty for Summary Judgement

Your honours,
this case contains no genuine factual disputes. The only fact the Crown denies is that the motion passed over 7 days later than the allowed time under the Alexandrian Electoral Act, which results from a different interpretation on the law. A full trial here would only waste everyones time, as such, I humbly petition the Court to allow for Summary Judgement.

I sincerely express my hope that the Crown concurs with this Entreaty, in the interest of efficient courtroom proceedings.

Signed,

Talion77
First Head of the Greens
Alliance 25 / The Greens for Alexandria

Does the Crown (@ConsequencesInc) have any issue with this?

 

[ConsequencesInc]

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
Case No.: 7
Response to Entreaty of Summary Judgement

Your honors,

I have no qualms to the Summary Judgment, so long as we still have Discovery to give the Crown a chance to submit further evidence and make motions. We can then move to Opening Statements and summary judgement from there.

Respectfully submitted,
Stephen W. Spooner Jr.
Solicitor General.

 

[Smallfries]

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
Case No.: 7
Response to Entreaty of Summary Judgement

Your honors,

I have no qualms to the Summary Judgment, so long as we still have Discovery to give the Crown a chance to submit further evidence and make motions. We can then move to Opening Statements and summary judgement from there.

Respectfully submitted,
Stephen W. Spooner Jr.
Solicitor General.

I'll grant this request on the assumption that Claimant has no qualms with it, and give the customary seventy-two hours for discovery. If Claimant does indeed have an issue, they may feel free to raise it. (@Talion77)

Sidenote: Please try to be more timely, counsellor. I was going to move on and act as I pleased when I got home today. Five days is more than enough time to give a simple yes or no, and it is only by virtue of my own matters that I waited this long. Do not make this a habit.

 

[ConsequencesInc]

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
Case No.: 7
Entreaty to Compel


Your Honor,

The Crown hereby requests that the Court compels the Plaintiff to produce the following evidence before the end of Discovery:

• Receipt and/or Contractual Agreement between Talion77 the Lawyer and Alliance 25 / The Greens for Alexandria showing the £2,000 in legal fees from on or before the day of initial filing (August 3rd, 2026).

Simply put, if the Plaintiff wants to even entertain the relief claim of paying their legal fees, they need to provide proof of those fees from on or before the date of filing.


Respectfully submitted,
Stephen W. Spooner Jr.
Solicitor General.

 

[ConsequencesInc]

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
Case No.: 7
Submission of Evidence

Your Honor,

The Crown submits the following pieces of evidence:

D-002: The Entirety of the Speaker's reply to a Point of Order and the call upon the PM to nominate a replacement.

D-003: Motion to Nominate being originally brought

D-004: Motion to Nominate being declared passed.

Spoiler: D-002

Spoiler: D-003

Spoiler: D-004

Respectfully submitted,
Stephen W. Spooner Jr.
Solicitor General.

 

[Smallfries]

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
Case No.: 7
Entreaty to Compel


Your Honor,

The Crown hereby requests that the Court compels the Plaintiff to produce the following evidence before the end of Discovery:

• Receipt and/or Contractual Agreement between Talion77 the Lawyer and Alliance 25 / The Greens for Alexandria showing the £2,000 in legal fees from on or before the day of initial filing (August 3rd, 2026).

Simply put, if the Plaintiff wants to even entertain the relief claim of paying their legal fees, they need to provide proof of those fees from on or before the date of filing.


Respectfully submitted,
Stephen W. Spooner Jr.
Solicitor General.

Granted. @Talion77 is ordered to present to this Tribunal any document or agreement memorializing a payment of £2,000 for work performed in this controversy on or before the filing date of this action.

 

[Talion77]

Granted. @Talion77 is ordered to present to this Tribunal any document or agreement memorializing a payment of £2,000 for work performed in this controversy on or before the filing date of this action.

Plaintiff is unable to produce such agreements, documents, or records as no payment to myself has been made or agreed to.

