Lawsuit: Pending ComplexKing, Kaiserin_, StonyBrook, and Pefum v. Crown, Case 9 (Mag. Ct., 2026)

[Nim]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA

Civil Claim

Between:

ComplexKing, StonyBrook, and Pefum
Claimants

v.

The Crown of Alexandria
Defendant

---

PART 1: CLAIM FORM

1. Claimants

• ComplexKing, represented by Nimq_
• StonyBrook (Thritystone), represented by Nimq_
• Pefum, represented by Nimq_

2. Defendant
The Crown of Alexandria, represented by the Ministries of Justice, Internal Affairs, and Foreign Affairs.

3. Brief Details of Claim
The Ministry of Internal Affairs published the candidate eligibility requirement as 4 hours of playtime in the official May 2026 General Election thread — the voter threshold rather than the statutory candidate threshold. ComplexKing had 4 hours and 35 minutes of playtime and was declared as a candidate for the Alexandria National Party in reliance on that published requirement. The Ministry subsequently disqualified ComplexKing (and other claimants) under the statutory 6-hour standard, despite admitting in writing that it had "mistakenly stated 4 hours" and had "no legal way to remedy this" (Ticket #MIA-1553).

The parties have reached a settlement agreement and jointly seek the Court's approval to enter it as a consent order.

4. Jurisdiction
This Court has jurisdiction over this civil matter pursuant to K.A. Const. § III Art. 16, which vests the Magistrates Court with jurisdiction over civil matters.

5. Remedies Sought

• Approval of the Settlement Agreement attached as Exhibit A
• An order directing the Ministry of Internal Affairs to reinstate candidates who meet eligibility requirements by the close of voting
• An order directing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to process and issue passports to the claimants in a timely manner
• An order for the Crown to pay reasonable costs, not exceeding £1,000
• Such further relief as the Court deems just

---

PART 2: STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Election and Eligibility Requirements

1.1 The May 2026 Parliamentary General Election was called, with a Submission Period closing and voting period opening on or about May 2026.

1.2 Under the Alexandrian Electoral Act (A.P. 018), §17, candidates must satisfy eligibility requirements including minimum playtime (6 hours in the past 30 days), a login within the past 7 days, and a valid passport. These requirements are assessed "at the closing of the Submission Period" (§17(4)) "to the greatest extent possible."

2. The Published Requirement and Reliance

2.1 The official May 2026 General Election thread, posted by Capt11543 (Executive Staff), published the candidate eligibility requirement as "at least 4 hours of playtime in the past 30 days and have logged in within the past 7 days" — the voter threshold under §17(1), not the candidate threshold under §17(2).

2.2 ComplexKing had 4 hours and 35 minutes of playtime in the 30 days preceding the Submission Period close — above the published 4-hour standard.

2.3 The Alexandria National Party named ComplexKing as a candidate in reliance on the published requirement.

2.4 The Ministry of Internal Affairs has since admitted in writing (Ticket #MIA-1553) that it "mistakenly stated 4 hours were required in the declarations post" and confirmed it has "no legal way to remedy this," directing the claimant to petition the courts.

2.5 No correction, warning, or notice was issued at any point between the publication of the incorrect criteria and the disqualification. No opportunity was provided for ComplexKing or the ANP to address the deficiency.

3. The Disqualifications

3.1 On May 22, 2026, the Ministry of Internal Affairs (Post #4058) disqualified ComplexKing for "Lack of active playtime (6h/30d)" — applying the statutory 6-hour standard rather than the published 4-hour standard.

3.2 Kaiserin_ was likewise disqualified for insufficient playtime.

3.3 StonyBrook (Thritystone) submitted a passport application to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in advance of the election. The Ministry misplaced or lost the application, resulting in no passport being issued by the Submission Period close. Thritystone was disqualified for lack of a valid passport.

3.4 Pefum likewise submitted a passport application to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which was also lost or misplaced by the Ministry. No passport was issued, and Pefum was disqualified for lack of a valid passport.

4. Injury to the Claimants

4.1 Each claimant suffered injury in that they were deprived of the opportunity to stand for election to Parliament — a right protected under K.A. Const. § V Art. 22 (right to run for and hold elected office), subject only to "reasonable limits prescribed by law."

4.2 The misrepresentation of the candidate eligibility requirement (4 hours published, 6 hours enforced) directly injured ComplexKing, who relied on the published standard in presenting his candidacy. The Ministry's own admission (Ticket #MIA-1553) confirms the error.

