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

[BiscuitPlaysYT]

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/

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:

Spoiler: Exhibit P-001

Spoiler: Exhibit P-002

 

[BiscuitPlaysYT]

Emergency Injunction

I request the court have the defendant remove the statement they made being that is causes continued slander.

 

[MilkCrack]

Writ of Summons

Azalea Isles District Court, Civil Case (CV)

Case No. CV-26-28​

Plaintiff: Biscuit Cookie
Defendant: Azalea Isles

​

The Defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Biscuit Cookie v. Azalea Isles. Failure to respond within 48 hours may result in a default judgement. Both parties are asked to familiarize themselves with the relevant court documents, including proper formats, as well as the laws referenced in the complaint. Ensure that you comply with any court orders.

Please indicate in your response whether you wish to conduct the proceedings in person at the Azalea Courthouse. If you do not wish to hold the trial at the Azalea Courthouse, you must also state this in your response. The Court will try to work with both parties to hold live hearings at convenient times.

​

Signed,
Hon. Judge Milk Crack

 

[SHIELD_Hand3]

Answer to the Emergency Injunction
Your Honor, the complaint submitted by the Plaintiff is legally lacking. The Plaintiff has failed to properly reach the definition met for slander as laid in the Anti-Slander Act. The Plaintiff has failed to:
1. Prove that the claims are provably false.
2. Establish any proof of damages to the Plaintiff.
3. Prove that the intent of the message was to cause harm to the Plaintiff.

The Defense also wishes to add this point:
1. The Plaintiff has not met the burden of proof. It would be improper for a statement signed by the Entire Executive to inform the Public of Azalea about an event that has caused immense harm to the nation as a whole to be removed before the burden of proof has been met.

With these points in mind, the Defense is asking that the injunction be denied.

 

[BiscuitPlaysYT]

Answer to the Emergency Injunction
Your Honor, the complaint submitted by the Plaintiff is legally lacking. The Plaintiff has failed to properly reach the definition met for slander as laid in the Anti-Slander Act. The Plaintiff has failed to:
1. Prove that the claims are provably false.
2. Establish any proof of damages to the Plaintiff.
3. Prove that the intent of the message was to cause harm to the Plaintiff.

The Defense also wishes to add this point:
1. The Plaintiff has not met the burden of proof. It would be improper for a statement signed by the Entire Executive to inform the Public of Azalea about an event that has caused immense harm to the nation as a whole to be removed before the burden of proof has been met.

With these points in mind, the Defense is asking that the injunction be denied.

Motion to Strike

The court has NOT asked the defendant to respond to the emergency injunction, but to appear and assign a counsel to the case.

The plaintiff would also like to add: the Anti-Slander act only requires the statements to be found false in court. It however DOES NOT require this to be proven in the case filing.

 

[Phoenix Flamesong]

Writ of Summons

Azalea Isles District Court, Civil Case (CV)

Case No. CV-26-28​

Plaintiff: Biscuit Cookie
Defendant: Azalea Isles

​

The Defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Biscuit Cookie v. Azalea Isles. Failure to respond within 48 hours may result in a default judgement. Both parties are asked to familiarize themselves with the relevant court documents, including proper formats, as well as the laws referenced in the complaint. Ensure that you comply with any court orders.

Please indicate in your response whether you wish to conduct the proceedings in person at the Azalea Courthouse. If you do not wish to hold the trial at the Azalea Courthouse, you must also state this in your response. The Court will try to work with both parties to hold live hearings at convenient times.

​

Signed,
Hon. Judge Milk Crack

Your honor,

The Azalea Isles Government represented by the Ministry of Justice is present and Lead Prosecutor Alexander Davis will be assigned prosecutor to this case with Prosecutor Asexual Dinosaur as Co Council.

We do not wish to hold an in-person trial.

