Lawsuit: Pending Ameslap et al. v Crown, Case 14 (Ch. 2025)

ameslap

ameslap

Member
ameslap
ameslap
Foreign Secretary
Joined
Mar 25, 2025
Messages
92
IN THE HONORABLE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CIVIL ACTION

Case No.: 15

Ameslap
Bloodyrebals
ComplexKing
Dartanboy
Pepecuu
Plura72
Applicants/Plaintiffs/Claimants

v.

The Crown
Respondent/Defendant

CASE FILING​

1. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT​

The Chancery has jurisdiction of this suit pursuant to the Alexandrian Constitution, specifically Part 3-15 stating: "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".

2. PARTIES​

1. Ameslap, Bloodyrebals, ComplexKing, Dartanboy, Pepecuu, Plura72 (collectively known as the "United Independents", "Applicants", "Plaintiffs", "Claimants") were candidates in the October Parliamentary Elections.

2. The Crown of the Kingdom of Alexandria (also known as "The Crown", "Government", "Defendant", and "Respondant") is the legal body recognized for proper service of suits alleging constitutional violations and ultra vires actions by its Ministries. See Reallmza v. The Crown, Case 1 (Ch. 2025).

3. FACTS​

1. The Parliament of Alexandria passed the Alexandrian Electoral Act (A.P.018), and it was signed into law on May 6, 2025.
2. The Constitution of Alexandria is the supreme law of the land.
3. The Ministry of Internal Affairs opened the October 2025 Election declarations on October 13, 2025.
4. The Applicants, as independents, made their declarations prior to the elections.
5. The Applicants received the necessary "Ayes" on the October Petition.
6. On October 22, only 4 independents were elected to Parliament.
7. 4 independent candidates won via a direct mandate.
8. 4 additional candidates who are members of parties won via a direct mandate.
9. The Labour/Public Servants Party won an additional 4 seats via the Party Vote portion of seat allocation.
10. The Greens Party won an additional 4 seats via the Party Vote portion of the seat allocation.
11. Independent candidates received at least 40% of first preference votes individually and as a bloc.
12. Independents are seated in 25% of Parliament seats.
13. 25% is less than 40%.
14. The Constitution states: "Voting System. Members will be elected according to a proportional voting system defined by Parliament." (Part 1-5-5).
15. Because of this, the seat allocation used was unconstitutional.

4. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF:​

1. Text within the Alexandrian Electoral Act which limits the number of seats independents can win is deemed unconstitutional.
2. Text within the Alexandrian Electoral Act that allows party members to win a direct mandate is deem unconstitutional.
2. The Kingdom of Alexandria administers a redo of the October 2025 Election immediately.

5. STATEMENT OF TRUTH​

I believe that the facts stated in this Claim are true. I swear that any and all statements to the court are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I understand the ramifications of violation of such oath.
SIGNED. Ameslap. Self-Representing.
This 22nd day of October, 2025.

6. Proof of Representation​

1761162013982.png1761162026889.png

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE CHANCELLERY FOR REVIEW.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Nim
YRKrp9o.png

IN THE CHANCERY OF
THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF SUMMONS


The Crown's rightfully appointed counsel is instructed to appear within seventy-two hours.​
 
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR CONTINUANCE

Your Honor,

The Crown respectfully requests a 24-hour continuance.

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh. T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
SoggehToast said:
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR CONTINUANCE

Your Honor,

The Crown respectfully requests a 24-hour continuance.

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh. T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
Click to expand...
You require an extension to appear before court?
 
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
WITHDRAWAL OF ENTREATY FOR CONTINUANCE

Your Honor,

Soggeh T. Oast, representing the Crown.

I respectfully withdraw the previously submitted Entreaty for Continuance. I apologize for any confusion caused by the prior filing.
The Crown is present and ready to proceed. To ensure no delay to these proceedings, the Crown will file its Response to the Complaint within 24 hours.

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh. T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
SoggehToast said:
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
WITHDRAWAL OF ENTREATY FOR CONTINUANCE

Your Honor,

Soggeh T. Oast, representing the Crown.

I respectfully withdraw the previously submitted Entreaty for Continuance. I apologize for any confusion caused by the prior filing.
The Crown is present and ready to proceed. To ensure no delay to these proceedings, the Crown will file its Response to the Complaint within 24 hours.

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh. T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
Click to expand...
Lovely. You have forty-eight.
 
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT

Ameslap
Applicant/Plaintiff
v.

The Crown
Respondent/Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Crown AFFIRMS that Parliament of Alexandria passed the Alexandrian Electoral Act (A.P.018) and it was signed into law on May 6, 2025.
2. The Crown AFFIRMS that the Constitution of Alexandria is the supreme law of the land.
3. The Crown AFFIRMS that the Ministry of Internal Affairs opened the October 2025 Election declarations on October 13, 2025.
4. The Crown AFFIRMS that the Applicants, as independents, made their declarations prior to the elections.
5. The Crown AFFIRMS that the Applicants received the necessary "Ayes" on the October Petition.
6. The Crown DENIES that on October 22, only 4 independents were elected to Parliament. However, denial is based solely on a technicality. Four Independents were elected to Parliament on the 21st, not the 22nd. The Crown submits that this distinction alone likely has no bearing on the merits of the Plaintiff's case.
7. The Crown AFFIRMS that 4 independent candidates won via a direct mandate.
8. The Crown AFFIRMS that 4 additional candidates who are members of parties won via a direct mandate.
9. The Crown AFFIRMS that the Labour/Public Servants Party won an additional 4 seats via the Party Vote portion of seat allocation.
10. The Crown AFFIRMS that The Greens Party won an additional 4 seats via the Party Vote portion of the seat allocation.
11. The Crown AFFIRMS that Independent candidates received at least 40% of first preference votes individually and as a bloc.
12. The Crown AFFIRMS that independents are seated in 25% of Parliament seats.
13. The Crown AFFIRMS that 25% is indeed less than 40%.
14. The Crown AFFIRMS The Constitution states: "Voting System. Members will be elected according to a proportional voting system defined by Parliament." (Part 1-5-5).
15. The Crown DENIES that seat allocation was unconstitutional.

II. DEFENSES
The Applicant's claim is based on the error that independents should be treated as a unified political entity. By definition, independents do not associate with any political party or ideology, share a common platform, or act collectively as an organized group. Instead, they are individual political candidates who compete on their own individual appeal. The Constitution demands that the election system as a whole remain proportional. Critically, the Constitution does not demand that every conceivable demographic subgroup maintain explicit representation in Parliament. Aggregating all independents under the law into one unified political entity and demanding collective representation fundamentally misunderstands what independent candidacy means, as well as what the Constitution mandates.

Moreover, there is no proportional system that is not bound to structural constraints and guarantees perfect mathematical equality. Every proportional system contains reasonable structural features that create acceptable deviations. When analyzed correctly, the final composition of Parliament ultimately reflects the preferences of the electorate and satisfies the constitutional requirement for proportionality. Independents competed individually on their own merits and were elected according to who received the greatest overall support, reflecting individual voter preferences.

Regardless of the merits of this case, demanding that the election be overturned outright is extreme and not an appropriate form of relief. Any reforms applied should be applied prospectively, not retroactively, as it would invalidate legitimate democratic results.

Respectfully submitted,

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

I apologize for the slight delay in this submission. Furthermore, I will be taking a 72-hour partial leave of absence due to some personal obligations. Should the court require my presence during this period, I may not be able to respond promptly.

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top