Lawsuit: Adjourned ColonelKai v. Crown, Case 8 (Ch. 2025)

[ColonelKai]

Date.07/05/2025
Docket. FILING​

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA​

BETWEEN

ColonelKai​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Applicants​

v.
the Crown​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Respondents​

The applicant hereby respectfully alleges that;

1. Jurisdiction
As an exceptional, constitutional case, the original jurisdiction of this case lays within the Chancery as pursuant to the Court Rules & Procedures.

2. Parties
Applicants,
ColonelKai, as an intended Independent Candidate for the Alexandrian Parliament

Respondents,
The Crown,
The interim Parliament of the Sovereign Kingdom of Alexandria

3. Facts
1. On 7th of May, 2025, 02:49 UTC, the bill titled "Emergency Electoral Amendment", identified as P.B.00-028 was drafted on the Parliament Chamber by Real42.
2. As of 7th of May, 2025, 03:43 UTC, the bill has entered a motion to urgently consider.
3. If passed, the aforementioned bill would make it impossible for the applicant to continue their campaign as an independent candidate, and therefore would violate their constitutional rights under §5.22.1, §5.22.6 and §5.22.9 as it would force the applicant to run under a party.

4. Relief Sought
1. A quash order on the aforementioned bill, in full or in part, to extinguish the constitutional violations of the applicant.

5. Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Claim Form and the attached documents 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. ColonelKai. Self-Representing.
This 7th of May, 2025.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE CHANCELLERY FOR REVIEW.

---

Date.07/05/2025
Docket. FILING​

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA​

BETWEEN

ColonelKai​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Applicants​

v.
the Crown​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Respondents​

REQUEST FOR URGENT INTERIM RELIEF
The applicant hereby respectfully alleges that;

1. The bill as listed in the initial complaint, coded "P.B.00-028", if passed, would cause an irrevocable inability of the applicant to run in the first ever democratic election of the Parliament. Under standards of Prima Facie, this would mean that the applicant would be denied his constitutional rights, and therefore would suffer damages. This would, of course, cause a great deal of negative consequences to the applicant, both in missed opportunities, loss of enjoyment, and emotional damages.
2. As the first ever democratically elected term of a parliament is influential, and important, the effects of such violations under Prima Facie would be irreversible.
3. Therefore, the applicant hereby requests an Urgent Interim Relief be granted to halt the passing of the act, and any other further actions necessary surrounding the issue to ensure that the constitutionally protected rights of the applicant are not violated.

SIGNED. ColonelKai. Self-Representing.
This 7th of May, 2025.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE CHANCELLERY FOR REVIEW.

 

[Smallfries]

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.​

 

[Dartanboy]

I am present on behalf of the Crown

 

[Smallfries]

The Crown shall have seventy-two hours to provide their Answer.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

FACTUAL ANSWERS
1. AFFIRM On 7th of May, 2025, 02:49 UTC, the bill titled "Emergency Electoral Amendment", identified as P.B.00-028 was drafted on the Parliament Chamber by Real42.
2. AFFIRM As of 7th of May, 2025, 03:43 UTC, the bill has entered a motion to urgently consider.
3. DENY If passed, the aforementioned bill would make it impossible for the applicant to continue their campaign as an independent candidate, and therefore would violate their constitutional rights under §5.22.1, §5.22.6 and §5.22.9 as it would force the applicant to run under a party.

DEFENSES
1. The Constitution already prohibits Independents from running for Parliament, as the Constitution specifies "Members [of Parliament] will be elected according to a closed party list voting system defined by Parliament" [see Constitution, Part I, Section 5.5].

It is clear through the definition of a Closed Party List Voting System that Independents cannot run, as Independents are not Parties.
[See: What’s the difference between open and closed list proportional representation? ; https://archive.fairvote.org/factshts/partylst.htm]

2. While the Constitution does provide the right "Every citizen has the right to participate in and run for office" [see Constitution, Part V, Section 22.1], the Constitution does not prevent regulations on how a citizen must run for office - and in this case the Emergency Electoral Act, as well as previous portions of the Constitution, impose a regulation that requires citizens be a member of a political party in order to run for office.

3. The Constitution, Part V, Section 22.6 is the freedom of political communication, press, and media. We don't see how this is relevant.

4. The Constitution, Part V, Section 22.9 is the freedom of association. We don't see how this is relevant.

 

[Smallfries]

Discovery shall now begin, and will last for seventy-two hours from this post. Parties may agree to end early or request an extension.

 

[Dartanboy]

Both parties seem to agree on what happened and solely disagree on legal interpretation. The Crown consents to ending Discovery early.

 

[ColonelKai]

The applicant concurs with the Crown. We consent to ending discovery early.

 

[Smallfries]

Discovery is abbreviated by consent.

The Claimant will now be granted seventy-two hours to provide their opening statement.

As an aside, the Claimant is assured that the Court has not forgotten of or lost their request for an injunction.