Signed,
Phoenix Flamesong
Minister of Justice

 

[SHIELD_Hand3]

Motion to Strike

The court has NOT asked the defendant to respond to the emergency injunction, but to appear and assign a counsel to the case.

Your Honor,

The court has not asked the defense to assign counsel to the case; the court has asked us to appear. The defense is present, and is following precedent from previous cases such as Death Thegreatfired v. Azalea Isles (2026) CV 24 where the defense has been permitted to responsed to motions without the judge requesting.

The defense asks the court to deny the motion to strike.

 

[BiscuitPlaysYT]

Your Honor,

The court has not asked the defense to assign counsel to the case; the court has asked us to appear. The defense is present, and is following precedent from previous cases such as Death Thegreatfired v. Azalea Isles (2026) CV 24 where the defense has been permitted to responsed to motions without the judge requesting.

The defense asks the court to deny the motion to strike.

Plaintiff Statement
The plaintiff asks the court to allow our statement. The plaintiff AGREES the defendant was not given an explicit order to assign a counsel. A counsel being assigned to a case should automatically be assumed.

 

[MilkCrack]

RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE.

The Court will grant the motion to strike the comments made by the Defendant.

The Defendant is correct that parties are generally permitted to respond to motions. However, the Plaintiff’s request is a request for a court order, which is governed by the specific procedure set out in the Court Order Act.

Under the Act, once a request for a court order is made and the presence of both parties is assured, the judge must first grant the requesting party 24 hours to present its statement explaining why the order should be granted. Only after the judge informs the opposing party in the thread does the non-requesting side receive 24 hours to present its rebuttal.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff shall be granted 24 hours from this order to present its statement in support of the requested court order. The Defendant shall then have 24 hours to respond after being informed by the Court. (The Defendant may present their rebuttal before being formally invited by the Court to do so, but not before the Plaintiff has filed their statement in support of the motion.).

Furthermore, the Defedant shall have 48-hours from this order to present their answer to complaint.

 

[SHIELD_Hand3]

Your Honor,

Due to the Plaintiffs' lack of address to this court within the requested time frame despite being active within other areas of the country, the defense hereby moves for immediate judgment in our favor.

 

[BiscuitPlaysYT]

Your Honor,

Due to the Plaintiffs' lack of address to this court within the requested time frame despite being active within other areas of the country, the defense hereby moves for immediate judgment in our favor.

View attachment 819

Motion To Strike
Your Honour,
The plaintiff still has several minutes before they’re required to submit a response.
The plaintiff also apologies to the court as they’ve made several amendments to this message. They’re currently busy.

Motion for Sanctions
The defendant has not given any reason as to why they submitted this photo to the court. I ask the court to consider sanctions for improperly submitting images.

 

[BiscuitPlaysYT]

RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE.

The Court will grant the motion to strike the comments made by the Defendant.

The Defendant is correct that parties are generally permitted to respond to motions. However, the Plaintiff’s request is a request for a court order, which is governed by the specific procedure set out in the Court Order Act.

Under the Act, once a request for a court order is made and the presence of both parties is assured, the judge must first grant the requesting party 24 hours to present its statement explaining why the order should be granted. Only after the judge informs the opposing party in the thread does the non-requesting side receive 24 hours to present its rebuttal.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff shall be granted 24 hours from this order to present its statement in support of the requested court order. The Defendant shall then have 24 hours to respond after being informed by the Court. (The Defendant may present their rebuttal before being formally invited by the Court to do so, but not before the Plaintiff has filed their statement in support of the motion.).

Furthermore, the Defedant shall have 48-hours from this order to present their answer to complaint.

Plaintiff’s Statement

Your Honour,

The plaintiff believes leaving a statement that makes undetermined and false statements, will continue to damage the plaintiffs reputation. We ask the court to agree to the emergency injunction requested by the plaintiff.

