Lawsuit: Pending ComplexKing v. Crown, Case 2 (Ch. 2026)

[Nim]

IN THE CHANCERY OF ALEXANDRIA

Request for Judicial Review

Between:

ComplexKing
Claimant

v.

The Crown
Defendant

---

PART 1: CLAIM FORM

1. Claimant
   ComplexKing, represented by Nimq_.
2. Defendant
   The Crown (Ministry of Internal 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. ComplexKing had 4 hours and 35 minutes of playtime and was named as a candidate for the Alexandria National Party in reliance on this published requirement. The Ministry subsequently disqualified ComplexKing for failing to meet the statutory requirement of 6 hours. No correction, warning, or notice was issued prior to the disqualification.
4. Decision under Challenge
   Disqualification of ComplexKing from the May 2026 General Election ballot, announced in Post #4058 of the election thread.
5. Remedies Sought
   Reinstatement of ComplexKing to the ballot. Alternatively, an order reopening the declaration period for 48 hours.

---

PART 2: STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Alexandrian Electoral Act requires candidates to have at least 6 hours of playtime logged within the past 30 days. See A.P. 018, §17(2)(b).
2. 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, not the candidate threshold.
3. ComplexKing had 4 hours and 35 minutes of playtime in the past 30 days — above the published 4-hour standard.
4. The Alexandria National Party named ComplexKing as a candidate in reliance on the published requirement.
5. On May 22, 2026, the Ministry of Internal Affairs (Post #4058) disqualified ComplexKing for "Lack of active playtime (6h/30d)," applying the statutory standard rather than the published standard.
6. The Ministry 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.
7. 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.

---

PART 3: JURISDICTION

The Chancery has jurisdiction over this matter under the Constitution, which grants the Chancery exclusive jurisdiction over "disputed returns arising from elections, including challenges to election results and qualifications of elected members of Parliament." See K.A. Const. § III Art. 15. A dispute over candidate qualifications for an election falls within this grant of jurisdiction.

---

PART 4: DETAILED GROUNDS

Ground 1: Unreasonable Limit on Constitutional Right

The Constitution guarantees that "Every citizen has the right to run for and hold elected offices. Parliament may by law establish reasonable activity requirements for running in elections and maintaining elected offices." See K.A. Const. § V Art. 22.

The same provision provides that rights and freedoms are "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society." Id.

The disqualification of ComplexKing is an unreasonable limit on his constitutional right to run for office. While Parliament may establish activity requirements, those requirements must be reasonably communicated to candidates. A disqualification based on a standard that the Ministry itself failed to publish, and indeed misstated, is not a reasonable limit justified in a free and democratic society.

Ground 2: Constitutional Convention — Legitimate Expectation

The Constitution provides that "Alexandria is founded on adherence to constitutional, legal, and parliamentary conventions that support the effective operation of government within the framework of the Constitution." See K.A. Const. § VIII Art. 34.

The doctrine of legitimate expectation is a well-established constitutional convention under id. Where a public authority makes a clear and unambiguous representation, and an individual reasonably relies on that representation to their detriment, the authority must either honour the representation or provide procedural fairness before departing from it.

Here:

• The Ministry published a clear representation that candidates needed 4 hours of playtime
• The ANP and ComplexKing reasonably relied on this representation
• ComplexKing met the published standard
• The Ministry then applied a different standard without warning

Ground 3: Procedural Fairness

The Ministry's own publication stated the wrong requirement. No correction was issued. No warning was given. No opportunity to cure was provided. The Electoral Act permits contenders to edit their submissions before the close of declarations — this right was rendered illusory by the Ministry's silence. See A.P. 018, §5.

Ground 4: Error of Law

The election thread — the authoritative guide for all participants — materially misstated the law. A decision taken in reliance on an erroneous publication is voidable.

---

PART 5: REMEDIES SOUGHT

1. A Quashing Order setting aside the disqualification of ComplexKing.
2. An order reinstating ComplexKing to the ballot for the May 2026 General Election, on the basis that he met the requirement as published by the Ministry.
3. Alternatively, an order reopening the declaration period for 48 hours to allow ComplexKing to meet the 6-hour requirement or the ANP to substitute candidates.
4. An order directing the Ministry of Internal Affairs to issue a formal correction in the election thread and to ensure all future election publications accurately reflect §17 of the Electoral Act.
5. Costs.

---

PART 6: STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in this Claim Form are true. I understand the ramifications of violation of such oath.

SIGNED.
Nimq_

This 22nd day of May, 2026.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE CHANCERY FOR REVIEW.

---

EVIDENCE

1. Election thread, Post #1 — candidate requirement shown as 4 hours
   (Information - Parliament Elections | May 2026)
2. MoIA disqualification notice, Post #4058 — ComplexKing playtime 04:35:16
   (id.)
3. Alexandrian Electoral Act, A.P. 018, §17 — actual 6-hour candidate requirement
   (Act of Parliament - A.P.018 | Alexandrian Electoral Act)
4. Playtime Requirements Fixes Act, A.P. 04-004 — amendment raising candidate threshold
5. MoIA official ticket response — admitting the mistake and directing petitioner to court
   (Ticket #MIA-1553)
6. Constitution of Alexandria, K.A. Const. § V Art. 22, § VIII Art. 34
   (Constitution)

​

 

[Smallfries]

The Chancery has jurisdiction over this matter under the Constitution, which grants the Chancery exclusive jurisdiction over "disputed returns arising from elections, including challenges to election results and qualifications of elected members of Parliament." See K.A. Const. § III Art. 15. A dispute over candidate qualifications for an election falls within this grant of jurisdiction.

Counsellor,

The Chancery is a bit confused as to how this case is within our jurisdiction. You cite the Constitution regarding "elected members." As far as we are aware, the issue here is about a future election. There is no dispute about an elected member of Parliament. We see this doubly when in the next sentence you say that this is a "dispute over [a] candidate['s] qualifications," which is obviously in a different place in relation to the time of an election than an already-elected member.

Can you explain to us how this does not mean that your case is instead proper before a Magistrate?

 

[Nim]

Fine alright. Thank you for your time.