Lawsuit: In Session Ameslap v. Crown, Case 12 (Ch. 2025)

ameslap

ameslap

Moderator
Moderator
ameslap
ameslap
Joined
Mar 25, 2025
Messages
70
IN THE HONORABLE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CIVIL ACTION

Case No.: 15

Ameslap
Applicant/Plaintiff

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 (also known as the Application or Plaintiff in this case) was the Party Leader of the Sovereign Kingdom Party and held the number one ranking on the August 2025 SKP Election Ballot until the Crown removed me from the election.

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 August 2025 Election declarations on August 1, 2025.
4. The Applicant, as Party Leader for the Sovereign Kingdom Party (SKP), made declarations for the SKP on August 18.
5. The first candidate on the SKP Declaration was the Applicant.
6. On August 18, the Crown posted an announcement stating the perceived candidate requirements on Discord.
7. On August 18, the Crown removed the Applicant as a candidate, citing "Ameslap - SKP - DISQUALIFIED Lack of playtime A.P.018 6-(b)"
8. The Constitution states: "Every citizen has the right to participate in and run for office" (Part 5-22-1).
9. Because of this, the Applicant's removal was unconstitutional.
10. The SKP claimed 2 parliament seats in the August Election.
11. The Applicant, being the first candidate on the SKP list, would have been elected to Parliament if not for the removal.

4. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF:​

1. Text within the Alexandrian Electoral Act that places restrictions on candidate requirements are deemed unconstitutional and struck from the law.
2. The Kingdom of Alexandria administers a redo of the August 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 3th of September, 2025.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE CHANCELLERY FOR REVIEW.
 
Last edited:
YRKrp9o.png

IN THE CHANCERY OF
THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The Crown's rightfully appointed Counsel is commanded to appear before the court within seventy-two hours.​
 
Your Honours,

as co-sponsor of the Active Voters Act, I wish to enter an Amicus Curiae on this matter regarding author's intent. I also wish to inform Your Honours that the author does not wish to involve themselves in this due to their position as Deputy Prime Minister.

Respectfully submitted,
TheStormcrafter MP
 
IN THE HONORABLE CHANCERY OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
Case No.:15

Ameslap
Applicant/Plaintiff
v.

The Crown
Respondent/Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
  1. The respondent AFFIRMS that the Parliament of Alexandria passed the Alexandrian Electoral Act (A.P.018), and it was signed into law on May 6, 2025.
  2. The respondent AFFIRMS that the Constitution of Alexandria is the supreme law of the land.
  3. The respondent AFFIRMS that the Ministry of Internal Affairs opened the August 2025 Election declarations on August 1, 2025.
  4. The respondent AFFIRMS that the Applicant, as Party Leader for the Sovereign Kingdom Party (SKP), made declarations for the SKP on August 18.
  5. The respondent AFFIRMS that the Applicant was the first candidate on the SKP Declaration
  6. The respondent AFFIRMS that on August 18, the crown posted an announcement stating the candidate requirements on Discord.
  7. The respondent AFFIRMS that on August 18, the Crown removed the Applicant as a candidate, citing "Ameslap - SKP - DISQUALIFIED Lack of playtime A.P.018 6-(b)"
  8. The respondent AFFIRMS that the Constitution states: "Every citizen has the right to participate in and run for office" (Part 5-22-1).
  9. The respondent DENIES the claim that the Applicant’s removal was unconstitutional.
  10. The respondent AFFIRMS that SKP claimed 2 parliament seats in the August Election.
  11. The respondent AFFIRMS that the applicant would have been elected to Parliament if not for the removal.
II. DEFENSES

1. The Constitution does not unconditionally prohibit the government from regulating rights and freedoms enumerated in Part V. It allows for "reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society." See K.A. Const. § V Art. 22. Under this provision, the constitutional right to run for office is subject to reasonable restrictions by Parliament, including candidate qualification requirements.

2. The playtime requirement in A.P. 018 § 4(6)(b) constitutes a reasonable limit justified in a free and democratic society. Imposing playtime requirements serves a legitimate purpose. It ensures that every Member of Parliament maintains the requisite knowledge of the Kingdom’s affairs necessary to execute their duties competently. It is reasonable to conclude that without this provision, uninformed and unqualified persons who have no familiarity with the operations of the Kingdom could assume office and jeopardize the integrity and efficacy of our Parliament. The Crown’s disqualification of the Applicant was based on objective, verifiable criteria applied uniformly to all candidates in accordance with A.P. 018.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 6th day of September 2025.

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
 
Discovery shall now begin and last for seventy-two hours. Discovery may be abridged at the request of both parties, or extended if just cause is given.
 
To the Honorable Chancery, I wish to amend my complaint, specifically the Claims for Relief.

2. £1,000 in damages for the Crown's unconstitutional behavior, which is outrageous.
2. The Kingdom of Alexandria administers a redo of the August 2025 Election immediately.

I no longer believe that money will not satisfy my damages and the only logical recourse is to re-administer the elections fairly and lawfully.
 
TheStormcrafter said:
Your Honours,

as co-sponsor of the Active Voters Act, I wish to enter an Amicus Curiae on this matter regarding author's intent. I also wish to inform Your Honours that the author does not wish to involve themselves in this due to their position as Deputy Prime Minister.