 

[SHIELD_Hand3]

Plaintiff’s Statement

Your Honour,

The plaintiff believes leaving a statement that makes undetermined and false statements, will continue to damage the plaintiffs reputation. We ask the court to agree to the emergency injunction requested by the plaintiff.

Motion to Strike

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff had 24 hours to present this statement, and that 24-hour period expired at 9:22 PM EDT. The Plaintiff is presenting this statement at 10:03 PM EDT. The Plaintiff is speaking out of turn according to the Court Orders Procedure Act. According to the Court Orders Procedure Act, it is the defendant's turn to present their statement. The defense asks the court to strike this statement.

 

[SHIELD_Hand3]

Motion To Strike
Your Honour,
The plaintiff still has several minutes before they’re required to submit a response.
The plaintiff also apologies to the court as they’ve made several amendments to this message. They’re currently busy.

Motion for Sanctions
The defendant has not given any reason as to why they submitted this photo to the court. I ask the court to consider sanctions.

Defenses Response
Your Honor,

The Plaintiff did not have several minutes to respond; they were, in fact, several minutes over the allotted time, to be precise, they were ~30 minutes over the allotted time by the court. The Defense asks the court to deny this motion to strike.

The photo was attached as supporting evidence for the defendant's claim that the plaintiff was active in other parts of the country. Should the court wish for its removal, it will be removed. The defense also apologizes for the mistakes, if it is in fact one; the defense is still learning all the ins and outs of the court system.

 

[BiscuitPlaysYT]

Motion To Suppress Evidence
Your Honour,
The evidence was NOT presented in a proper motion.
The plaintiff being active in other parts of the country is irrelevant to this case.
Therefore the plaintiff moves to suppress evidence.

Statement
The plaintiff’s device was showing an incorrect timezone. The plaintiff apologises. The plaintiff is prepared to withdraw the previous statement that had passed timeframe provided by the court, should the court wish. However the plaintiff is still moving for sanctions.

 

[BiscuitPlaysYT]

Motion to Strike

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff had 24 hours to present this statement, and that 24-hour period expired at 9:22 PM EDT. The Plaintiff is presenting this statement at 10:03 PM EDT. The Plaintiff is speaking out of turn according to the Court Orders Procedure Act. According to the Court Orders Procedure Act, it is the defendant's turn to present their statement. The defense asks the court to strike this statement.

Response to Motion to Strike

Your Honour,
It is the defendant’s turn to speak however as the court has already stated a party in court may respond to motions.

The defendant made a motion for default judgement.

 

[SHIELD_Hand3]

RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE.

The Court will grant the motion to strike the comments made by the Defendant.

The Defendant is correct that parties are generally permitted to respond to motions. However, the Plaintiff’s request is a request for a court order, which is governed by the specific procedure set out in the Court Order Act.

Under the Act, once a request for a court order is made and the presence of both parties is assured, the judge must first grant the requesting party 24 hours to present its statement explaining why the order should be granted. Only after the judge informs the opposing party in the thread does the non-requesting side receive 24 hours to present its rebuttal.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff shall be granted 24 hours from this order to present its statement in support of the requested court order. The Defendant shall then have 24 hours to respond after being informed by the Court. (The Defendant may present their rebuttal before being formally invited by the Court to do so, but not before the Plaintiff has filed their statement in support of the motion.).

Furthermore, the Defedant shall have 48-hours from this order to present their answer to complaint.

Response to the Injunction
Your Honor,

The defense asks that the request for an injunction be denied.

- The Plaintiff claims it is slander, but slander must be proven in the courts, and therefore, it is currently not in violation of a law, and it would be premature to issue an injunction based on a claim that has not been proven yet.

- No concrete damages to the Plaintiff have been proven. CV-25-01 sets a precedent for this §3 (“The Plaintiff has not proven that the Defendant otherwise caused reputational damage to them. While the Plaintiff does allege the proximity of the case close to the electoral period, they fail to acknowledge or explain how that impacted the outcome of the election, [...]”)

