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"), SeminoTV and TheStormCrafter.
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 facts 1-16, particularly their timing and effect, amounted to a retroactive nullification of a legally binding referendum and an unlawful denial of the right to vote.
18. On June 3rd, 2025 the June Appropriations Act was passed by Parliament. This budget would have funded government ministries, including the MoTF.
19. Despite the Act’s passage on the 3rd of June, June appropriations were not distributed to government Ministries until early July.
20. The Plaintiffs contend that this lack of funding rendered the MoTF unable to fulfill their statutory duty under the Stimulus Act prior to its repeal.

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.
5. Despite June Appropriations being passed on June 3rd, the Crown withheld disbursement until early July, thereby obstructing the MoTF from executing its statutory obligations under the Stimulus Act.

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

 

[Smallfries]

IN THE CHANCERY OF
THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF SUMMONS


After some debate, we have decided to hear this case. We apologize for the lengthy delay in summoning.

The Crown's rightfully appointed counsel is commanded to appear before the court within seventy-two hours.​

 

[ColonelKai]

Date.10/7/2025
Docket. 11 Ch.2025​

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA​

BETWEEN

ColonelKai​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Applicants​

v.
the Crown​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Respondents​

The respondent hereby respectfully alleges that;

RESPONSE TO THE FACTS ALLEGED
1. The respondent agrees.
2. The respondent agrees that a one-time payment was granted upon approval of the MoTF.
3. The respondent agrees.
4. The respondent does not contest.
5. The respondent denies.
6. The respondent agrees.
7. The respondent agrees.
8. The respondent agrees.
9. The respondent agrees.
10. The respondent does not contest.
11. The respondent agrees.
12. The respondent agrees.
13. The respondent agrees.
14. The respondent agrees.
15. The respondent agrees.
16. The respondent agrees.
17. The respondent denies.​

18. The respondent does not contest.¹
19. The respondent does not contest.¹
20. The respondent denies.¹

RESPONSE TO THE ARGUMENTS ALLEGED

1. We believe it quite self evident that two things hold true; a law is no more after its repeal, yet it can have effects after its repeal. Acts which have taken place during the validity of a law are still in effect, and we find it that there are no contentions of this matter at hand.

2. Considering; ONE, the referendum was ongoing but not yet finished at the time of repeal, and TWO, the MoTF was authorised to however had not yet approved of the stimulus at the time of repeal.

3. We believe it that the topic at hand boils down to whether; ONE, the results of a referendum ongoing at the time of a change of law are to be interpreted with the former act's specifications, and TWO, the MoTF had a legal obligation to issue the stimulus by the act before a referendum. If either are true, the state bears responsibility. In this case, we intend to show neither are.
​

SIGNED. Sec. ColonelKai. Solicitor General
Office of Litigation, 5601 MoJ Building, New Hamilton
This 10th of July 2025.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE CHANCELLERY FOR REVIEW.

---

¹ Modified as of 16/07/2025, See Filing #17, Ref. Rights Collective v. Crown, Case 11 (Ch. 2025)

 

[Smallfries]

Discovery shall now begin and last for seventy-two hours. Discovery may be abridged at the request of both parties, or extended if just cause is given.

 

[PhillinDeBlanc]

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

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff, PhillinDeBlanc, wishes the court to grant them the following amendments to their complaint:

AMENDMENT I:

II. PARTIES
…
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”), SeminoTV and TheStormcrafter.

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF AMENDMENT I:
The Plaintiff, PhillinDeBlanc, urges the honourable Chancery to permit the addition of TheStormcrafter as a plaintiff in this case. Like other plaintiffs, TheStormcrafter signed the Stimulus petition and suffered harm as a result of the Crown’s alleged conduct. His inclusion is necessary to ensure full and fair representation of all affected parties.

If approved, the plaintiff will edit the attached image into "Referendum Rights Class Action Group Authorization.png" above

AMENDMENT II:

III. FACTS
…
17. The Plaintiffs contend that this sequence of legislative acts facts 1-16, particularly their timing and effect, amounted to a retroactive nullification of a legally binding referendum and an unlawful denial of the right to vote.

