Lawsuit: Adjourned SoggehToast v. Crown of Alexandria, Case VI (2026)

[SoggehToast]

IN THE HONORABLE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CIVIL ACTION


SoggehToast
Applicant/Plaintiff, representing himself alongside MikamiLaw

v.

The Crown
Respondent/Defendant

I. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

The Chancery has original jurisdiction over disputing returns arising from elections, including challenges to election results. K.A. Const. Part III, Art. 15 (FriesLaw). This case concerns a Plaintiff who was denied entry into Parliament and seeks to dispute the official June 2026 Election results as purported and certified by the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

II. PARTIES

SoggehToast, an independent candidate in the June 2026 Election (Applicant/Plaintiff)
The Crown (Respondent/Defendant )

III. FACTS

1. The Constitution states that Members of Parliament are to be elected according to a proportional voting system defined by Parliament K.A. Const. Part I, § 5.4 (FriesLaw). The electoral process is defined in the Alexandrian Electoral Act, or A.P.00-018.
2. The Ministry of Internal Affairs opened declarations for the June 2026 Parliament Elections on June 15th.
3. After satisfying all legal requirements provided in A.P.00-018 to run as an independent, including those provided in §5(4), §5(5), and §5(6), the Plaintiff was acknowledged as an independent candidate by the Ministry of Internal Affairs on June 19th, 2026.
4. On June 20th, 2026, the Ministry of Internal Affairs made a post on the June 2026 Election thread, stating which candidates had been accepted. This list included the Plaintiff, who was listed as an independent candidate.
5. Following the closure of the polls, the Ministry tabulated and certified the election results, apportioning five seats to SFA, two seats to the Greens, two seats to ANP, and two seats to TKP.
6. The Ministry's election results post further states that the Plaintiff was eliminated in Round 2 with 6 votes, for apparently failing to surpass quorum. Most tragically, the quorum threshold was 6.45 votes, only 0.45 votes more than the Ministry credited to the Plaintiff.
7. The Ministry of Internal Affairs election results post states that, following the elimination of both independent candidates, the resulting votes, or "final state," following transfers, were as follows:
   • SFA: 32 votes
   • The Greens: 13 votes
   • ANP: 13 votes
   • TKP: 12 votes
8. This result violated §8(4) of A.P.00-018, which provides that "any time a ballot is transferred, it becomes attributed to its highest-ranked contender that has not already achieved quorum or been eliminated." The Ministry incorrectly transferred one ballot from MrRoyaltys to SFA, when it should have been transferred to the Plaintiff.
9. The correct final tally, had the election been conducted according to A.P.00-018, should have been:
   • SFA: 30 votes
   • SoggehToast: 7 votes
   • The Greens: 9 votes
   • ANP: 13 votes
   • TKP: 12 votes
10. Under the correct final tally, the Plaintiff would have met quorum at 7 votes and would therefore have been elected into Parliament under §10(1).

IV. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. §10(1) of A.P.00-018 guarantees that independents who meet quorum through the procedure outlined in §8 are elected into Parliament. The Ministry of Internal Affairs' erroneous vote tabulation denied the Plaintiff their seat in Parliament, despite the Plaintiff having met quorum.
2. The Constitution provides that Members of Parliament are to be elected according to a proportional voting system defined by Parliament, yet the Ministry of Internal Affairs' election results were based on incorrect ballot transfers, thus violating that proportional voting system under A.P.00-018.

VI. Prayer for Relief

1. That the Plaintiff be seated in the Parliamentary seat to which they are legally entitled.
2. £2,000 in legal fees, to reflect the services rendered by MikamiLaw in its legal representation of the Plaintiff.
3. £500 in damages for lost income caused by the Ministry of Internal Affairs' erroneous tabulation.

Respectfully Submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Unemployed Citizen
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[AsexualDinosaur]

IN THE CHANCERY OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF SUMMONS
The Crown (@ThePuffer) is required to appear before the Chancery In the case of

SoggehToast v. Crown, VI (2026)

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons may result in a default judgment based on the known facts of the case.

All parties will make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures (General and Chancery).​

 

[Casualgreyknight]

IN THE HONORABLE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO SUMMONS

The Crown is present Your Honor, I, Casualgreyknight, will be representing The Crown in this case as a Crown Counselor.

