INTRODUCTION
I, Luke EC, Solicitor General of the Holy Catholic Empire of Erstavik, respectfully appear before this Honorable High Court on behalf of the Plaintiff, the Holy Catholic Empire of Erstavik (hereinafter “Erstavik”), to bring this mandamus action. The purpose of this action is to compel the Defendant to promptly adjudicate the Plaintiff’s citizenship application, which was submitted in late December 2024 and has been pending before the Citizenship Committee since January 5, 2025.
To date, the Citizenship Committee has failed to adjudicate the Plaintiff’s citizenship application.
The Plaintiff will suffer significant harm if the application is not adjudicated promptly, as they will be unable to participate in the first round of the upcoming elections for Prime Minister and Delegate. Accordingly, the Plaintiff files this action to ensure the timely adjudication of their application, thereby safeguarding their right to vote in the upcoming elections.
PARTIES
Plaintiff, Erstavik, is a member of the South Pacific.
The Defendant is the standing committee responsible for granting and revoking citizenship status in accordance with Article 3, Section 7(a) of the Charter of the Coalition of the South Pacific and Section 1(1) of the Citizenship Act.
JURISDICTION
The High Court of the Coalition of the South Pacific possesses jurisdiction and the residual authority to grant mandamus relief pursuant to Article VII of the Charter, as supplemented by principles of common law. This writ, a cornerstone of common law remedies, has not been abrogated by any law of the Coalition, and its issuance is both consistent with and necessary to the High Court’s role as defined in the Charter.
Article VII, Section 4 of the Charter grants the High Court the power to declare void any official act of government that violates the Charter or other constitutional laws. This broad judicial authority encompasses the review of government inaction, including administrative delays, when such inaction infringes upon a constitutional right or duty.
Furthermore, Article VII, Section 6 explicitly empowers the High Court to clarify and interpret provisions of law when presented with legal questions. The Plaintiff’s petition for mandamus relief presents such a legal question: whether the Defendant’s prolonged inaction on a citizenship application constitutes a violation of the Charter’s implicit guarantee of timely and effective governance.
The power to issue writs of mandamus is a deeply rooted remedy at common law and remains a vital judicial tool where no statutory remedies suffice. “A writ of mandamus is, in general, a command issuing in the King’s name from the court of King’s Bench, and directed to any person, corporation or inferior court, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, which appertains to their office and duty, and which the court has previously determined, or at least supposes, to be consonant to right and justice. It is a high prerogative writ, of a most extensively remedial nature, and issues in all cases where the party has a right to have any thing done, and has no other specific means of compelling its performance.”. 3 Commentaries on the Laws of England 110.
In the absence of specific legislation abrogating or restricting this remedy, the High Court retains residual authority at common law to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the Defendant to fulfill its duty.
Neither the Charter nor any legislative enactment of the Coalition explicitly abrogates the writ of mandamus. Absent express statutory repeal or modification, this remedy remains available under the residual powers of the judiciary to ensure the proper functioning of government.
FACTS AND BACKGROUND
The Plaintiff, Erstavik, has been located in the South Pacific since its founding in the fall of 2021, except for a brief stay in Lazarus following the Plaintiff’s refounding there in August 2024 due to a period of inactivity.
Fourteen days ago, the Plaintiff received a telegram from Delegate Ebonhand as part of a Fortnightly Briefing. In the briefing, Delegate Ebonhand reminded recipients of the upcoming elections for Prime Minister and Delegate, urging them to submit citizenship applications promptly to ensure processing before the elections began. The message stated in pertinent part: “This is just one of the many reasons why it is so important to have a WA nation in the region AND be on our regional forums! If you haven’t joined either the WA or the forums yet, consider doing it now so that you have time to get your application processed before the election begins!”
Acting on this suggestion, the Plaintiff joined the regional forum and submitted a citizenship application shortly thereafter.
The Plaintiff asserts that they meet all the criteria for citizenship as outlined in Section 2(1) of the Citizenship Act.
In the initial application, the Plaintiff listed their current nation in the South Pacific (Erstavik), their main nation (Erstavik), their current World Assembly nation (Erstavik), and pledged to uphold the laws of the Coalition of the South Pacific.
Shortly thereafter, and prior to the Citizenship Committee marking the application as pending, the Plaintiff amended their application in two respects:
- Regarding aliases, the Plaintiff, having forgotten to mention, disclosed that they had recently created a puppet nation, also located in the South Pacific, named Erstavik Rhodesia.
- The Plaintiff further clarified that Erstavik had briefly been located in Lazarus when it was resurrected after ceasing to exist due to inactivity. They also disclosed that Erstavik Rhodesia was initially founded in another frontier and was located there for a brief period before being relocated to the South Pacific.
With these amendments, the Plaintiff had provided all the necessary information for the application to be deemed complete in accordance with Section 3(1) of the Citizenship Act.
On January 5, 2025, the Citizenship Committee, through Delegate Ebonhand, confirmed receipt of the Plaintiff’s application pursuant to Section 3(2) of the Citizenship Act.
On the same day, January 5, 2025, the Citizenship Committee, through Delegate Ebonhand and pursuant to Section 3(3) of the Citizenship Act, requested additional information from the Plaintiff, stating: “Hey there, @ Erstavik! Thanks again for applying! Could you try logging in from a home Wi-Fi network (as opposed to a cellular or proxy connection)? Feel free to ping us at @ citcomm so we don’t miss it when you do.”
Later that day, January 5, 2025, the Plaintiff complied with the Citizenship Committee’s request by logging in from a home Wi-Fi network and notifying the Committee, stating: “@ citcomm @ Griffindor I have now signed in from a home WIFI.”
Since January 5, 2025, the Citizenship Committee has failed to take any further steps to adjudicate the Plaintiff’s citizenship application.
The Plaintiff has no alternative means of redress or remedy at law and therefore seeks relief from this Honorable High Court.
CAUSE OF ACTION
The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs.
The Plaintiff is entitled to have their citizenship application adjudicated by the Citizenship Committee in a timely manner, as required by the Citizenship Act and the Charter of the Coalition of the South Pacific.
The Defendant’s failure to adjudicate the Plaintiff’s application in a timely manner constitutes a violation of both the Charter of the Coalition of the South Pacific and the Citizenship Act. The Plaintiff has a clear and undeniable right to the requested relief, and the Defendant has a corresponding duty to adjudicate the application.
If the Defendant fails to adjudicate the Plaintiff’s application before the elections for Prime Minister and Delegate, the Plaintiff will effectively be disenfranchised from the first round of voting. This harm would be irreparable.
The Plaintiff has no other adequate remedy at law and therefore respectfully seeks relief from this Honorable Court.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant the following relief:
- Issue an order compelling the Defendant to adjudicate the Plaintiff’s citizenship application on or before two days from the filing of this complaint, prior to the commencement of the elections for Prime Minister and Delegate, or within a reasonable period of time as determined by this Court.
- Retain jurisdiction over this matter during the adjudication of the Plaintiff’s citizenship application to ensure compliance with the Court’s orders.
- Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
THE HOLY CATHOLIC EMPIRE OF ERSTAVIK
By counsel,
Luke EC
Solicitor General