Lawsuit: Dismissed ItsStormcraft v. The Crown of Alexandria, Case IX (2026)

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheStormcrafter

TheStormcrafter

Moderator
Moderator
1st Anniversary Change Maker Incumbent Lawmaker
ItsStormcraft
ItsStormcraft
Parliament Clerk
Joined
Apr 12, 2025
Messages
159
IN THE CHANCERY OF ALEXANDRIA
Civil Complaint

I. Jurisdictional Statement
This court has jurisdiction over all constitutional questions. I argue that filing a motion less than 48h prior to dissolution renders that motion effective void as voting cannot be completed before Parliament ceases to exist.

II. Parties
ItsStormcrafter, fmr. Electoral Adjudicator
The Crown, represented by the Ministry of Justice

III. Facts
(1) Under the Government Organisation Act §14, the Electoral Adjudicator can only be removed by a motion in Parliament.
(2) The results of such a motion are called after 48h of voting.
(3) The Motion to Remove was filed only a day prior to dissolution and the Nomination only on the day of dissolution. (E1)
(4) The results could only be called after dissolution (the 90th day expires on 18:51 UTC, exactly 2160h after the announcement of the prior election's results here).

IV. Argument
As neither the Motion to Remove nor the Nomination can be called prior to dissolution, they are both void. I should therefore still be Electoral Adjudicator and McBrittle419 is exercising the powers of the Adjudicator unlawfully.

V. Petition
(1) Reinstate maself as Electoral Adjudicator.
(2) Void the nomination of McBrittle419.
(3) Void all actions taken by McBrittle419 as Electoral Adjudicator.

So petitioned before the honourable Court,
Kaladin Stormblessed
1790072032173.png
 
IN THE CHANCERY OF ALEXANDRIA
Entreaty for Emergency Injunction

Due to the highly sensitive nature of elections and immediate need for the General Election to be conducted, I ask the court to grant interim relief by suspending Brittle and either:
a. reinstating me
b. entrusting the Directors to conduct the election

So petitioned before the honourable Court,
Kaladin Stormblessed
 

Writ of Court


IN THE CHANCERY OF
THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA

WRIT - DISMISSAL


We unanimously dismiss this controversy wholesale for want of jurisdiction. The Constitution assigns the Chancery original jurisdiction over "constitutional questions, including the interpretation and application of the Constitution." K.A. Const. Part III, § 15.

In the instant case, Claimant alleges our jurisdiction is met but does not provide any specifics as to how that is accomplished. Further, rather than citing the Constitution or any breach of the fundamental law thereof, only cites an act of Parliament. Finally, Claimant does not even submit a simple statement regarding the particular claim they hold as a matter of law that leads to them seeking relief—constitutional in origin or otherwise.

We will not furnish a claimant's argument for them, nor do we exist to do any party's job for them. ColonelKai v. Crown of Alexandria, Case 8, § 4 (Ch. 2025) ("We must also make unambiguously, unflinchingly, and abundantly clear: In this [C]ourt, we will not construct a part's argument for them. We can, and will, dismiss a point or entire case simply because they are improperly researched, explained, or briefs. Filings must have all points clearly discussed and explained. Even if we do not dismiss an issue or case, [parties must still make efforts in their work because] we still may improperly understand it.").

We dismiss this complaint without prejudice for want of jurisdiction. So ordered.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top