 

[ColonelKai]

Date.11/05/2025
Docket. 8 Ch.2025​

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA​

BETWEEN

ColonelKai​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Applicants​

v.
the Crown​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Respondents​

The applicant hereby respectfully alleges that;


Restriction of Constitutional Right should be Minimized
1. The constitution, as is familiar to all of us in this second lawsuit, states as following; "The following rights and freedoms are guaranteed as stated, subject only to (such reasonable limits prescribed by law) (that are justified in a free and democratic society.)" (Emphasis Added) This can be logically extended to the statement of "Limits on rights and freedoms must be (reasonable), and (prescribed by law) and (justified in a free and democratic society)".

2. If the parliament seeks to create a solution to a problem or need through legislation, and the solution involves limits on rights and freedoms, such limits must therefore be reasonable.

3. It would unreasonable, if a spectrum of possibilities existed to a problem where the right extreme would limit the rights and freedoms completely and left would not limit them at all, to go any further than to the right as necessary to have a solution would not be a reasonable limitation on rights and freedoms.

4. Therefore, it is within the parliament's duty, that when any legislation is created, the limit is as minimal as possible while still accomplishing the goal on which it set forward.

5. Such findings are supported by the constitution in which the specific statute of the constitution of the Sovereign Kingdom of Alexandria was taken from; Canada. Oak's Test establishes that any legislation with limits must have a goal, must have a reasonable connection to that law, must limit the impact on the right to the reasonable minimum, and and the benefits must outweigh the negatives.

Parliament is Free to Define Electoral System
6. The constitution further states; "Members [of Parliament] will be elected according to a closed party list voting system defined by Parliament." This means, that the parliament should define a specific Electoral system, which should resemble a "closed party list voting system". The parliament agrees with such sentiment, in their act stating "[Alexandria]'s system of elections is outlined in the Constitution, but not expanded upon."

7. The Crown has argued in a recent lawsuit against them by the Sovereign Kingdom Party (Sovereign Kingdom Party v. Crown, Case 7 (Ch. 2025)) that the current version of the law, which allows for independents, should not be struck as the parliament has the freedom to decide what the electoral system is.

A Closed Party List Voting System is not Impossible with Independents
8. The Closed Party List Voting System (hereon referred to as CPLV) is a party-centric system, and therefore, the implementation of it by the Parliament should also be party-centric. The applicant does not deny that. However, it is not impossible for CPLV to allow independents. While some applications do restrict independents, a large number of applications of the system such as Germany, Spain, Poland, the European Union, Slovenia and Romania have provisions which allow for independents.

9. Such provisions can and do put additional restrictions on independents such as signature requirements to ensure a baseline level of stability and support to filter frivolous candidacies. The applicant explicitly does not object to such practices.

Exercising of a Right should not be Contingent on the Non-Exercising of Another
10. It would not be a reasonable limit to a right or freedom to create a legislation which requires a citizen to waive their right in one constitutional provision for them to be entitled to another. An example could be a law forcing one to waive their freedom from self incrimination to exercise their right to a free trial. Or, it could be a law forcing one to waive their freedom of association to exercise their right to run for office. Such restrictions would only be possible if they are inline with the concept of the "minimization of impacts on rights and freedoms."

Banning or Disallowing of Independents Restricts Rights and Freedoms
11. The constitution states "Every player has freedom of association". Inline with paragraph 10 of this opening statement, a citizen should not be made to waive this right if they wish to exercise "the right to participate in and run for office". As being a member of a party and especially being a parliamentary candidate of the party is very much a matter of association, requiring citizens to become party members to exercise their right to participate in and run for office is a restriction of both rights.

12. The applicant concedes that the proposed act does not limit citizens from claiming they are an independent candidate even if they are not, and thus drops the allegations of violations of the freedom for political speech.

CONCLUSION
13. Therefore, as "Parliament is Free to Define Electoral System" and "Restriction of Constitutional Right should be Minimized", it is within the Parliament's constitutional responsibilities to create an electoral system that resembles "Closed Party List Voting System" with least amount of restrictions on rights and freedoms. And, if "A Closed Party List Voting System is not Impossible with Independents" and "Banning or Disallowing of Independents Restricts Rights and Freedoms", any and all electoral systems created by the Parliament under the current constitution must allow for independents to run.

SIGNED. ColonelKai. Self-Representing.
This 11th of May, 2025.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE CHANCELLERY FOR REVIEW.

 

[Smallfries]

Date.11/05/2025
Docket. 8 Ch.2025​

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA​

BETWEEN

ColonelKai​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Applicants​

v.
the Crown​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Respondents​

The applicant hereby respectfully alleges that;


Restriction of Constitutional Right should be Minimized
1. The constitution, as is familiar to all of us in this second lawsuit, states as following; "The following rights and freedoms are guaranteed as stated, subject only to (such reasonable limits prescribed by law) (that are justified in a free and democratic society.)" (Emphasis Added) This can be logically extended to the statement of "Limits on rights and freedoms must be (reasonable), and (prescribed by law) and (justified in a free and democratic society)".