Respectfully submitted,
TheStormcrafter MP
Click to expand...
The court thanks the honorable Member for their desire to help, but we do not wish to have matters of interpretation be spoiled by after-the-fact comment. We refuse the offer of this brief, as comments made after a bill's passage generally are not reliable to aid in interpretation—especially when made specifically towards a court in its interpretation.
 
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
NOTICE OF CO-COUNSEL

Honorable Chancellors,

I understand that my role as Deputy Prime Minister does not automatically grant me the authority to represent the Crown in court.

Attached is an authorization by the Solicitor General to act in the capacity of Crown Counsel for this case.

Respectfully submitted,
Capt11543
Acting Crown Counsel

1000002753.jpg
 
The Plaintiff calls the following individuals as witnesses:
1. ibney0
2. Thritystone
 
The Plaintiff requests an additional 48 hours to Discovery, we have a couple of outstanding items that we intend to produce.
 
The Plaintiff calls Former Prime Minister and Framer of the Alexandria Constitution Casualgreyknight as a witness as well.
 
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
SUBMISSION OF DISCOVERY

Honorable Chancellors,

Attached is D-001, or screenshots which show that Plaintiff had, in fact, not met the playtime requirements set by law at the time he was disqualified.

It has been established that Plaintiff was disqualified for that reason, but the Plaintiff's actual playtime at the time of disqualification has not yet been established.

Respectfully submitted,
Capt11543
Acting Crown Counsel

1000002745.jpg
1000002746.png
 
ameslap said:
The Plaintiff requests an additional 48 hours to Discovery, we have a couple of outstanding items that we intend to produce.
Click to expand...
The Applicant rescinds this request, I was able to submit everything in a timely fashion and no longer require it.

Thank you.
 
ameslap said:
To the Honorable Chancery, I wish to amend my complaint, specifically the Claims for Relief.

2. £1,000 in damages for the Crown's unconstitutional behavior, which is outrageous.
2. The Kingdom of Alexandria administers a redo of the August 2025 Election immediately.

I no longer believe that money will not satisfy my damages and the only logical recourse is to re-administer the elections fairly and lawfully.
Click to expand...
We shall grant this request. Claimant is directed to amend his complaint as requested before the termination of discovery.

I see you went ahead and amended the text of your complaint. Claimant is reminded that under the Court Rules and Procedures, it is necessary for a party to first request permission from the court to amend, and then only after the court grants permission may the party then amend. The court will allow this one breach of procedure for a harmless error.
 
Last edited:
Capt11543 said:
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
NOTICE OF CO-COUNSEL

Honorable Chancellors,

I understand that my role as Deputy Prime Minister does not automatically grant me the authority to represent the Crown in court.

Attached is an authorization by the Solicitor General to act in the capacity of Crown Counsel for this case.

Respectfully submitted,
Capt11543
Acting Crown Counsel

View attachment 830
Click to expand...
The court recognizes this notice.
 
Smallfries said:
To what end do these three individuals each serve as a witness?
Click to expand...
Ibney0 is a legal expert, lawmaker, and helped with the 2025 Election Results and can speak on the letter of the law.

Thritystone was the Minister of Internal Affairs and will be asked on their discussion and implementation of the election law.

As a Framer of the Constitution, CasualGreyKnight will testify on the intentional wording of Article 22 point 1 when it was created.
 
I would ask if they are not allowed to be direct witnesses then the Plaintiff be allowed to submit testimony as evidence for these individuals if they choose to give it.
 
ameslap said:
The Plaintiff calls the following individuals as witnesses:
1. ibney0
Click to expand...
In a 2-0 vote, the Chancery denies this witness. We do not think this witness would be useful in advancing the facts of this case.
ameslap said:
The Plaintiff calls the following individuals as witnesses:
2. Thritystone
Click to expand...
In a 2-0 vote, the Chancery grants this witness.
ameslap said:
The Plaintiff calls Former Prime Minister and Framer of the Alexandria Constitution Casualgreyknight as a witness as well.
Click to expand...
In a 2-0 vote, the Chancery denies this witness. As written in a response from the bench above, the Chancery does not wish to advance spoilation of interpretation from after-the-fact discussion. The only legislative history or interpretation that shall hold any sway over judicial process is history from before the passage of a bill or act, or interpretation passed down by a court (or in the course of pre-passage legislative discussion).

The Chancery does not wish to create the impression that someone's interpretation on an act weeks or months hence has any precedential or binding power on a matter at hand.
ameslap said:
I would ask if they are not allowed to be direct witnesses then the Plaintiff be allowed to submit testimony as evidence for these individuals if they choose to give it.
Click to expand...
The proposed witnesses who were denied have no explained direct relevance to the case at hand, and we hold any testimony from them at this time would be improper. This is denied.
 
YRKrp9o.png

IN THE CHANCERY OF
THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
WITNESS SUMMONS

@Thritystone is summoned as a witness in this case. The summoned shall have forty-eight hours to declare their presence to this court. By doing so, the summoned swears that any testimony given shall be truthful and complete under penalty of perjury.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top