Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of CityRP.

SignUp Now!

Latest posts

Case: Pending Biscuit Cookie v. Azalea Isles (2026) CV 28

SHIELD_Hand3 said:
Your Honor,

The defense has provided evidence for the submission of D-003; the screenshots may take a minute to load. Additionally, D-003 is providing contextual evidence to support comments made by the government. The Defense asks that the motion to suppress evidence be denied.
Click to expand...
Your Honour,
The plaintiff would like the court to remind the defendant, this case is about whether the plaintiff (Biscuit Cookie) was slandered by the defendant (Azalea Isles). The plaintiff doesn’t understand how this evidence is relevant to the case.
 
BiscuitPlaysYT said:
Your Honour,
The plaintiff would like the court to remind the defendant, this case is about whether the plaintiff (Biscuit Cookie) was slandered by the defendant (Azalea Isles). The plaintiff doesn’t understand how this evidence is relevant to the case.
Click to expand...
Your Honor,

The defense is well aware of why we are here and what the purpose of the case is. The Plaintiff made an allegation, the defense disagreed with their allegation, and attached evidence to support our disagreement with the allegation. The evidence is relevant to the case because it supports a disagreement the defense has with an allegation made by the plaintiff. The defense once again asks that the evidence not be suppressed, as it is relevant to the case at hand, and it relates to an allegation made by the plaintiff.
 
RULING ON EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Plaintiff is correct that the case does not need to be fully proven in the initial filings. However, the Plaintiff is still required to allege all elements necessary to establish a claim for slander.

The Court agrees with the Defendant that the Plaintiff has not explicitly stated that the statements in question are false. The burden is on the Plaintiff to properly plead the claim. Because the factual allegations do not sufficiently support the claim of slander, and because the constitutional claims have not been argued in the legal claims section, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits.

Accordingly, the emergency injunction is denied.
 
RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE #1
(By the Plaintiff)

The Defendant was correct in pointing out that the Plaintiff was late. Therefore, the motion is denied.


RULING ON MOTION FOR SANCTIONS #1
(By the Plaintiff)

The photo is relevant to proving the Defendant’s statement that the Plaintiff was active in other areas. This is relevant when considering why the Plaintiff did not respond within the required timeframe. Therefore, the motion is denied.


RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE #2
(By the Defendant)

Because the Plaintiff missed the deadline by only a short amount of time, and because the mistake appears to have been made in good faith, the Court will allow the statement to be considered. Therefore, the motion is denied.


RULING ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE #1
(By the Plaintiff)

Parties are allowed to introduce relevant evidence. Because the evidence at issue is relevant, the motion is denied.


RULING ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE #2
(By the Plaintiff)

The motion to suppress evidence argues that “the Defendant has not provided any evidence to submit D-003.” After later clarification by the Plaintiff, it has become apparent that this was intended to mean that “the Plaintiff does not understand how this evidence is relevant to the case.”

The Court finds that the answer to the complaint clearly and explicitly states why the evidence was introduced. As such, the Court finds no basis to grant the motion to suppress. Therefore, the motion is denied.
 
ORDER FINDING COMPLAINT DEFICIENT AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

Following the Defendant’s arguments, the Court finds that the complaint, as currently pleaded, is legally deficient. The Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged the factual elements necessary to support a claim for slander, including that the statements in question were false. The Plaintiff has also not properly argued how the Defendant’s alleged actions infringed upon the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

However, the Plaintiff has the right to bring an action if the claim is properly pleaded. Therefore, the Plaintiff is granted 48 hours to file an amended complaint in a new post. The amended complaint must properly allege all factual elements necessary to support a claim for slander and/or clearly explain how the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were infringed.

If the Plaintiff fails to file a sufficient amended complaint within 48 hours, the Court may dismiss the case with prejudice.

The Court also issues a general admonishment regarding motion practice in this case. The number of motions filed is approaching an excessive level. At this time, the Court will not restrict either party’s ability to file motions. However, the parties are reminded that the judiciary of the Azalea Isles recognizes a minimum legal cost of $1,000 per week for parties represented by counsel in trial.

The parties are further reminded that the presiding judge may revise this amount upward for any specific week of trial if a significant amount of legal work was required. Accordingly, if the volume of filings continues at this level, the Court may recognize legal costs exceeding $1,000 per week.

Finally, if the Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, the Defendant will be permitted to file a new answer. In that answer, the Defendant may request payment of court costs and court-recognized legal fees, as allowed under the Damages Reform Act.
 