2. If the parliament seeks to create a solution to a problem or need through legislation, and the solution involves limits on rights and freedoms, such limits must therefore be reasonable.

3. It would unreasonable, if a spectrum of possibilities existed to a problem where the right extreme would limit the rights and freedoms completely and left would not limit them at all, to go any further than to the right as necessary to have a solution would not be a reasonable limitation on rights and freedoms.

4. Therefore, it is within the parliament's duty, that when any legislation is created, the limit is as minimal as possible while still accomplishing the goal on which it set forward.

5. Such findings are supported by the constitution in which the specific statute of the constitution of the Sovereign Kingdom of Alexandria was taken from; Canada. Oak's Test establishes that any legislation with limits must have a goal, must have a reasonable connection to that law, must limit the impact on the right to the reasonable minimum, and and the benefits must outweigh the negatives.

Parliament is Free to Define Electoral System
6. The constitution further states; "Members [of Parliament] will be elected according to a closed party list voting system defined by Parliament." This means, that the parliament should define a specific Electoral system, which should resemble a "closed party list voting system". The parliament agrees with such sentiment, in their act stating "[Alexandria]'s system of elections is outlined in the Constitution, but not expanded upon."

7. The Crown has argued in a recent lawsuit against them by the Sovereign Kingdom Party (Sovereign Kingdom Party v. Crown, Case 7 (Ch. 2025)) that the current version of the law, which allows for independents, should not be struck as the parliament has the freedom to decide what the electoral system is.

A Closed Party List Voting System is not Impossible with Independents
8. The Closed Party List Voting System (hereon referred to as CPLV) is a party-centric system, and therefore, the implementation of it by the Parliament should also be party-centric. The applicant does not deny that. However, it is not impossible for CPLV to allow independents. While some applications do restrict independents, a large number of applications of the system such as Germany, Spain, Poland, the European Union, Slovenia and Romania have provisions which allow for independents.

9. Such provisions can and do put additional restrictions on independents such as signature requirements to ensure a baseline level of stability and support to filter frivolous candidacies. The applicant explicitly does not object to such practices.

Exercising of a Right should not be Contingent on the Non-Exercising of Another
10. It would not be a reasonable limit to a right or freedom to create a legislation which requires a citizen to waive their right in one constitutional provision for them to be entitled to another. An example could be a law forcing one to waive their freedom from self incrimination to exercise their right to a free trial. Or, it could be a law forcing one to waive their freedom of association to exercise their right to run for office. Such restrictions would only be possible if they are inline with the concept of the "minimization of impacts on rights and freedoms."

Banning or Disallowing of Independents Restricts Rights and Freedoms
11. The constitution states "Every player has freedom of association". Inline with paragraph 10 of this opening statement, a citizen should not be made to waive this right if they wish to exercise "the right to participate in and run for office". As being a member of a party and especially being a parliamentary candidate of the party is very much a matter of association, requiring citizens to become party members to exercise their right to participate in and run for office is a restriction of both rights.

12. The applicant concedes that the proposed act does not limit citizens from claiming they are an independent candidate even if they are not, and thus drops the allegations of violations of the freedom for political speech.

CONCLUSION
13. Therefore, as "Parliament is Free to Define Electoral System" and "Restriction of Constitutional Right should be Minimized", it is within the Parliament's constitutional responsibilities to create an electoral system that resembles "Closed Party List Voting System" with least amount of restrictions on rights and freedoms. And, if "A Closed Party List Voting System is not Impossible with Independents" and "Banning or Disallowing of Independents Restricts Rights and Freedoms", any and all electoral systems created by the Parliament under the current constitution must allow for independents to run.

SIGNED. ColonelKai. Self-Representing.
This 11th of May, 2025.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE CHANCELLERY FOR REVIEW.

It is assumed that this serves as the Claimant's opening statement.

The Crown shall have seventy-two hours to submit their opening statement.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, due to IRL circumstances I ask for an 8 hour extension.

 

[Smallfries]

Your honor, due to IRL circumstances I ask for an 8 hour extension.

This is granted. The Crown's opening statement shall be due at 5:13 PM Eastern Standard time, today.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
OPENING STATEMENTS

INTRODUCTION
This Opening Statement will show, in simple terms, the nature of Alexandria's electoral system under the Constitution, and explain thoroughly how the Plaintiff's claims hold no water.

ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
The Plaintiff asserted in their Opening Statement the following:

Restriction of Constitutional Right should be Minimized
1. The constitution, as is familiar to all of us in this second lawsuit, states as following; "The following rights and freedoms are guaranteed as stated, subject only to (such reasonable limits prescribed by law) (that are justified in a free and democratic society.)" (Emphasis Added) This can be logically extended to the statement of "Limits on rights and freedoms must be (reasonable), and (prescribed by law) and (justified in a free and democratic society)".