18. On June 3rd, 2025 the June Appropriations Act was passed by Parliament. This budget would have funded government ministries, including the MoTF.

19. Despite the Act’s passage on the 3rd of June, June appropriations were not distributed to government Ministries until early July.

20. The Plaintiffs contend that this lack of funding rendered the MoTF unable to fulfill their statutory duty under the Stimulus Act prior to its repeal.
…
COUNT III: FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LAWFULLY ENACTED LEGISLATION AND REFERENDUM RESULTS

…

5. Despite June Appropriations being passed on June 3rd, the Crown withheld disbursement until early July, thereby obstructing the MoTF from executing its statutory obligations under the Stimulus Act.



STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF AMENDMENT II:
The Plaintiff respectfully submits that the additional facts outlined above provide crucial context for understanding the Crown’s failure to execute its statutory duties under the Stimulus Act before it was repealed.


Respectfully submitted to the Chancery for review on behalf of the Plaintiffs,
PhillinDeBlanc
Date: July 11th, 2025

 

[Smallfries]

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

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff, PhillinDeBlanc, wishes the court to grant them the following amendments to their complaint:

AMENDMENT I:

II. PARTIES
…
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”), SeminoTV and TheStormcrafter.

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF AMENDMENT I:
The Plaintiff, PhillinDeBlanc, urges the honourable Chancery to permit the addition of TheStormcrafter as a plaintiff in this case. Like other plaintiffs, TheStormcrafter signed the Stimulus petition and suffered harm as a result of the Crown’s alleged conduct. His inclusion is necessary to ensure full and fair representation of all affected parties.

If approved, the plaintiff will edit the attached image into "Referendum Rights Class Action Group Authorization.png" above

AMENDMENT II:

III. FACTS
…
17. The Plaintiffs contend that this sequence of legislative acts facts 1-16, particularly their timing and effect, amounted to a retroactive nullification of a legally binding referendum and an unlawful denial of the right to vote.

18. On June 3rd, 2025 the June Appropriations Act was passed by Parliament. This budget would have funded government ministries, including the MoTF.

19. Despite the Act’s passage on the 3rd of June, June appropriations were not distributed to government Ministries until early July.

20. The Plaintiffs contend that this lack of funding rendered the MoTF unable to fulfill their statutory duty under the Stimulus Act prior to its repeal.
…
COUNT III: FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LAWFULLY ENACTED LEGISLATION AND REFERENDUM RESULTS

…

5. Despite June Appropriations being passed on June 3rd, the Crown withheld disbursement until early July, thereby obstructing the MoTF from executing its statutory obligations under the Stimulus Act.



STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF AMENDMENT II:
The Plaintiff respectfully submits that the additional facts outlined above provide crucial context for understanding the Crown’s failure to execute its statutory duties under the Stimulus Act before it was repealed.


Respectfully submitted to the Chancery for review on behalf of the Plaintiffs,
PhillinDeBlanc
Date: July 11th, 2025

The Respondent will have until the end of Discovery to contest this proposed Amended Complaint, at which point it will be accepted.

 

[PhillinDeBlanc]

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

DISCOVERY SUBMISSION: EVIDENCE P-001-006

Your honour,

The Plaintiff, PhillinDeBlanc, would like to submit the following to the court as evidence.


Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Plaintiffs,
PhillinDeBlanc
Date: July 11th, 2025

 

[PhillinDeBlanc]

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

ENTREATY TO COMPEL PRODUCTION

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff respectfully moves, pursuant to Court Rules (Discovery § Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), for an Order compelling the Crown to produce the documents and information listed within 24 hours of the Court’s ruling.

Grounds: These materials are directly relevant to the Defendants “Response to Arguments Alleged” and to the Plaintiff’s claims for relief. Without them, the Plaintiff cannot fairly prepare for trial or test the veracity of the Defendant's assertions.