 

[AsexualDinosaur]

Please provide your answer to the complaint within 48 hours.
@Casualgreyknight

Also provide your authorization to represent the Crown in this matter.
@Casualgreyknight | @ThePuffer​

 

[ThePuffer]

IN THE HONORABLE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO SUMMONS

The Crown is present Your Honor, I, Casualgreyknight, will be representing The Crown in this case as a Crown Counselor.

I, ThePufferOffical, approve to have Casualgreyknight represent the crown on this matter (I was on vacation which was why I was unable to confirm via discord)

 

[Casualgreyknight]

IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY OF CONTINUANCE

Your Honor,

The Crown requests for a 48 hour continuance of the deadline for its Response to Complaint due to counsel facing Illness irl.

 

[AsexualDinosaur]

IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY OF CONTINUANCE

Your Honor,

The Crown requests for a 48 hour continuance of the deadline for its Response to Complaint due to counsel facing Illness irl.

Counsel, I can't help but notice that even if the Chancery had accepted this continuance that it is now over 96 hours past due and counting.
Can you explain why we're still waiting and why we shouldn't move onto default judgement?

@Casualgreyknight​

 

[SoggehToast]

IN THE HONORABLE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Your Honor,

The Crown has had over a week to file their response. I respectfully request that the Chancery grant a Writ of Default Judgment, provided I am afforded the opportunity to submit a brief concerning the relief requested.

Respectfully Submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Unemployed Citizen
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[AsexualDinosaur]

IN THE HONORABLE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Your Honor,

The Crown has had over a week to file their response. I respectfully request that the Chancery grant a Writ of Default Judgment, provided I am afforded the opportunity to submit a brief concerning the relief requested.

Respectfully Submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Unemployed Citizen
Kingdom of Alexandria

Granted.
You have 48 hours to submit your brief.​

 

[SoggehToast]

IN THE HONORABLE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
BRIEF

Your Honor,

I will try not to over complicate this case because it is a fairly simple one. The Ministry of Internal Affairs incorrectly tabulated the results of June 2026 Election in violation of §8(4) of A.P.00-018. A single ballot transferred from MrRoyaltys to the Scarlet Flame Alliance should have been transferred to the Plaintiff. That single vote made the difference between the Plaintiff meeting quorum and being eliminated. Under §10(1) of A.P.00-018, independent candidates who meet quorum after the §8 procedure are to be elected to Parliament. As no law has been passed raising the minimum number of seats in Parliament, it remains at eleven. See K.A. Const. Part I, § 5.1 (FriesLaw). Officer Quarters published a recount of the June 2026 Election under the correct §8 procedure and demonstrated that the Greens received an extra seat. See Electoral Watchdog: June 2026 Recalculations (ColonelKai, 2026). On June 20, 2026, the Ministry listed MrNeighbor first and Kaiser_Bismarck second on the Greens' candidate list. Both were admitted into Parliament. Under the corrected count, Kaiser_Bismarck's seat is the one that was attributed incorrectly.

The Plaintiff notes that this procedural error would have been simpler to demonstrate had this case gone to trial and the Court been able to hear witness testimony. However, Queen and Electoral Registrar Juniperfig outright admitted publicly to misreading A.P.00-018. (See P-003, P-002). The Electoral Adjudicator, ItsStormCraft, stated that they could "imagine [it] being true" that the Plaintiff should have been admitted if the votes were correctly transferred. See P-001. The Ministry of Internal Affairs released the election math from both Juniperfig and ItsStormCraft under their "Results" post (#21), and it is abundantly clear that neither individual transferred the ballot in question to the Plaintiff. §8(4) states, "Any time a ballot is transferred, it becomes attributed to its highest-ranked contender that has not already achieved quota or been eliminated." The Scarlet Flame Alliance, having received no fewer than 30 first-preference votes, had well surpassed quota at this stage, and was therefore ineligible to receive that ballot transfer.

The Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court to (1) find that the Ministry of Internal Affairs violated §8(4), (2) declare the Plaintiff elected according to §10(1), and (3) declare Kaiser_Bismarck's admission into Parliament invalid. The allocation math underlying this claim was provided by Officer Quarters. See Electoral Watchdog: June 2026 Recalculations (ColonelKai, 2026). The Plaintiff is willing to elaborate on the specifics further if necessary.

