Lawsuit: Dismissed Ameslap v. Parliament, Case 12 (Ch. 2025)

[ameslap]

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
Civil Action

Ameslap
Plaintiff

V.

Parliament of Alexandria
Defendant​

Pretext:
A grave constitutional error has been made by the Parliament of Alexandria and it requires remedy. The Constitution lays the powers of both Parliament and Ministers clearly for all to see. The body known as “Parliament” is able to legislate the land, however the Constitution then narrows this language and power even further, allowing only Ministers to propose, introduce, and advocate for legislation related to their portfolio in Parliament. In the matter of public interest, I present the following…

Facts:
(I) The Constitution states: “Legislative Power: Parliament has the authority to create, amend, and repeal laws.” (P-001)
(II) The Constitution defines Parliament as: “consisting of one chamber, hereinafter called the Parliament”. (P-002)
(III) The Constitution states: “Legislative Power: Ministers can propose, introduce, and advocate for legislation related to their portfolio in Parliament.” (P-003)
(IV) There have been 12 laws where either a Member of Parliament that was not a Minister or a Minister that was not related to the legislation were the ones to propose such legislation. (P-004 thru P-008)

Claims for Relief:
The following laws are hereby repealed as unconstitutional:

1. A.P.01-036
2. A.P.01-019
3. A.P.01-010
4. A.P.01-016
5. A.P.01-032
6. A.P.01-028
7. A.P.01-035
8. A.P.01-034
9. A.P.01-025
10. A.P.01-011
11. A.P.01-024
12. A.P.01-033

Additionally, we request that the following laws and orders be amended to become constitutional:

1. A.P.001
2. Standing Orders of Parliament

Evidence:

Spoiler: P-001

P-001

Spoiler: P-002

P-002

Spoiler: P-003

P-003

Spoiler: P-004

P-004

Spoiler: P-005

P-005

Spoiler: P-006

P-006

Spoiler: P-007

P-007

Spoiler: P-008

P-008

I hereby swear that everything I say is to the truth.

 

[Smallfries]

IN THE CHANCERY OF
THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF DISMISSAL​

After some terse debate, we have decided to dismiss this case for lack of standing. The reasons for this decision are many, including potential abuse should we allow this specific case to proceed, administrability of the courts, and pragmatic views of governance. However, the greatest reason that we are dismissing this case underlying all the rest is simple: the alleged Defendant.

In this action, Claimant calls as Defendant the Parliament of Alexandria itself. We believe that Claimant lacks standing to sue the Parliament, especially over the alleged wrongdoing. Parliament here merely passed laws—even if said laws are unconstitutional (and thus invalid), Parliament itself did not cause any injury to Claimant.

Specifically, this case is simply dismissed under the standing application for cases to be filed. See Gen. Rules & Proc. To meet these requirements, the initiator of an action needs to suffer some injury caused by a second party. Id. That injury needs to also be an application of law. Id. Failing these elements, an initiator of an action may have standing if the law they are suing over creates a genuine interest that they as a citizen desire to remedy, and there are no reasonable and effective methods besides court action to challenge that law.

Here, Claimant has not demonstrated they have suffered any injury as a result of the alleged actions of Parliament. In the "Facts" section of his original complaint, Claimant recites a provision of the Constitution. This provision states, in less words, that Ministers in Government "can," inter alia, propose legislation. He then says there have been a dozen laws where someone who was not a Minister, or a specific Minister, proposed that law. For his claim, Claimant only says that this is unconstitutional. He does not say how, just that he believes it is.

We will not make a Claimant's argument for them. Beyond showing that you were injured by an action, one must also show what that action is. We will not make an argument or logical leap for the basic components of a suit for you. For this reason, this action fails.

However, even if remedied we find it unlikely that this action could survive. Parliament itself did not commit some harm, individuals within it (allegedly) did. Who would represent Parliament? How would it testify? This entire sequence is intuitively nonsensical, and we believe it is wholly unnecessary. If the Claimant's allegations are correct and the listed statutes are unconstitutional in some manner, then the mere fact of their being passed unconstitutionally (or against some standing order) is not enough to bring suit to have them struck.

We review over the application of law, not solely its creation. If in the course of reviewing a law's application we find that it has been passed illicitly, then we will strike it, but not before. If a law has been passed illegitimately, but no action has been taken on it or it has not impacted the nation in any tangible way, then Parliament still has an opportunity to cure that statute without our intervention. It is only when individuals are impacted through its application that a court is necessary to intervene to remedy any injury caused. Additionally, an individual may sue over the application of a law that is legitimate on its face, but was created illegitimately.

Further, the Claimant has no genuine interest here. As stated above, Parliament created no harm by allowing the mere passage of an allegedly illegitimate bill. Though in the abstract one could argue that a statue being created illegitimately is harmful, for pragmatic purposes we disagree. If and when such a bill is applied and it impacts the Kingdom, then it has created a harm and can be acted upon. If it has not, individuals should bring the matter of the bill's illegitimacy to Parliament, who has the opportunity to easily cure the defect.

In summary, Claimant has no standing to sue Parliament. We find it difficult to discover any individual who could ever have standing to file a legal claim against Parliament. Instead, such suits should go against the Government or a Ministry that applies an allegedly defective law.

Finally, we ask Claimants to try their very best to make filings readable. This includes, beyond the writing itself, stylistic choices such as paragraphs, spacing, size, coloration, and font. This can and will make it easier for us to understand your arguments and parse through them at a reasonable rate—both of which lead to faster verdicts, not to mention a failure on our end to understand an argument because it is hard to visually follow could have personal consequences for claimants.​