2. If the parliament seeks to create a solution to a problem or need through legislation, and the solution involves limits on rights and freedoms, such limits must therefore be reasonable.

3. It would unreasonable, if a spectrum of possibilities existed to a problem where the right extreme would limit the rights and freedoms completely and left would not limit them at all, to go any further than to the right as necessary to have a solution would not be a reasonable limitation on rights and freedoms.

4. Therefore, it is within the parliament's duty, that when any legislation is created, the limit is as minimal as possible while still accomplishing the goal on which it set forward.

5. Such findings are supported by the constitution in which the specific statute of the constitution of the Sovereign Kingdom of Alexandria was taken from; Canada. Oak's Test establishes that any legislation with limits must have a goal, must have a reasonable connection to that law, must limit the impact on the right to the reasonable minimum, and and the benefits must outweigh the negatives.

The Plaintiff asserts that legislation which places any limits on a right (such as the right to run for office) must have a goal, a reasonable connection to the law, limit the impact to a reasonable minimum, and the benefits must outweigh the negatives, however the Plaintiff has failed to mention that this is a good test for a laws which are not the Constitution itself, as the Constitution is inherently constitutional (per the definition of constitutionality).

The Plaintiff fails to recognize that the Constitution itself disallows Independents from running as Independents, thus any law which specifies this further is simply re-iterating a pre-established Constitutional clause [see Constitution, Part I, Section 5.5].

ON PARLIAMENT'S POWERS
Parliament is free to design an electoral system, however the Constitution requires it be a "closed party list voting system" not simply resembling one as the Plaintiff suggests [see Constitution, Part I, Section 5.5].

The Plaintiff suggests that it is not impossible to have a Closed Party List Voting System with Independents, but the Kingdom disagrees. Some IRL countries may have systems which closely resemble CPLV, but by allowing Independents, which by definition are not parties, are thus not actually Closed Party List Voting Systems.

Thank you for your time.

 

[kaiserin]

IN THE CHANCERY OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO ENTREATY FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF
​

Date.07/05/2025
Docket. FILING​

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA​

BETWEEN

ColonelKai​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Applicants​

v.
the Crown​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Respondents​

The applicant hereby respectfully alleges that;

1. Jurisdiction
As an exceptional, constitutional case, the original jurisdiction of this case lays within the Chancery as pursuant to the Court Rules & Procedures.

2. Parties
Applicants,
ColonelKai, as an intended Independent Candidate for the Alexandrian Parliament

Respondents,
The Crown,
The interim Parliament of the Sovereign Kingdom of Alexandria

3. Facts
1. On 7th of May, 2025, 02:49 UTC, the bill titled "Emergency Electoral Amendment", identified as P.B.00-028 was drafted on the Parliament Chamber by Real42.
2. As of 7th of May, 2025, 03:43 UTC, the bill has entered a motion to urgently consider.
3. If passed, the aforementioned bill would make it impossible for the applicant to continue their campaign as an independent candidate, and therefore would violate their constitutional rights under §5.22.1, §5.22.6 and §5.22.9 as it would force the applicant to run under a party.

4. Relief Sought
1. A quash order on the aforementioned bill, in full or in part, to extinguish the constitutional violations of the applicant.

5. Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Claim Form and the attached documents 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. ColonelKai. Self-Representing.
This 7th of May, 2025.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE CHANCELLERY FOR REVIEW.

---

Date.07/05/2025
Docket. FILING​

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA​

BETWEEN

ColonelKai​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Applicants​

v.
the Crown​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Respondents​

REQUEST FOR URGENT INTERIM RELIEF
The applicant hereby respectfully alleges that;

1. The bill as listed in the initial complaint, coded "P.B.00-028", if passed, would cause an irrevocable inability of the applicant to run in the first ever democratic election of the Parliament. Under standards of Prima Facie, this would mean that the applicant would be denied his constitutional rights, and therefore would suffer damages. This would, of course, cause a great deal of negative consequences to the applicant, both in missed opportunities, loss of enjoyment, and emotional damages.
2. As the first ever democratically elected term of a parliament is influential, and important, the effects of such violations under Prima Facie would be irreversible.
3. Therefore, the applicant hereby requests an Urgent Interim Relief be granted to halt the passing of the act, and any other further actions necessary surrounding the issue to ensure that the constitutionally protected rights of the applicant are not violated.

SIGNED. ColonelKai. Self-Representing.
This 7th of May, 2025.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE CHANCELLERY FOR REVIEW.

The Chancery at this time finds that granting the outstanding Entreaty for Emergency Relief would do more harm than it would have the potential to avoid, noting that the harm to the Claimant is likely an avoidable one, and is not one of a widespread nature that merits such an extreme action as an injunction. Doing as the Claimant asks would revert current legislation for the upcoming election back into a position which some — including the Government — view as unconstitutional. Finally, to grant this Writ for Emergency Relief would come dangerously close to us ruling on the merits for the Claimant, a position which we are extremely hesitant to take, even if we could later back out of that decision. With an abundance of caution, we decide to refuse this Writ. This shall not be construed as a ruling on the merits of this case, but merely on the merits of the Entreaty for Emergency Relief filed in conjunction with the Claimant's initial case filing.

IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
OPENING STATEMENTS

INTRODUCTION
This Opening Statement will show, in simple terms, the nature of Alexandria's electoral system under the Constitution, and explain thoroughly how the Plaintiff's claims hold no water.

ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
The Plaintiff asserted in their Opening Statement the following:


The Plaintiff asserts that legislation which places any limits on a right (such as the right to run for office) must have a goal, a reasonable connection to the law, limit the impact to a reasonable minimum, and the benefits must outweigh the negatives, however the Plaintiff has failed to mention that this is a good test for a laws which are not the Constitution itself, as the Constitution is inherently constitutional (per the definition of constitutionality).

The Plaintiff fails to recognize that the Constitution itself disallows Independents from running as Independents, thus any law which specifies this further is simply re-iterating a pre-established Constitutional clause [see Constitution, Part I, Section 5.5].

ON PARLIAMENT'S POWERS
Parliament is free to design an electoral system, however the Constitution requires it be a "closed party list voting system" not simply resembling one as the Plaintiff suggests [see Constitution, Part I, Section 5.5].

The Plaintiff suggests that it is not impossible to have a Closed Party List Voting System with Independents, but the Kingdom disagrees. Some IRL countries may have systems which closely resemble CPLV, but by allowing Independents, which by definition are not parties, are thus not actually Closed Party List Voting Systems.

Thank you for your time.

Claimant's and Crown's Opening Statements are acknowledged. With no witnesses called, the Claimant now has 72 hours to submit their Closing Statements.

So ordered.

 

[ColonelKai]

Date.16/05/2025
Docket. 8 Ch.2025​

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA​

BETWEEN

ColonelKai​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Applicants​

v.
the Crown​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Respondents​

The applicant hereby respectfully alleges that;

CLOSING STATEMENTS
1. Firstly, the Crown's Counsel seems to have misunderstood some of our points, and has treated Oak's test as if it were an argument made by us to be valid. For clarity, we do not claim oak's test is valid within Alexandria, as that is a matter for the court's to establish or not as they see fit. However, it seems that either way the Crown's Counsel does not object to our points on whether or not "Parliament is Free to Define Electoral System", "Restriction of Constitutional Right should be Minimized" and "Banning or Disallowing of Independents Restricts Rights and Freedoms", but has instead argued on the point of "A Closed Party List Voting System is not Impossible with Independents".

2. This can be seen from their argument: in the first section the Crown's Counsel claims "The Plaintiff fails to recognize that the Constitution itself disallows Independents from running as Independents, thus any law which specifies this further is simply re-iterating a pre-established Constitutional clause [see Constitution, Part I, Section 5.5]." with the specific statute they are referring to being the line in the constitution which states that the election system should be "closed party list voting system".

3. This is made concrete within their second section as they state "Some IRL countries may have systems which closely resemble CPLV, but by allowing Independents, which by definition are not parties, are thus not actually Closed Party List Voting Systems." (Emphasis maintained from original text).

4. Therefore, the Applicant takes it that the rest of the matters are either deemed inconsequential or accepted by the Crown.

Semantics on the Term of "Closed Party List Voting Systems"
1. Unfortunately, the conversation boils down to the semantics of CPLV and what it entails. The applicant admits that in the strictest, most literal meaning of the term, the system is intended solely for parties. However, the strictest and most literal definition is rarely the most useful in semantics.

2. Our language is riddled with thousands of examples of words which if examined on a purely etymological and technical level has strict definitions which wildly differ from their actual usage. Your champagne is likely not from Champagne, France. You likely don't use the word 'literally', literally. One could argue day and night on whether a hot dog is a sandwich.

3. The best way, short of having a definition of the term within the constitution itself, is to examine the commonly used, or pragmatically used meaning of the word. In fact, such interpretation is one of the hallmark pillars of the Common Law system.

4. Consequently, I implore the spectators of this case to look up "Closed Party List Voting" and navigate yourself to a list of nations which use the system. You will see that every nation I listed in my opening statements to demonstrate that the independents can be and are allowed within CPLV systems are marked on such a map. When it is such a widely agreed fact that this term applies to those systems which allow independents, how could it be argued that the "actual" meaning of the term excludes them?

The Applicant Rests their case, we thank the court and the opposing counsel for their time, and I apologise for any procedural headaches and errors I may have caused the court in this infancy of our legal system.
​

SIGNED. ColonelKai. Self-Representing.
This 11th of May, 2025.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE CHANCELLERY FOR REVIEW.