Requests for Production:

1. All internal Government communications relating to A.P. 019.
2. All internal Government communications relating to the Stimulus Petition and Stimulus Referendum.
3. All internal Government communications relating to the disbursement of June Appropriations.
4. The complete transaction history for the in-game balances of the accounts: SCGovernment, GovDevelop (MoD), GovCommerce (MoTF) , GovInterior (MoIA), GovJustice (MoJ), GovEducation (MoW), and GovForeign (MoFA) between June 1st, 2025 and July 10th, 2025.

Interrogatories (to be answered by the Crown under oath):

1. State the precise criteria under ministry policy that a citizen would need to fulfill to be approved for a stimulus check in addition to that set forth in A.P. 019.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Plaintiffs,
PhillinDeBlanc
Date: July 11th, 2025

 

[ColonelKai]

Date.13/7/2025
Docket. 11 Ch.2025​

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA​

BETWEEN

ColonelKai​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Applicants​

v.
the Crown​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Respondents​

The respondent hereby respectfully alleges that;

1. The respondent opposes the amendment to the complaint on the grounds that even if the claims of the applicant that the lack of approval is due to a lack of disbursed funds, such proof has no bearing on the case. It is, at the end of the day, the decision of the Executive. No approval was given by the MoTF, and that is the deciding factor. It is of the opinion of the respondent that if the amended portions of the claim, if assumed true, have no bearing on the case, then it is nothing but a frivolous addition to the complaint.
2. The respondent wishes to ask for clarification from the court on the legal status of interrogatories within the Kingdom of Alexandria.
3. The respondent, in their response to the complaint, has only made defences under law, and no defences under fact. We do not deny that no approval was given by the MoTF, or the timeline of events. We simply oppose the legal conclusion those material facts have led the applicant's argument to. Therefore, as there is no contention on material facts, we wish to request that the honourable judges strike the requests for production down.


SIGNED. Sec. ColonelKai. Solicitor General
Office of Litigation, 5601 MoJ Building, New Hamilton
This 13th of July 2025.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE CHANCELLERY FOR REVIEW.

 

[PhillinDeBlanc]

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

DISCOVERY SUBMISSION: EVIDENCE P-007

The Plaintiff, PhillinDeBlanc, would like to submit the following to this high and honourable Chancery as evidence:




Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Plaintiffs,
PhillinDeBlanc
Date: July 13, 2025

 

[PhillinDeBlanc]

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

ENTREATY TO COMPEL PRODUCTION

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff respectfully moves, pursuant to Court Rules (Discovery § Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), for an Order compelling the Crown to produce the documents and information listed within 24 hours of the Court’s ruling.

Requests for Production:

1. A spreadsheet or list of all individual responses submitted to the Stimulus Check Google Form including:
   1. Omitted Minecraft and Discord usernames (for privacy);
   2. The timestamps of submission;
   3. Any data fields relating to answers to the questions in the form;
   4. Any fields indicating approval or rejection status, if applicable;

Grounds: The Plaintiffs assert that this data is material to Count III of the Complaint: namely, the allegation that the MoTF failed to do their statutory duty of validating player eligibility to either approve or reject claims for stimulus checks.

1. The response list is direct evidence of eligible claimants and provides a factual basis for assessing:
   
   1. The number of applicants who submitted valid claims prior to repeal;
   2. Whether there existed administrative delay or intentional withholding;
   3. Whether the Ministry of Trade and Finance (MoTF) undertook any form of validating Stimulus applications.
   
   
2. As the form was administered by the MoTF, the Plaintiff has no means to independently access or verify its contents, which are presumed to be within the possession or control of the Defendant.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Plaintiffs,
PhillinDeBlanc
Date: July 13, 2025

 

[PhillinDeBlanc]

Your Honour,

ENTREATY TO EXTEND DISCOVERY PERIOD

The Plaintiff, PhillinDeBlanc, respectfully moves this Honourable Court for an extension of the Discovery period pursuant to General Court Rules and Procedures, § Discovery, on the following grounds:

I. GROUNDS FOR EXTENSION

1. The Defendant has raised questions regarding the status of interrogatories, raised objections to the Plaintiff's amendment, and objected to the scope of production, which may require clarification or further ruling by the Court before meaningful inspection and preparation may proceed.
2. The Plaintiff intends to submit a witness list and potentially introduce further evidence in light of any disclosures received. Without additional time, the Plaintiff’s ability to conduct effective discovery would be substantially impaired.
3. The interests of justice, fairness, and procedural integrity warrant a modest extension to ensure both parties have sufficient opportunity to review, produce, and challenge material facts.

II. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honourable Court:

1. Extend the current Discovery period by an additional seventy-two (72) hours, or such time as the Court deems just;
2. Grant such further and other relief as the Court considers appropriate to ensure a fair and complete trial process.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Plaintiffs,
PhillinDeBlanc
Date: July 13, 2025

 

[juniperfig]

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

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff, PhillinDeBlanc, wishes the court to grant them the following amendments to their complaint:

AMENDMENT I:

II. PARTIES
…
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”), SeminoTV and TheStormcrafter.

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF AMENDMENT I:
The Plaintiff, PhillinDeBlanc, urges the honourable Chancery to permit the addition of TheStormcrafter as a plaintiff in this case. Like other plaintiffs, TheStormcrafter signed the Stimulus petition and suffered harm as a result of the Crown’s alleged conduct. His inclusion is necessary to ensure full and fair representation of all affected parties.

If approved, the plaintiff will edit the attached image into "Referendum Rights Class Action Group Authorization.png" above

AMENDMENT II:

III. FACTS
…
17. The Plaintiffs contend that this sequence of legislative acts facts 1-16, particularly their timing and effect, amounted to a retroactive nullification of a legally binding referendum and an unlawful denial of the right to vote.

18. On June 3rd, 2025 the June Appropriations Act was passed by Parliament. This budget would have funded government ministries, including the MoTF.

19. Despite the Act’s passage on the 3rd of June, June appropriations were not distributed to government Ministries until early July.

20. The Plaintiffs contend that this lack of funding rendered the MoTF unable to fulfill their statutory duty under the Stimulus Act prior to its repeal.
…
COUNT III: FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LAWFULLY ENACTED LEGISLATION AND REFERENDUM RESULTS

…

5. Despite June Appropriations being passed on June 3rd, the Crown withheld disbursement until early July, thereby obstructing the MoTF from executing its statutory obligations under the Stimulus Act.



STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF AMENDMENT II:
The Plaintiff respectfully submits that the additional facts outlined above provide crucial context for understanding the Crown’s failure to execute its statutory duties under the Stimulus Act before it was repealed.


Respectfully submitted to the Chancery for review on behalf of the Plaintiffs,
PhillinDeBlanc
Date: July 11th, 2025

It is this Court’s opinion that requests to amend complaints should only be denied on grounds of prejudice, delay, or futility. In this case, the proposed amendment does not cause harm to the other party’s ability to respond to or defend against the case, was submitted early enough in proceedings to allow the respondent to respond properly, and it is not plain and obvious that the additional information fails to set out a valid legal claim. The respondent may raise their objections as part of their legal argument going forward, but at this stage, the Court does not find the claim so clearly without merit or relevance as to justify denying the amendment.

The Chancery hereby grants this request from Claimant to amend their Complaint. Please edit the initial filing accordingly.

 

[juniperfig]

IN THE CHANCERY OF
THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO ENTREATIES TO COMPEL​

As the legal status of interrogatories has been called into question, we will begin with the Plaintiff's requests for production, combined into one response for brevity:

1. All internal Government communications relating to A.P. 019.
2. All internal Government communications relating to the Stimulus Petition and Stimulus Referendum.
3. All internal Government communications relating to the disbursement of June Appropriations.
4. The complete transaction history for the in-game balances of the accounts: SCGovernment, GovDevelop (MoD), GovCommerce (MoTF) , GovInterior (MoIA), GovJustice (MoJ), GovEducation (MoW), and GovForeign (MoFA) between June 1st, 2025 and July 10th, 2025.
5. A spreadsheet or list of all individual responses submitted to the Stimulus Check Google Form including:
Omitted Minecraft and Discord usernames (for privacy);
The timestamps of submission;
Any data fields relating to answers to the questions in the form;
Any fields indicating approval or rejection status, if applicable;

The Court denies each of the Plaintiff’s requests to compel discovery at this time. The Plaintiff asserts that the requested materials are necessary to test the respondent’s assertions and to prepare for trial but has not explained how the information is relevant, given that the respondent does not dispute the facts the requested information would support.

