Lawsuit: Pending Ref. Rights Collective v Crown, Case 11 (Ch. 2025)

[PhillinDeBlanc]

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CIVIL ACTION
Case No. 11

BETWEEN:

Referendum Rights Collective (Class Action Group represented by PhillinDeBlanc)
(Plaintiff)

V.

The Crown of the Kingdom of Alexandria
(Defendant)

I. Jurisdictional Statement
This Court has jurisdiction over this suit through the Constitution of Alexandria Part III §15 which describes this Court as having exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional questions.

II. Parties

1. The Plaintiffs are a collective of Alexandrian citizens and eligible voters who lawfully participated in a referendum conducted pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the Kingdom of Alexandria.
2. The Plaintiffs are: PhillinDeBlanc, Tortenwashere ("torten"), Pepecuu, 12700k ("FTLCEO"), Capt11543, ConsequencesInc ("Gordon Ramsay"), Soggehtoast (“grilled”), extromondo (“extro”), BubbaNak, GoldBlooded, Cryp1k, Bloodyrebals, JustLegendMilk ("Moloko Milk") and SeminoTV.
3. The Defendant is the Crown of the Kingdom of Alexandria (hereinafter, "The Crown"), the legal entity recognised for the purposes of suits alleging constitutional violations and ultra vires acts by the organs of state. See Reallmza v. The Crown, Case 1 (Ch. 2025).

III. Facts

1. On May 6th 2025, the Stimulus Act and the Civic Engagement Act were given assent by his majesty, King Wackjap. The latter included a provision that required Parliament to comply with the results of referendums.
2. The Stimulus Act granted a £1200 one-time payment to all players who had “3 hours of recorded play-time in the last 30 days.”
3. On May 9th, 2025, former Minister of Trade and Finance Stoppers announced the Stimulus Act in #government-announcements. The announcement included a google form for those interested in receiving stimulus checks to fill out.
4. Between May 9th and June 15th 2025, some of the Plaintiffs and many other Alexandrian citizens filled out the form, expecting to receive Stimulus checks.
5. The Crown neglected their duty to hand out Stimulus checks.
6. To this day, no Stimulus checks have been disbursed.
7. On June 15, 2025, the Plaintiff PhillinDeBlanc submitted a petition titled "Petition to approve one-time stimulus payments granted under the Stimulus Act,"
8. Between June 15th and June 16th, the Plaintiffs signed the Stimulus petition.
9. By June 16, the petition met the required number of signatures and triggered a legally binding referendum (as per the Civic Engagement Act) which was publicly announced and conducted between June 16 and June 19.
10. During this period, multiple Plaintiffs and other citizens cast their votes with the legitimate expectation that the outcome would be legally binding, pursuant to then-existing law.
11. On June 16th, 2025, Prime Minister Dartanboy used the #government-announcements Discord channel, an official channel for government communications to promote his personal stance on the Stimulus Referendum.
12. On June 17th, 2025, Parliament moved to urgently consider the ECONOMY Act and the AYE Act. The former contained a provision to repeal the Stimulus Act.
13. On June 19th 2025, at around 5:18 PM EST, the ECONOMY Act and the AYE Act were given assent by his majesty, King Wackjap.
14. On June 19th 2025, at around 5:42 PM EST, the Stimulus Referendum passed, with a majority voting in favor.
15. Despite this result, Parliament subsequently declared that it would not comply with the referendum outcome, citing the repeal of the Stimulus Act and the passage of the AYE Act.
16. On June 28th, 2025, Parliament released an official statement formally stating they would not implement the referendum.
17. The Plaintiffs contend that this sequence of legislative acts, particularly their timing and effect, amounted to a retroactive nullification of a legally binding referendum and an unlawful denial of the right to vote.

IV. Claim For Relief
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE

1. Part V, §22(2) of the Constitution of Alexandria provides: "Every citizen has the right to vote in elections and referendums provided the player meets the citizenship requirements set by law."
2. The Plaintiffs lawfully participated in the Stimulus Referendum, casting their votes under the constitutional and statutory framework in effect at the time.
3. The Crown, by repealing the enabling legislation during the course of the referendum and refusing to implement its outcome, rendered those votes legally void.
4. This constitutes an infringement of the Plaintiffs' constitutional right to vote in referendums.
5. The right to vote is not merely the right to cast a ballot, but the right to have that vote be meaningful, binding, and respected under the law.

COUNT II: RETROSPECTIVE NULLIFICATION OF A LEGAL PROCESS

1. The Plaintiffs further assert that the repeal of the Stimulus Act and changing of referendum rules during the pendency of a legally binding referendum amounts to a retrospective legislative abuse by Parliament.
2. Citizens had a legitimate expectation that laws governing referenda would remain in force for the duration of the vote.
3. Altering the legal consequences of a referendum while it is underway undermines legal certainty and the rule of law.

COUNT III: FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LAWFULLY ENACTED LEGISLATION AND REFERENDUM RESULTS

1. The Plaintiffs further contend that the Stimulus Act, granted assent by His Majesty, King Wackjap on May 6th 2025, imposed a statutory obligation on The Crown to approve one-time stimulus payments to eligible citizens.
2. The crown failed to execute this obligation, prompting the Plaintiffs to initiate and vote in a referendum to compel compliance.
3. The Stimulus Referendum passed by majority vote. Nevertheless, the Crown refused to comply with the outcome, disregarding both the statutory obligation imposed by the Stimulus Act and the binding authority of the referendum under the Civic Engagement Act.
4. This refusal constitutes a clear violation of the Crown’s duty to faithfully execute laws enacted by Parliament and to respect the results of binding referenda conducted pursuant to Alexandrian law.

V. Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this honourable court:

A. Declare that the Crown's conduct, in repealing the Stimulus Act and changing the rules during an ongoing referendum and refusing to comply with its outcome, violated the constitutional right to vote.
B. Issue a mandatory order compelling the Crown to honour the results of the Stimulus Referendum and disburse payment of £1200 to each eligible citizen.
C. Compensate the Plaintiffs £30,000 for the violation of their constitutional right to vote.
D. Award the costs of this suit.
E. Grant such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.


Respectfully submitted to the Chancery,
PhillinDeBlanc, on behalf of the Referendum Rights Collective.

Dated: July 1st, 2025