4.3 The passport-based disqualifications (StonyBrook, Pefum) constituted injury caused by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs losing or misplacing their passport applications, over which the claimants had no control. Having done what was required of them, they were disqualified through no fault of their own.

4.4 The playtime-based disqualifications (ComplexKing, Kaiserin_) constituted an injury in that the incorrect statement by the Ministry of Internal Affairs directly led to the disqualification of the candidates — they would have been able to attain the necessary 6 hours of playtime had the correct requirement been published from the outset.

5. The Settlement

5.1 On May 22, 2026, the parties reached a Settlement Agreement (attached as Exhibit A) to resolve all claims arising from these disqualifications.

5.2 The Settlement Agreement provides, inter alia, that any affected candidate who meets the eligibility requirements under §17 of the Alexandrian Electoral Act by the end of the voting period shall retain their position on their respective party list.

5.3 The Ministry of Justice has authority to enter this settlement pursuant to A.P. 01-044 §21(1).

5.4 The Crown, by its Solicitor General, has consented to this settlement and joins in the application for approval.

6. Prior Proceedings

6.1 This matter was previously filed as ComplexKing v. Crown, Case 8 (Mag. Ct., 2026) but was dismissed without prejudice on procedural grounds, as the filing did not adequately plead the underlying dispute.

6.2 On May 22, 2026, the parties also filed ComplexKing v. Crown, Case 2 (Ch. 2026) in the Chancery, which pleaded the full facts set out above. That case was dismissed without prejudice on the understanding that the parties would resolve the matter by settlement.

6.3 This refiling corrects the procedural deficiency of Case 8 by stating the full facts, injury, and legal basis for the claim and accompanying settlement.

---

PART 3: LEGAL BASIS

1. Jurisdiction

K.A. Const. § III Art. 16 vests the Magistrates Court with original jurisdiction over all civil matters not reserved exclusively for the Chancery.

2. Authority to Settle

A.P. 01-044 §21(1) authorizes the Ministry of Justice to settle civil claims on behalf of the Crown.

3. Inherent Authority to Approve Settlements

The Court has the inherent authority to approve settlements on joint application from the parties. K.A. Const. § VIII Art. 34 establishes that Alexandria is founded on adherence to constitutional and legal conventions that support the effective operation of government. The approval of mutually agreed settlements is a well-established convention of civil procedure.

4. The Right to Candidacy

K.A. Const. § V Art. 22 provides that "[e]very citizen has the right to run for and hold elected offices," subject only to "reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society." The settlement gives effect to this right by allowing candidates who meet the statutory requirements by the end of voting to retain their ballot positions.

---

PART 4: RELIEF SOUGHT

1. An order approving the Settlement Agreement (Exhibit A);
2. An order directing the Ministry of Internal Affairs to reinstate any candidate covered by the Settlement Agreement who meets the eligibility requirements of A.P. 018 §17 by the close of the voting period;
3. An order directing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to process and issue outstanding passport applications for the claimants without further delay;
4. An order that the Crown pay reasonable legal costs, capped at £1,000;
5. Such further or other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.

---

PART 5: STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in this Claim Form are true.

SIGNED.

Nimq_

This 25th day of May, 2026.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE MAGISTRATES COURT FOR REVIEW.

---

EVIDENCE

1. K.A. Const. § III Art. 16 — Magistrates Court civil jurisdiction
   (Constitution)
2. K.A. Const. § V Art. 22 — Right to run for office
   (id.)
3. Alexandrian Electoral Act (A.P. 018), §17 — Candidate eligibility requirements
   (Act of Parliament - A.P.018 | Alexandrian Electoral Act)
4. A.P. 01-044 §21(1) — MoJ authority to settle
   (id.)
5. May 2026 General Election thread (Post containing published 4-hour requirement)
   (https://www.mcstatecraft.com/threads/may-2026-parliamentary-general-election.1030/)
6. Ticket #MIA-1553 — MoIA admission of error
   [Attached]
7. ComplexKing v. Crown, Case 2 (Ch. 2026) — Full facts pleaded
   (Lawsuit: Dismissed - ComplexKing v. Crown, Case 2 (Ch. 2026))
8. Settlement Agreement — Exhibit A
   [File attached]

 

[Gribble19]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF SUMMONS


The Crown's rightfully appointed counsel is commanded to appear before the Magistrates Court of the Kingdom of Alexandria in

Case 9 (Mag Ct., 2026)

ComplexKing, Kaiserin_, StonyBrook, and Pefum
Plaintiffs

v.

The Crown
Defendant

They are hereby required to do so within seventy-two (72) hours. Failure to do so may result in a default judgment.