Discovery is intended to clarify contested factual issues, not to build a documentary record around facts that both parties agree occurred. If the Plaintiff believes that additional factual disputes remain or that this information is necessary to support a live legal argument, they must explain that clearly and specifically. Simply asserting that information is “material” or “relevant” is not enough. We will not compel production unless the need for it is properly supported.

The Plaintiff may renew their request with a more detailed showing of relevance and necessity.

On interrogatories: As long as they are reasonable, we find no reason to disallow them. However, Plaintiff's interrogatory request is denied, as explained supra.

 

[juniperfig]

Your Honour,

ENTREATY TO EXTEND DISCOVERY PERIOD

The Plaintiff, PhillinDeBlanc, respectfully moves this Honourable Court for an extension of the Discovery period pursuant to General Court Rules and Procedures, § Discovery, on the following grounds:

I. GROUNDS FOR EXTENSION

1. The Defendant has raised questions regarding the status of interrogatories, raised objections to the Plaintiff's amendment, and objected to the scope of production, which may require clarification or further ruling by the Court before meaningful inspection and preparation may proceed.
2. The Plaintiff intends to submit a witness list and potentially introduce further evidence in light of any disclosures received. Without additional time, the Plaintiff’s ability to conduct effective discovery would be substantially impaired.
3. The interests of justice, fairness, and procedural integrity warrant a modest extension to ensure both parties have sufficient opportunity to review, produce, and challenge material facts.

II. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honourable Court:

1. Extend the current Discovery period by an additional seventy-two (72) hours, or such time as the Court deems just;
2. Grant such further and other relief as the Court considers appropriate to ensure a fair and complete trial process.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Plaintiffs,
PhillinDeBlanc
Date: July 13, 2025

Discovery shall be extended by 48 hours: it will now end on Wednesday, July 16th at 3:40PM PST. Discovery may be abridged at the request of both parties, or extended if just cause is given.

 

[PhillinDeBlanc]

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

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff has listened to the ruling of the honourable Chancery and seeks to file a new Entreaty to Compel Production, further explaining the relevance of the materials requested.


ENTREATY TO COMPEL PRODUCTION
The Plaintiff, respectfully moves, pursuant to the Court’s Discovery Rules, for a Court Order compelling the Crown to provide the following material and information within 24 hours:

I. Interrogatories (to be answered by the Crown under oath):

1. Did the Ministry of Trade and Finance (hereinafter, MoTF) have a legal obligation to approve, reject or otherwise act upon stimulus claims?
2. What, if any, additional criteria--beyond those stated in A.P. 019--did MoTF policy require for a citizen to receive stimulus approval?

II. Grounds
For Interrogatory 1:

1. The Plaintiff seeks clarification of the Defendant’s denial of Fact #5: namely, whether the MoTF had a legal responsibility to process the plaintiffs' stimulus claims at all.

For Interrogatory 2:

1. The defendant states in their Response to Arguments Alleged: “the MoTF…had not yet approved of the stimulus checks at the time of [A.P. 019’s] repeal”
2. The Plaintiff seeks to address the ambiguity of the above argument and the Defendant’s agreement with Fact #2, which echoes the language of A.P. 019 (“upon approval of the MoTF”). This implies the existence of undisclosed “approval” conditions the plaintiffs and other stimulus claimants were required to meet beyond the eligibility requirements specified in the act. If the MoTF applied further thresholds not codified in statute, the Crown must disclose those requirements and their source.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Plaintiffs,
PhillinDeBlanc
Date: July 15, 2025

 

[ColonelKai]

Date.16/7/2025
Docket. 11 Ch.2025​

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA​

BETWEEN

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

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Applicants​

v.
the Crown​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Respondents​

The respondent hereby respectfully alleges that;