​

 

[Smallfries]

At this time, the Crown has seventy-two hours to submit their closing statement.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CLOSING STATEMENTS

Your honors, the question brought before the court in this case can be answered by one simple question:

Are Independents allowed in a Closed Party List Voting System?

The Plaintiff contends that because some foreign countries (not Alexandria) on the planet Earth have systems which resemble Closed Party List Voting, that Closed Party List Voting must not necessarily exclude Independents.

The Kingdom argues that a true Closed Party List Voting System must necessarily exclude Independents, lest it not be a Party system.

One cannot simply say that apples are oranges, nor that a non-party system is a party system. In the same way that adding a Senate or House of Review above Parliament goes against the very core of what it means to be a one-chamber Parliament, adding Independents to our elections goes against the very core of what it means to be a Closed Party List Voting system.

Allowing Independents side-steps the Constitution - the very core of our Sovereign Kingdom's identity - and it mustn't be permitted.

Additional Note
The Kingdom does not take a stance on whether Independents should be permitted to run, but argues they are not permitted to under the Constitution. If the Parliament believes Independents should be allowed to run, they must make it so through the proper channel, which is a Constitutional amendment.

 

[Smallfries]

This case is now in recess pending a verdict.

 

[Smallfries]

IN THE CHANCERY OF
THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
VERDICT​

​

Chancellor Smallfries writes this opinion, joined by High Chancellor Juniperfig.​

Free, fair, and democratic elections are the bedrock of our society. To disrupt the legal framework established by the Constitution and battle against legitimate law is to act against the Kingdom itself, and must be resisted in all forms. In this case, Claimant alleges he has been unfairly restricted from exercising his constitutional right to participate as a candidate in the first Parliamentary election. This claim greatly interests the Chancery, and we look to resolve this conflict in a reasonable way that does not infringe upon that framework so delicately laid out in the body of legitimate law.

​

I. Brief Facts​

ColonelKai, a citizen and subject of the King, intended to run for a seat in Parliament during our fateful first election two months ago, in May 2025. However, there was one small detail at issue: he wanted to do so as an independent. For reasons unknown, unimportant, and personal, ColonelKai wanted to forge his own path in Alexandria and elected to attempt to become elected in the election through his election to be independent.

On May 6, 2025, the Emergency Electoral Amendment (“amendment”)—which sought to remove language regarding independent candidates in an earlier act controlling the method of elections in Alexandria—was introduced. A.P. 028; A.P. 018. This amendment removed language in its parent act which purported to allow independent candidates to run in the election. See id. at § 3–4. This action followed, with Claimant asking this court to strike the (now passed) amendment. This was done days before the election, instead of anytime in the four months prior.​

II. Discussion
a. Applicable Law​

Members of Parliament (MPs) are elected through a closed party list voting system, which is further defined by Parliament. K. A. Const. § I Art. 5(5). Rights granted by the Constitution—including to run for office—are subject only to reasonable limits justified in a free and democratic society. Id. at § V Art. 22. At the time of filing, the relevant statute included language specifying for independent candidates to be considered an entire party, and for voters to be able to cast one vote each for a single party, and one more vote for a candidate of their choice. See A.P. 028.

​

b. Wording and meaning of the Constitution​

The Constitution states that “members will be elected according to a closed party list voting system [that is further] defined by Parliament.” Id. at § I Art. 5(5) (emphasis added). This line can be broken down into two parts.

First, members of Parliament “will” be elected directly shows that the Constitution demands they be elected only by the system that follows. Members of Parliament can be elected by a system that falls entirely within that category provided—but not outside of it. If the Constitution were to say “the Prime Minister will be twenty-four years old,” only an individual that is twenty-four years old could be selected for that role. Anything within twenty-four years old, such as twenty-four years, six months, and twenty days, is acceptable. However, any less than exactly twenty-four years or more than twenty-four years and one second short of 365 (give or take) days is outside of this theoretical limit, and thus is invalid.

Will is a very strong word that limits the actions that can be done, similar to “must” or “shall.” If the word chosen here had been “should,” “can,” or “may,” other options would be available to choose members of Parliament outside the system later listed. The specific choice to indicate “will” means the Constitution does not allow for members to be elected in a manner contrary to the following system.

Second, what is this system? The Constitution merely defines the system to be used as a “Closed Party List.” There is no further definition of this term, nor any explanation as to how the election itself should unfold. Confused, we took ColonelKai’s advice and simply searched up “Closed Party List Voting.” The first result is a Wikipedia page for “Closed list.” Closed list, Wɪᴋɪᴘᴇᴅɪᴀ, (last visisted July 14, 2025). Here, we are told that a “Closed list describes [a system] where voters can effectively vote for only political parties as a whole . . . if voters had some influence [in choosing individual candidates], that would be called an open list.” Id. The page goes on to say “most mixed electoral systems use closed lists in their party list component.” Id.