MilkCrack said:
ORDER FINDING COMPLAINT DEFICIENT AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

Following the Defendant’s arguments, the Court finds that the complaint, as currently pleaded, is legally deficient. The Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged the factual elements necessary to support a claim for slander, including that the statements in question were false. The Plaintiff has also not properly argued how the Defendant’s alleged actions infringed upon the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

However, the Plaintiff has the right to bring an action if the claim is properly pleaded. Therefore, the Plaintiff is granted 48 hours to file an amended complaint in a new post. The amended complaint must properly allege all factual elements necessary to support a claim for slander and/or clearly explain how the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were infringed.

If the Plaintiff fails to file a sufficient amended complaint within 48 hours, the Court may dismiss the case with prejudice.

The Court also issues a general admonishment regarding motion practice in this case. The number of motions filed is approaching an excessive level. At this time, the Court will not restrict either party’s ability to file motions. However, the parties are reminded that the judiciary of the Azalea Isles recognizes a minimum legal cost of $1,000 per week for parties represented by counsel in trial.

The parties are further reminded that the presiding judge may revise this amount upward for any specific week of trial if a significant amount of legal work was required. Accordingly, if the volume of filings continues at this level, the Court may recognize legal costs exceeding $1,000 per week.

Finally, if the Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, the Defendant will be permitted to file a new answer. In that answer, the Defendant may request payment of court costs and court-recognized legal fees, as allowed under the Damages Reform Act.
Click to expand...
Your Honour,
The plaintiff asks if the court means a new thread or a new post in the CV28 thread?

The plaintiff would also like an extension of 24 hours for a total of 72 hours. As they’re busy.
 
The answer should be filed in a new post in this thread.

The extension is granted; the Plaintiff shall have 72 hours from now to file their amended answer
 
Biscuit Cookie, Plaintiff

v.

Azalea Isles, Defendant


Civil Complaint:

The cabinet of azalea isles issued a statement that was unproven and was intended to damage the Plaintiff's image.

Parties:
  1. Biscuit Cookie (Plaintiff)
  2. Azalea Isles (Defendant)

Factual Allegations:

  1. On June 15th 2026, the cabinet of azalea isles issued a statement claiming Biscuit Cookie is a “traitor”.
  2. The defendant stated “Only 3 of these had access to cabinet” referring to members of parliament.
  3. The defendant did not provide any proof supporting that Mr. Cookie owns a journalism company.
  4. The defendant claimed Mr. Cookie leaked this because it was allegedly published through their company.
  5. The defendant claimed Mr. Cookie referred to Parliament “”dead”” without evidence, Mr. Cookie has no recollection of this.
  6. Mr. Cookie has NOT been found guilty of treason in court.
  7. This statement released by the government has made irreparable harm to both my personal, business and political reputation. This statement will likely lead to permanent damage and slander of my character and will likely lead to me being unable to ever be re-elected as an MP within Azalea.
  8. The construction of the Azalea Isles states the freedom of thought, belief, and political opinion.
  9. The constitution of the Azalea Isles states the freedom of press and media communication.
  10. The constitution of the Azalea Isles states the right against government overreach of powers not specified by the constitution.
  11. The right against government overreach has been VIOLATED by claiming Mr. Cookie is GUILTY without a trial

Legal Claims:

  1. https://cityrp.org/threads/anti-slander-act.2040/

  2. https://cityrp.org/threads/constitution-of-azalea-isles.94/
  3. The defendant's claims have negatively effected my trust within the Azalea isles (P-003 & P-004)
  4. The defendant also claimed, "Any souls lost from this moment onwards, are without question, the result of actions
    undertaken by this traitor.". Without any proof to backup whether lives being lost would be the fault of Mr. Cookie
  5. The defendant did not prove that Mr. Cookie was guilty in the courts prior to making slanderous statements.


Prayer for Relief:


Request the specific relief sought by the plaintiff, including monetary damages, injunctive relief, or other appropriate remedies. Please review the Court Orders, Powers, and Judgments thread for further explanation.


  1. A declaratory statement from the Prime Minister’s office stating they apologise to the plaintiff.
  2. $1000 Azalean Dollars to cover time spent in court and any damages to the plaintiff’s image.
  3. Any other relief the court shall deem as just and proper.


Verification:

I, Biscuit Cookie, hereby affirm that the allegations in the complaint AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the plaintiff's knowledge, information, and belief and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.

Evidence:
1782109847895.png

1782109889245.png

1782112191963.png

1782112262424.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top