Lawsuit: Dismissed .Farmerkalechip v. Crown, Case VIII (2026)

IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CIVIL ACTION


.Farmerkalechip, Plaintiff

v.

Crown of Alexandria, Defendant


I. JURISDICTION & STANDING APPLICATION

The Chancery has original jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to K. A. Const. Part III §15, as this case concerns the interpretation and application of the Constitution to the Alexandrian Electoral Act:

The Chancery is the highest court of the nation, with exclusive jurisdiction over 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.

Click to expand...

Plaintiff has standing to file this action pursuant to General Court Rules and Procedures (Judiciary of Alexandria, 2025):

9) Standing Application
In order for a plaintiff to pursue a case, they must show the following to the court:

• Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; is affected by an application of law; or has a genuine interest as a citizen and there are no reasonable and effective alternative means to challenge the law.
• Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favourable decision.

Click to expand...

Plaintiff's case falls into the second category of the first element of the test. He has already contacted the Ministry of Internal Affairs to request an exemption from the contested passport requirement, and was denied. See P-003. Under long-standing Chancery precedent, remedy is available that may be granted by a favorable decision: the statutes imposing the unconstitutional passport requirement may be struck by this Court. See Ameslap v. Crown, Case 12 (Ch. 2025); .FreakyyyyBob158 v. Crown of Alexandria, Case 5 (Ch. 2026).


II. PARTIES

• .Farmerkalechip, Plaintiff - A citizen seeking to run for office; represented by Plaintiff's Counsel Capt B. Numbers
• The Crown, Defendant - Represented by the Ministry of Justice

III. FACTS

1. On August 28, 2026, the Ministry of Internal Affairs published preliminary information regarding the September 2026 Parliamentary election. (P-001).
2. The published information specified that a person must be a citizen with at least 6 hours of playtime in the past 30 days to be eligible to vote. (P-001)
3. On August 31, 2026, the Ministry published a correction informing the public that candidates must also hold a valid Alexandrian passport. (P-002)
4. Later that same day, the Plaintiff opened a ticket with the Ministry seeking an exemption from the requirement to hold a valid passport, as his passport application is still pending. (P-003)
5. The Ministry informed the Plaintiff in the ticket that they could not grant an exception under the law, and suggested that his best option is to sue. (P-003)

IV. CLAIM FOR RELIEF

K. A. Const. Part V, §22(2) establishes the citizens' right to vote in elections in the Kingdom of Alexandria:

Every citizen has the right to vote in elections and referendums. Parliament may by law establish reasonable activity requirements for achieving and maintaining eligibility to vote.

Click to expand...

The framework is clear: the right to vote is extended to all citizens, except that Parliament may establish activity requirements by statute, and reasonable activity requirements are the only lawful means to restrict a citizen's ability to vote. This means that any restriction on voter eligibility which does not take the form of a reasonable activity requirements, such as a requirement to obtain a passport through a procedure that does not require an activity check, are unconstitutional. The Court upheld that interpretation in .FreakyyyyBob158 v. Crown of Alexandria, Case 5 (Ch. 2026) when ruling in favor of the Plaintiff:

Here, the law may indeed limit any of the part V rights—but as to voting and running for elections, only Parliament may restrict those rights, and those restrictions may only be sourced from a reasonable activity requirement.

Click to expand...

The only question that remains is the actual question presented: Is the passport requirement constitutional? If obtaining a passport required some reasonable and non-trivial (read: not joining the server for a second) activity to achieve and/or maintain, yes. However, as it stands, we do not see any officially listed. Therefore, it is clear that merely requiring a passport to vote is not within Parliament’s powers.

Click to expand...

Likewise, K. A. Const. Part V, §22(1) establishes the citizens' right to run for office in the Kingdom of Alexandria:

Every citizen has the right to run for and hold elected offices. Parliament may by law establish reasonable activity requirements for running in elections and maintaining elected offices.

Click to expand...

This clause is a nearly exact copy of Article 22(2), applied to a different right relating to participating in the electoral process. Both clauses follow the exact same construction: "Every citizen has the right to X. Parliament may by law establish reasonable activity requirements for X."

In Freakyyyybob, the Plaintiff sued before polls opened in the June 2026 General Election under similar factual circumstances to this case (see id at #1). The Plaintiff in Freakyyyybob's passport application was experiencing significant processing delays that rendered him ineligible to vote in that election. The Plaintiff argued that a bare requirement to possess a passport in order to be eligible to vote was unconstitutional, and striking down the requirement was the appropriate relief to prevent the grave harm of his own unlawful disenfranchisement; the Court agreed.

However, there are still statutes in force that purport to impose a bare requirement to possess a passport in order to be eligible to run for office. See A.P. 00-018 | Alexandrian Electoral Act §17(2) (emphasis added by Plaintiff's Counsel):

(2) To be eligible to participate in an election as a candidate (including as an independent candidate), an individual must:

(a) Be a citizen of the Kingdom of Alexandria.​

(b) Have at least 6 hours (6h) of playtime logged within the past 30 days (30d).​

(c) Have logged on within the last 7 days (7d).​

(d) Not be convicted of any crime, or otherwise subject to any legal penalty, which would bar said individual from serving in Parliament.​

(e) Hold a valid passport issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.​

Click to expand...

Furthermore, representatives of the Crown (specifically, the Ministry of Internal Affairs) have already made it clear to the Plaintiff that no exceptions may be made under the law, leaving the Plaintiff with no other option but to file suit.

The process to obtain an Alexandrian passport also remains unchanged since the Freakyyyybob decision. It is laid out in the Policy Book (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2026) §3(1)(1), which helpfully advertises how easy it is to obtain a passport:

Getting a passport in Alexandria is easy! Go right click on the "Monarch" character near the tutorial station at spawn to get an application. Fill out the application (if you have no address, enter rXXX for residency.) Then hit the "submit" button at the bottom right to lock the application and drop it off at the application drop box at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (/gps mofa).

Click to expand...

Notably missing are any requirements for "reasonable and non-trivial activity" of the sort contemplated by the Court in Freakyyyybob.

Taken together, the Constitution, statutes, and policy make it clear that the Constitutional rights of the Plaintiff in this case are being violated in exactly the same manner, for exactly the same reasons, as the Plaintiff in Freakyyyybob.


V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

On the basis of the above facts and claim, and in seeking just relief, the Plaintiff beseeches the honorable Chancellors:

• That a bare requirement to possess an Alexandrian passport in order to be eligible to run for office in the Kingdom be ruled unconstitutional.
• That any current legal provisions purporting to impose such a requirement be struck down.
• That the Crown be ordered to compensate the Plaintiff for £250 in legal fees.

VI. EVIDENCE





VII. PROOF OF REPRESENTATION



Respectfully submitted,
Capt B. Numbers
Plaintiff's Counsel