Far from being necessarily dispositive, we look for sources outside of Wikipedia to try to understand what the framers meant. Generally, sources across the internet seem to agree that Closed list systems are those that involve voters choosing a slate of candidates provided by parties, but having no sway as to who is put on that ballot or in what order. See Understanding the closed list method, Eʟɪɢᴏ (July 5, 2025), (last visited July 15, 2025); Electoral Systems: Open, Closed, and Free Lists, ACE ᴘʀᴏᴊᴇᴄᴛ, (last visited July 15, 2025); Dylan Difford, What’s the difference between open and closed list proportional representation?, Eʟᴇᴄᴛᴏʀᴀʟ Rᴇꜰᴏʀᴍ Sᴏᴄɪᴇᴛʏ (November 15, 2021) (last visited July 15, 2025). Interestingly, the only source that seems to mention independent candidates does so in passing, saying such candidacies “are also difficult.” Variations of Party List Proportional Systems: Closed List, Open List, and Free List, Fᴀɪʀᴠᴏᴛᴇ, (last visited July 15, 2025).

What we can take from this is that in a purely closed list system, it is generally intended and understood that parties dominate the political process, and voters have absolutely no control over individual candidates. Anything outside of this scope is clearly, then, not a closed list system. This brief diversion is required reading to dive deeper into the instant case.

​

III. Analysis
1. Parliament cannot define the electoral system as they please​

ColonelKai first asserts that Parliament is able to massage our nation’s electoral system any way they like, so long as the end result “[resembles] a closed party list voting system.” Because of this, he argues, the law as it stood at filing was constitutional and should have been left alone, because it conformed to this principle. We disagree with this reading.

The specific language in the Constitution is strict and limiting. By saying that members of Parliament will be elected via a closed list system (discussed supra), the Constitution explicitly and unmistakably limits the election of members only to those systems that fall squarely and wholly within a closed list system. Any other system that is not entirely composed of a closed list system—including a mixed member proportional system—would necessarily be outside of Parliament’s ability to legislate, and thus unconstitutional.

It stands to reason, then, that Parliament is not unrestricted or unbound in its determination as to how elections shall be run. The Framers decided not to enshrine within the Constitution a specific method to determine elections, instead giving only a singular limiting guideline. This mandate must be followed, no matter the cost.

The law in effect at the time of filing stated that elections would be carried out according to a “Closed List-Mixed Proportional Representation.” A.P. 018 § 4(5). This system included a voting process where citizens had two votes—one for a political party, and one for a “candidate of their choice.” Id. at § 4(5)(1).

This, clearly, does not follow a purely closed list system. Having any influence on the lists themselves, or being able to vote for individual candidates within lists, is unconstitutional, as it is outside the mandate prescribed by the Constitution. Therefore, Parliament was right to amend this language to what it stands as now.

Because the word “will” is a limiting and strong word, and it directs elections to only be conducted within the closed list family of electoral systems, the law as it stood at the time of filing was unconstitutional and invalid. Parliament rightly removed the language providing for a non-closed list system. All elections conducted under the language of our current iteration of the Constitution must be conducted with parties taking a major focus, and with voters having no influence in specific candidates winning election when the time comes to vote for members.

​

2. Independents can seek and obtain office under our system​

ColonelKai asserts that a closed list system, though party-centric in its very nature, does not explicitly block independent candidates from being able to obtain political office. Though the Crown argues otherwise, we find their explanation lacking and side with ColonelKai here.

ColonelKai mentions “a large number of [countries] such as Germany, Spain, Poland, the European Union, Slovenia[,] and Romania have provisions which allow for independents.” We find this to be a misrepresentation.

First, Germany uses a mixed member proportional system, and so they are unhelpful for our analysis. Slovenia uses an open list proportional system, and is of no importance to our analysis. Poland also uses an open-list proportional system, and is irrelevant here. Further, the European Union has no unified electoral system, but instead allows each member state to govern its own electoral affairs. All elections within the European Union follow either a list system of some variety or a single transferable vote. As a whole, they are useless to us, and because ColonelKai does not specify any member state’s EU electoral process as an example, we do not consider it. We will not look through twenty-seven different countries to try to find what he meant. Parties must do their own research and fully explain their own points; we will not do so for them.

Romania and Spain, however, do indeed have closed list systems. Romania for its part allows independent candidacies, however they do not seem to have any sitting independent members in their Chamber of Deputies or Senate. Spain allows for “parties, federations, coalitions, and ‘electors’ groups’” to present candidates or lists of candidates for election according to their closed list system. This system, in theory, allows for independents to run for and obtain office in their Congress of Deputies (the upper chamber of Spain’s legislature does not use a closed list system). However, to succeed as an independent is exceedingly difficult—we have only found one independent in Spain’s lower house, who was elected on a party list and was a member of the ruling party before being kicked out.