So ordered,
Magistrate Gribble19​

 

[Capt11543]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO SUMMONS

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF SUMMONS


The Crown's rightfully appointed counsel is commanded to appear before the Magistrates Court of the Kingdom of Alexandria in

Case 9 (Mag Ct., 2026)

ComplexKing, Kaiserin_, StonyBrook, and Pefum
Plaintiffs

v.

The Crown
Defendant

They are hereby required to do so within seventy-two (72) hours. Failure to do so may result in a default judgment.

So ordered,
Magistrate Gribble19​

Checking in for the Crown, Your Honor.


Respectfully submitted,
Capt B. Numbers
Solicitor General

 

[Capt11543]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT


Your Honor, the parties have reached a settlement agreement in this matter. We believe that this agreement is in the mutual interest of all parties. We urge the Court to act swiftly in this matter. The vote period has been extended due to server downtime, and is now scheduled to end tomorrow morning.

The Crown herein submits a copy of the Settlement Agreement with references to the case number and the Plaintiffs' names updated.


Respectfully submitted,
Capt B. Numbers
Solicitor General

 

[Capt11543]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR REMOVAL


Honorable Chancellors,

When this case was filed, it pertained to an election which was still in progress. The honorable Chancery has previously ordered the dismissal of ComplexKing v. Crown, Case 2 (Ch. 2026), a case arising from the same controversy. Although the case was not expressly dismissed for improper jurisdiction, the Plaintiff appeared to conclude that the prior case was not proper before the Chancery because the election has been ongoing. The Crown does not necessarily endorse that particular theory, but we currently observe that the election has since concluded.

K.A. Const. Art. 15 establishes the original jurisdiction of the Chancery to include certain electoral questions:

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.

The Crown contends that this case now firmly fits the description of a "disputed return arising from elections", specifically a "challenge to election results". The results in being challenged are the set of members who were elected to Parliament; the question is whether they were elected fairly and lawfully.

Accordingly, the Crown hereby petitions the Chancery to remove this case to your honorable Court, as it now falls firmly within your jurisdiction.


Respectfully submitted,
Capt B. Numbers
Minister of Justice

 

[Capt11543]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL FROM SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT


Your Honor, the parties have reached a settlement agreement in this matter. We believe that this agreement is in the mutual interest of all parties. We urge the Court to act swiftly in this matter. The vote period has been extended due to server downtime, and is now scheduled to end tomorrow morning.

The Crown herein submits a copy of the Settlement Agreement with references to the case number and the Plaintiffs' names updated.


Respectfully submitted,
Capt B. Numbers
Solicitor General

Your Honor(s),

As the terms of the settlement agreement create obligations which affect an election which has already concluded, the agreement is no longer workable. The Crown therefore withdraws from this Agreement, and petitions the Court for additional time to negotiate a new one with the Plaintiffs.


Respectfully submitted,
Capt B. Numbers
Minister of Justice

 

[Capt11543]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR REMOVAL


Honorable Chancellors,

When this case was filed, it pertained to an election which was still in progress. The honorable Chancery has previously ordered the dismissal of ComplexKing v. Crown, Case 2 (Ch. 2026), a case arising from the same controversy. Although the case was not expressly dismissed for improper jurisdiction, the Plaintiff appeared to conclude that the prior case was not proper before the Chancery because the election has been ongoing. The Crown does not necessarily endorse that particular theory, but we currently observe that the election has since concluded.

K.A. Const. Art. 15 establishes the original jurisdiction of the Chancery to include certain electoral questions:

The Crown contends that this case now firmly fits the description of a "disputed return arising from elections", specifically a "challenge to election results". The results in being challenged are the set of members who were elected to Parliament; the question is whether they were elected fairly and lawfully.

Accordingly, the Crown hereby petitions the Chancery to remove this case to your honorable Court, as it now falls firmly within your jurisdiction.


Respectfully submitted,
Capt B. Numbers
Minister of Justice

@AsexualDinosaur @Smallfries Apologies Your Honors, it seems I forgot to tag you in this post.

 

[Smallfries]

@AsexualDinosaur @Smallfries Apologies Your Honors, it seems I forgot to tag you in this post.

Noted. The Chancery will deliberate.

 

[Smallfries]

@Nim do the Claimants wish to respond to the Government's petition?

 

[Nim]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA

RESPONSE TO ENTREATY FOR REMOVAL

Honorable Chancellor Smallfries,

The Claimants respectfully submit this response to the Crown's Entreaty for Removal. The Claimants oppose removal to the Chancery on the following grounds.