Respectfully Submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Unemployed Citizen
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[Smallfries]

We find for the Claimant and grant all requested relief. Member of Parliament @Kaiser_Bismarck is to be removed from their position immediately, and @SoggehToast put in their place. This is the judgment of the Chancery, and serves only as a statement of the immediate derived effects of this case. We will post our opinion in full at a later date.

 

[Smallfries]

Verdict

Chancellor Chips authors the unanimous opinion of the Chancery. As this case was decided before his accession, Chancellor Talion did not take part in discussion, drafting, or voting.

The case at bar is an allegation regarding a disputed return on an election. The matter is fully within the original jurisdiction of the Chancery and was accepted for contemplation. In short, Claimant SoggehToast contends the Crown of Alexandria erred in the counting of an election (for which the former was a contestant) when the latter erroneously transferred one ballot to a party that did not deserve it. This single tabulation error is alleged to have caused Claimant to be deprived of a seat in Parliament rightfully owed to them. We accepted this case, heard argumentation, and eventually ruled in Claimant’s favor. Today, we explain why.

Simply put, Claimant alleges that a single vote was erroneously transferred in violation of the statutory directive for transferred ballots: “Any time a ballot is transferred, it becomes attributed to its highest-ranked contender that has not already achieved quorum or been eliminated.” A.P.00-018 | Alexandrian Electoral Act (AEA) § 8(4).

The Crown failed to respond in any material way during trial, and summary judgment was granted. In summary judgment brief, Claimant contends that one of the electoral registrars admitted to having misread the above statute and acting incorrectly as a result. Further, the publicly-released data—according to Claimant—shows that no transfer was done as required, and thus was invalid.

We start first, as always, with the text. Alexandria uses a proportional voting system for its national elections to Parliament, which is chosen by Parliament. K.A. Const. Part I, § 5(4) (FriesLaw, 5/22/26). Parliament chose a single transferable party vote system. AEA § 8. This system uses a threshold or quota system, where the number of ballots cast are divided by the number of seats up for election. Id. § 8(3). Seats are then allocated first to independent candidates who meet the quota:

“A contender achieves a quota if, at any point, they have at least enough votes to surpass the threshold . . . A party or independent candidate is only eligible for seat allocation if that party or [candidate] achieved a quota after the § 8 procedure. The number of seats available to parties is determined by subtracting the number of independent candidates who achieved a quota in the previous phase from the total number of seats up for election . . . All independent candidates who achieved a quorum after the § 8 procedure are elected.”

Id. §§ 8(4), 10(1). It is clear that the only question to ask here is whether Claimant properly met the quota.

To this end, we turn to the raw data. Though we would have greatly preferred the parties show us their own tabulation of the data in order to gauge competing interpretations, here the data was public and pre-formatted for our understanding. Thus, we were able to tabulate the results ourselves using publicly available information. See Parliament Elections | June 2026 (Post #21).

It is clear MrRoyaltys is eliminated, as eventually a point is reached where no contender achieves a quota and he is the contender with the fewest votes. AEA § 8(9). The data shows that of his two voters, one puts Claimant as a second preference. This vote is clearly and properly transferred to Claimant. However, the second vote has its second preference going to a party. That party, however, had already met the quota. So the vote should be transferred to the “highest-ranking contender that has not already achieved quota or been eliminated.” Here, because all of the parties had met quota at this point, and Claimant had neither met quota nor been eliminated, the final vote should have properly gone to him.

This results in a neat seven votes for Claimant—just above the necessary quota. This would put him above quota, and see him elected. It seems evident in our view of the data and the publicly released results that the government simply transferred the vote to the second preference without checking the law. This is clearly in error, and we reverse and properly alter the determination of the government to reflect the law as it stood.

As a result, Claimant won the election. We announced this decision already, granting all of their requested relief.

It should be noted that £500 in “lost income” was requested in damages. Though on its face it may seem difficult to understand why that may be reasonable, on further investigation we found that claimant had about thirteen hours of active playtime in the last thirty days. This fact was discovered about two months after the election was called. At the time, the salary payment for members of Parliament was £28 per hour. This equals to about £360 pounds. Taking this number plus the previous month’s time, which we have no reason to believe was much less, can easily add up to £500. Thus, we granted that relief.

The Chancery thanks all for their time and patience.