It does not seem to be necessarily true that independents are banned from participating in closed list systems—however, they typically are supported by coalitions, or are allowed to join a party’s list even if they do not join the party itself. It should be noted that ColonelKai’s assertion that his examples “have provisions which allow for independents” would be fatal to his case if it were true. If these nations all were closed list systems—which they are not—and had provisions that allowed for independents that otherwise could not run—which they do not—then the mere fact that those nations required carveouts means that as a rule, independent candidacies are banned.

By saying that these provisions “allowed” independents, ColonelKai is admitting that closed list systems ban independents by default, and Parliament needs to expressly allow them to run. If this were so, then his request for relief would be entirely moot—Parliament’s amendment not only would be fixing a constitutional error, but also returning the status of independents to their natural state of prohibition. This is, of course, not the case. Independents may run for office, though their odds are not favorable. To bolster their odds, they may create an “independent” party, a single-issue party, or maneuver to join a party’s list without joining the party itself. Independents are not entitled to an equal playing field with parties, but may run for office if they so desire.

In short, the removal of the language explicitly stating independents can run for office does not make independent candidacies as a whole impossible. Running as an independent, however, may be difficult under the current law, especially if they choose to be their own “party” and try to run individually on equal footing with other parties. We cannot answer at this time what happens if an independent gains more votes than needed to win a seat, or perhaps multiple seats. This is a matter for Parliament, and if they desire a satisfactory conclusion to this saga, they should answer this question as soon as possible. A constitutional amendment is not required for this purpose to be achieved.

Further, while the Crown’s public statements are not directly at issue in this case, we note with concern that the government’s unequivocable position that independents could not run under Closed List Proportional Representation may have had a chilling effect on potential candidates. The Constitution still guarantees the right to run for office, and where ambiguity exists in how electoral systems accommodate that right, governments have a responsibility to explore lawful options. The Minister of Justice at the time told Kai that it was unconstitutional for independents to run, and that if he wanted to be an independent, Redmont was just over the horizon. (StateCraft Discord, 2025). That advice, as we now find, was legally incorrect. We pray future officials will be more careful with their declarations in their desire to uphold the law and protect the rights and interests of our fellow citizens.

​

3. There is no one correct solution to any issue​

ColonelKai finally argues that it is unconstitutional, according to the reasonable limits clause of section five of the Constitution, to allow for an individual’s rights or liberties to be restricted beyond the absolute minimum needed to solve a problem. Thus, Parliament has a constitutional duty in all cases to only limit rights as little as possible. We disagree.

It is unreasonable to believe that Parliament must always find some objective “minimum rights infringed” point along the spectrum of possible solutions to a given issue. ColonelKai misquotes Oakes’ test here: instead of being a singular, absolute, and concrete point that Parliament must solve for, Oakes’ test says that “it suffices if the means adopted falls within a range of reasonable solutions to the problem confronted.” See R. v Sharpe 2001 SCC 2. Oakes’ test calls for legislatures to find where on a given spectrum reasonable limitations to rights exist within a bounds, and chosen within that range.

To insist otherwise would imply that all issues have one specific solution, one undeniable correct point where rights are reduced the least. The natural conclusion to this thought exercise is that all legislation that impacts the rights of individuals would have only one correct solution, and that solution would be endlessly debated. Eventually, every piece of legislation would come before the courts, where we would determine if it impacted rights as minimally as possible. This, naturally, means that we, the Chancery, would be the ultimate legislators in Alexandria, as only our determination in this matter could ever be law. This is obviously an unacceptable interpretation, and we discard it. Parliament may choose from a range of reasonable solutions for a given problem, even when one solution may obviously impact rights and liberties more than another. This must, however, fall within a reasonable bounds, and is subject to further limitations. In any case, we do not adopt Oakes’ test as maxim.

​

IV. Conclusion​

Because the Constitution clearly holds that the mixed member proportional system of the original bill is invalid, that Parliament may not freely mold the electoral system without limit, and independents may seek office under our system, we find that the amendment now passed by Parliament is constitutional and valid. ColonelKai’s only claim for relief, to “quash [the amendment,] in full or in part, to extinguish the constitutional violations of the applicant,” cannot be granted. His rights to run as an independent are not harmed, as it is not removed—though a great ambiguity has been created should the election be held tomorrow.

We must also make unambiguously, unflinchingly, and abundantly clear: In this court, we will not construct a party’s argument for them. We can, and will, dismiss a point or entire case simply because they are improperly researched, explained, or briefed. Filings must have all points clearly discussed and explained. Even if we do not dismiss an issue or case, we still may improperly understand it due to imperfect construction.

We advise all future parties to do their research, point out to us where their arguments are from and what their sources are, and to clearly and methodically construct their arguments through step-by-step analysis. We are not all-knowing deities—we are fallible humans, and even in real life, courts can get it wrong. We weigh what we see the best we can, and it is a party’s job to make our job as easy as possible.

Man cannot create a beautiful marble statute out of rotten, loose mud. Even the great Michelangelo could not have done such a thing—and we are not Italian.

We thank all involved for their time, patience, and efforts in this case.​