---

A. THE CLAIM IS A CIVIL MATTER, NOT A DISPUTED RETURN

The Crown argues that because the election has concluded, this case now constitutes a "disputed return arising from elections" within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Chancery under K.A. Const. § III Art. 15.

This is a mischaracterization.

The Claimants do not challenge the election results. They do not ask this Court to unseat any elected member of Parliament. They do not dispute who won or who is qualified to sit. This is not a case where Candidate A argues that Candidate B was improperly declared elected.

This is a civil claim for the government's own admitted administrative errors:

• The Ministry of Internal Affairs published the wrong candidate eligibility requirement (4 hours instead of 6), admitted the mistake in Ticket #MIA-1553, and then disqualified candidates who relied on the published requirement.
• The Ministry of Foreign Affairs lost or misplaced passport applications, then candidates were disqualified for lacking the very documents the government failed to process.

The remedy sought is not to overturn an election result. The remedy sought is redress for government misconduct that deprived citizens of their constitutional right to run for office. This is a civil wrong, not an electoral dispute.

The "disputed returns" clause in K.A. Const. § III Art. 15 was plainly designed for cases involving challenges to who was elected and whether elected members are properly qualified to sit. It has never, and should not, be stretched to encompass a claim for government negligence in running an election.

B. THE CROWN'S OWN CONDUCT CONFIRMS THIS IS A CIVIL CLAIM

The Crown entered into a Settlement Agreement with the Claimants to resolve this matter. It filed that settlement with the Magistrates Court for approval. A settlement is the hallmark of a civil claim, not a constitutional dispute over election returns.

The Crown only withdrew from the settlement and sought removal to Chancery after the election concluded. It cannot simultaneously treat this as a settlement-worthy civil matter (amenable to consent orders in Magistrates Court) and a "disputed return" (requiring exclusive Chancery jurisdiction). The Crown's position is contradictory and opportunistic.

C. THE MAGISTRATES COURT IS THE PROPER VENUE

K.A. Const. § III Art. 16 vests the Magistrates Court with original jurisdiction over all civil matters not reserved exclusively for the Chancery. The Claimants' case, arising from government error, relying on an admitted mistake, and seeking civil remedies, falls squarely within the Magistrates Court's jurisdiction. No provision of the Constitution or any Act removes this category of claim to the Chancery.

D. REMOVAL WOULD CAUSE ADDITIONAL DELAY WITHOUT BENEFIT

The facts are largely undisputed. The Ministry has admitted the error. The Claimants have pleaded the full facts. This Court is well-equipped to determine the appropriate remedy. Removal to Chancery would duplicate proceedings and delay resolution without any corresponding benefit to the administration of justice.

E. THE CLAIMANTS' POSITION ON REMAINING MATTERS

The Crown has withdrawn from the Settlement Agreement. The election has concluded. The Claimants acknowledge that reinstatement to the ballot is no longer practicable. However, the following matters remain live and properly before this Court:

1. Costs — The Claimants seek costs for the Crown's conduct in entering and then unilaterally withdrawing from a settlement agreement, as originally pleaded.
2. Declaratory relief — A declaration that the Ministry of Internal Affairs' publication of incorrect candidate eligibility requirements, and its subsequent disqualification of candidates who relied on those published requirements, violated the Claimants' rights under K.A. Const. § V Art. 22.
3. Prospective relief — An order requiring the Ministry of Internal Affairs to implement procedures ensuring that all published election requirements accurately reflect the statutory requirements before the opening of any future declaration period.

---

The Claimants therefore respectfully submit that the Entreaty for Removal should be dismissed and that this matter should proceed before the Magistrates Court.

Respectfully submitted,

Nimq_
Counsel for the Claimants

 

[Nim]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA

---

DECLARATION OF AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
(WITHDRAWAL OF KAISERIN_ AND RESTRUCTURING OF PARTIES)

Pursuant to General Court Rules and Procedures §II(3), the Claimants hereby declare an amendment to the Complaint filed May 25, 2026, and explain as follows:

Nature of amendment:

1. Withdrawal of Kaiserin_ as a party.
2. Restructuring of remaining parties: StonyBrook (Thritystone) and Pefum elevated from intervening parties to full Claimants.

Reason for withdrawal: At the direction of Kaiserin_.

Reason for restructuring: StonyBrook and Pefum were named as parties from the outset of this case. The "intervening party" designation was a drafting inaccuracy; they are properly Claimants alongside ComplexKing.

Respectfully submitted,

Nimq_
Counsel for the Claimants