I do not represent Plaintiff in my capacity as an attorney. As stated in my earlier posts, I represent the party as First Head of the Greens, its de facto Leader.

As legal fees are not regulated within any statute in the Kingdom of Alexandria, it is for the Court to decide whether they are appropriate to award for what is essentially the equivalent of a pro se litigant for their time and effort.

Signed,

Talion77
First Head of the Greens
Alliance 25 / The Greens for Alexandria

 

[Smallfries]

Plaintiff is unable to produce such agreements, documents, or records as no payment to myself has been made or agreed to.

I do not represent Plaintiff in my capacity as an attorney. As stated in my earlier posts, I represent the party as First Head of the Greens, its de facto Leader.

As legal fees are not regulated within any statute in the Kingdom of Alexandria, it is for the Court to decide whether they are appropriate to award for what is essentially the equivalent of a pro se litigant for their time and effort.

Signed,

Talion77
First Head of the Greens
Alliance 25 / The Greens for Alexandria

Your initial complaint made a request for £2,000 in legal fees. Are you saying you have nothing to substantiate that number? You just made it up?

 

[Smallfries]

I'll grant this request on the assumption that Claimant has no qualms with it, and give the customary seventy-two hours for discovery. If Claimant does indeed have an issue, they may feel free to raise it. (@Talion77)

Sidenote: Please try to be more timely, counsellor. I was going to move on and act as I pleased when I got home today. Five days is more than enough time to give a simple yes or no, and it is only by virtue of my own matters that I waited this long. Do not make this a habit.

In the meantime, this has elapsed. Claimant (@Talion77) shall have seventy-two hours to file their opening statement.

Further, I am concerned upon second review that this suit may not be within the jurisdiction of the Chancery of Alexandria. To that end, I order the same named above to submit, within seventy-two hours, a brief explaining why their claim is within this court's jurisdiction: "Constitutional questions, including the interpretation and application of the Constitution, as well as disputed returns arising from elections, including challenges to election results and qualifications of elected members of Parliament." K.A. Const. Part III, § 15. See also ComplexKing v. Crown of Alexandria, Case 2 (Ch. 2026).

 

[Talion77]

Your initial complaint made a request for £2,000 in legal fees. Are you saying you have nothing to substantiate that number? You just made it up?

The number was drawn from another proceedings in the Chancery, namely SoggehToast v. Crown, Case VI (2026).

 

[Talion77]

In the meantime, this has elapsed. Claimant (@Talion77) shall have seventy-two hours to file their opening statement.

Further, I am concerned upon second review that this suit may not be within the jurisdiction of the Chancery of Alexandria. To that end, I order the same named above to submit, within seventy-two hours, a brief explaining why their claim is within this court's jurisdiction: "Constitutional questions, including the interpretation and application of the Constitution, as well as disputed returns arising from elections, including challenges to election results and qualifications of elected members of Parliament." K.A. Const. Part III, § 15. See also ComplexKing v. Crown of Alexandria, Case 2 (Ch. 2026).

Claimant is of the opinion that nothing of substance could be adressed in an opening statement, as the dispute purely concerns interpretation of law. As such Claimant waives her right and petitions the Court to relieve her of the duty to file such.

 

[Smallfries]

The number was drawn from another proceedings in the Chancery, namely SoggehToast v. Crown, Case VI (2026).

Very well, then.

Claimant is of the opinion that nothing of substance could be adressed in an opening statement, as the dispute purely concerns interpretation of law. As such Claimant waives her right and petitions the Court to relieve her of the duty to file such.

I'm sorry, I'm not particularly sure what or who this is talking about. Could you please rephrase?

 

[Talion77]

Very well, then.

I'm sorry, I'm not particularly sure what or who this is talking about. Could you please rephrase?

Claimant is asking the Court to waive the opening statement, as she believes that there is nothing beyond a dispute on interpretation of law.

This request has been rescinded.