1. Regarding Interrogatories

1. The applicant is requesting a legal opinion from the respondents, as an interrogatory, when that opinion is likely central to the case at hand and is to be answered by the case itself.
2. The respondent has not made any statements as to the possibility that such additional requirements were in place. The statement that "This implies the existence of undisclosed “approval” conditions" is misleading and unfounded. The act clearly stated, as the applicant themselves have cited, "All eligible StateCraft players shall receive a one-time stimulus payment of £1,200 upon approval by the Ministry of Trade and Finance." (see. A.P.019 Stimulus Act, § 3 Cl. 1). The respondent's point was regarding when or if, instead of why.
3. The respondent believes that this is a continuation of a pattern observed by the applicant in over-zealously using the discovery period in an attempt to burden the respondent with information that is not relevant to the core legal argument at hand. Additionally, the mere request for the interrogatories puts undue burden on the respondent as many of these have been large-scale information that require preparation and are time-consuming, and thus may necessitate prior preparation and information exchange within the Crown's multiple arms. Therefore, we respectfully petition that the court dismiss these additional interrogatories and make a ruling on such continued requests in the future.​

2. Amended Response to Amended Complaint

The respondent would like to notify the court that they have amended their response due to the amendment to the complaint made by the Applicants. It is under our understanding that this does not require an acknowledgement from the Court, (see General Court Rules and Procedures, § "Amendment to Answer") however we wish to notify the court at the least.​

17. The respondent maintains its denial.
18. The respondent does not contest.
19. The respondent does not contest.
20. The respondent denies.

3. Addendum of Notes
The respondent would like to notify the court and opposing counsel that due to some technical chicanery of the forums, the previous two posts have had incorrect header formatting and instead had headers of my old case which I initially copied the formatting from, despite having the correct Docket number. I remember explicitly changing it however the fickle gods of the Forums must have not approved of it. You may find it that, gods willing, the formatting has been fixed in this filing and will hopefully continue to appear in its fixed state.

SIGNED. Sec. ColonelKai. Solicitor General
Office of Litigation, 5601 MoJ Building, New Hamilton
This 16th of July 2025.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE CHANCELLERY FOR REVIEW.

 

[PhillinDeBlanc]

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

PLAINTIFF’S WITNESS LIST

The Plaintiff hereby designates the following witnesses for testimony:

1. Stoppers – Former Minister of Trade and Finance
2. Ameslap – Former Minister of Internal Affairs
3. Capt11543 – Plaintiff
4. SoggehToast - Plaintiff
5. Dartanboy - Prime Minister
6. Wackjap - His Majesty, The King

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Plaintiffs,
PhillinDeBlanc
Date: July 16th, 2025

 

[PhillinDeBlanc]

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

DISCOVERY SUBMISSION: EVIDENCE P-008

The Plaintiff, PhillinDeBlanc, would like to submit the following to this high and honourable Chancery as evidence:

The Plaintiff believes P-008 holds extreme relevance to the case as it shows the sheer and exact amount of players who filled out the stimulus form, expecting to receive stimulus checks as well as their individualized claims and eligibility.

This material was obtained through the use of a Freedom of Information request.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Plaintiffs,
PhillinDeBlanc
Date: July 16, 2025

 

[ColonelKai]

Date.17/7/2025
Docket. 11 Ch.2025​

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA​

BETWEEN

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

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Applicants​

v.
the Crown​

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Respondents​

The respondent hereby respectfully alleges that;


1. We oppose both the evidence and the witness list brought forward. While we are not averse to the evidence being submitted (as it leads to no structural or procedural defects) we ask that the court strikes the witness list on the grounds of relevance. Again, there is no defense on facts. It is a defense on law. Even in the facts we have objected to, those facts are not actual material facts, bust instead conclusions the applicant has written as parts of the facts. Going through 6 witnesses without having any relevance to the discussion at hand would be an undue burden on the time of the courts, the respondent, and the witnesses called.

SIGNED. Sec. ColonelKai. Solicitor General
Office of Litigation, 5601 MoJ Building, New Hamilton
This 17th of July 2025.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE CHANCELLERY FOR REVIEW.