IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CIVIL ACTION
ENTREATY OF WRIT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Your honours,
Respondent seeks summary judgment on the facts in this case. Under the General Court Rules and Procedures, a writ of summary judgment may be entertained only when there is no genuine dispute of material fact.
In this case, the plaintiff and the respondent agree that the MOTF did not distribute the funds to all of the plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit. The only matter in dispute is whether they were required to.
Under the law established at the time, the Stimulus act required disbursement of the checks "upon approval of the Ministry of Trade and Finance."
A.P. 19 | Stimulus Act, Sec. 3(1). This act passed May 6, 2025 when King Emeritus WackJap assented.
See A.P. 19 | Stimulus Act. The Interim government had until May 25, 2025 to implement the act through the Ministry of Trade and Finance, but failed to take any action to do so.
See Government Announcements for May 25, 2025.
When the new government formed, the new Minister of Trade and Finance took no steps to implement the act, as the act was poorly written and did not require him to do so. The policy itself additionally went against the policy objectives of the ruling party at the time, the Sovereign Kingdom Party, and intentional lack of implementation was a key policy decision of the group.
Parliament later repealed the stimulus act in an effort to rescind the former decision of the previous parliament. After its repeal, the plaintiffs have no claim to the money promised within the act. The plaintiff points to a referendum which sought to force the Minister of Trade and finance to disburse the funds, but this referendum passed after Parliament removed the power of referendums almost entirely.
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE
Plaintiff's claim that their right to vote was restricted by the "the Crown" (importantly not parliament) repealing the enabling legislation that granted them their claim in the first place. The Crown repealed no such legislation. Parliament did. Parliament and the Crown are two separate entities under the Constitution, and while plaintiff seeks recourse against the Crown for their perceived lack of ability to vote, the Crown undertook no such action as described within their cause of action. Parliament, through its authority to pass and revert legislation, removed the binding authority of the Civil Engagement Act because it was being used to require parliament to pass legislation contrary to its mandate.
Referendums for political questions are entirely creatures of statute. The requirement that Parliament comply with a credendum is a requirement Parliament established for themselves, and a requirement that Parliament may take away from itself at any time. The Plaintiff may not bring forth a claim against the Crown, then allege that the Crown took the actions of Parliament. Their attempt to navigate away from this constitutional issue is at the heart of what is wrong with this case. As such, as a matter of law, there is no genuine dispute of material fact for this count, and the Court should give summary judgment in favor of the Crown.
COUNT II: RETROSPECTIVE NULLIFICATION OF A LEGAL PROCESS
The Plaintiff sued the Crown, not Parliament. They can not now bring a charge against parliament when they stated the Crown. Even assuming they are one in the same, which they are not, "retrospective legislative abuse" is not a valid claim. Parliament may pass and repeal whatever legislation they wish. The enforcement of that legislation may be unconstitutional by the executive, which grants this honourable Court the ability to render its enforcement void, but nothing may be unconstitutional based on the
repeal of a law. Plaintiff has no standing to sue if no action was committed against them.
The referendums are creates of statute, and may be repealed at any time. Nothing special attaches once a referendum begins, and there is no reasonable expectation that parliament will retain its promise to enforce them against itself once a referendum begins. The referendum still had legal authority once it passed, and required parliament to issue a statement regarding its passage. Parliament complied with this requirement, and plaintiff brought suit.
Plaintiff cites to no section of the constitution, our laws, or the common law for this claim. It is made entirely up out of whole cloth, and this court should give summary judgment in favor of the Crown as a result.
COUNT III: FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LAWFULLY ENACTED LEGISLATION AND REFERENDUM RESULTS
The Plaintiff asserts there was a statutory obligation to provide a £1200 stimulus check to those who requested them. While this is true, it was "on approval of the Minister of Trade and Finance." This requirement destroys any claim the plaintiff may have. Under the plaintiffs theory,
when exactly was the Minister suppose to approve the stimulus checks? Immediately once the law passed, thus disbursing no funds? When a certain number of individuals requested them not specified by the act? Any required disbursement point under the act is entirely arbitrary, and thus the determination falls upon the Minister of Trade and Finance. If the decision is entirely the decision of the Minister of Trade and Finance, it is entirely their decision to make at any time they see fit, so long as it does not violate the law.
If there was some certain execution time, why was it not specified? Why did the interim parliament, who had 20 days to enforce the legislation, not enforce it? Did it become binding as soon as it became the new parliaments duty? What point did it become a requirement for the Minister to approve, and why did it require his approval in the first place? Under the plaintiffs logic, he had to approve them the moment the legislation passed, meaning the disbursement of the one-time stimulus checks would be disbursed to no one, as no one signed up to qualify. Any other arbitrary time frame has no basis, and the only reasonable conclusion requires the Minister of Trade and Finance to approve them at his discretion. If he never approves them, there is nothing to disburse.
Furthermore, because the referendum passed after referendums became non-binding, it constitutes a non-binding resolution. Referendums are creates of statute, and Parliaments decision to make them non-binding can not be questioned. As such, this court should give summary judgment in favor of the Crown.