- The plaintiff has not proven that the defendant's claims are false. CV-25-01 sets a precedent in the Court Opinion §1 (“The Court notes that the Plaintiff has not provided clear, tangible evidence that the statements made by the Defendant in the case filing were demonstrably false. [...]”).

- The plaintiff has not proven that the defendants' claims were made with malicious intent. CV-25-01 sets the following precedent §2 (“In addition, the Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to show that the Defendant knowingly made a false statement with malicious intent. [...]”)

 

[SHIELD_Hand3]

RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE.

The Court will grant the motion to strike the comments made by the Defendant.

The Defendant is correct that parties are generally permitted to respond to motions. However, the Plaintiff’s request is a request for a court order, which is governed by the specific procedure set out in the Court Order Act.

Under the Act, once a request for a court order is made and the presence of both parties is assured, the judge must first grant the requesting party 24 hours to present its statement explaining why the order should be granted. Only after the judge informs the opposing party in the thread does the non-requesting side receive 24 hours to present its rebuttal.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff shall be granted 24 hours from this order to present its statement in support of the requested court order. The Defendant shall then have 24 hours to respond after being informed by the Court. (The Defendant may present their rebuttal before being formally invited by the Court to do so, but not before the Plaintiff has filed their statement in support of the motion.).

Furthermore, the Defedant shall have 48-hours from this order to present their answer to complaint.

Biscuit Cookie, Plaintiff

v.

Azalea Isles, Defendant

Answer to Civil Complaint:
The Cabinet of Azalea Isles issued a statement meant to inform the people of the Azalea Isles about an operation that caught a leak inside the highest levels of the government, and presented their process for catching the leak. No damages to the plaintiff have been proven, there has been no proven intent to harm the reputation of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has not proven that the claims of the government are provably false. The burden of proof for slander, as laid out in the Anti-Slander Act, has not been met.


Parties:

1. Plaintiff, Biscuit Cookie
2. Defendant, Azalea Isles

Factual Allegations:

1. Agreed
2. Agreed
3. Disagree, any person can scroll through the chat in the CityRP discord and see that the plaintiff owns the news company that posted the news story with the leaked information. (D-001), (D-002)
4. Disagree, while it is true that part of the thought process to weed out suspects for the leak was the news company, broader filters such as the government knowing it had to be 1 of 3 MP’s, served as a more decisive factor in who did it.
5. Disagree, the Plaintiff has labeled without proof that parliament is asleep (D-003), which, in the modern use of the words to describe inactivity, “dead” is a common and understandable synonym for "asleep."
6. Agree, but the defense will add that a case is being formed and will soon be presented.
7. Disagree, no reputational harm has been proven, and “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” is the plaintiff being speculative, and these claimed damages can not be proven. Speculative and presumptive damages are in clear contradiction to the Anti-Slander Act.
8. Agreed
9. Agreed
10. Agreed
11. Disagree, the Cabinet has simply posted an announcement to the people of the discovery of a leak in the highest levels of the government, and has let the citizens know the process they took to find the leak, and who that process points towards for the source of the leak. All of this is within the rights and powers of the government, attempting to let the citizens of Azalea Isles know what is currently going on in the government.

Legal Claims:

1. The Plaintiff has not met the first requirement laid out in §3b of the Anti-Slander Act: “Damages resulting from slander are not presumed and must be proven in a court of law.” The damages the plaintiff claims are, in fact, speculative and presumed. CV-25-01 sets a precedent for this §3 (“The Plaintiff has not proven that the Defendant otherwise caused reputational damage to them. While the Plaintiff does allege the proximity of the case close to the electoral period, they fail to acknowledge or explain how that impacted the outcome of the election, [...]”)
2. The Plaintiff has not met the second requirement laid out in §3c of the Anti-Slander Act: “In addition to proving damages, the plaintiff must also prove the defendant's intent to damage their reputation.” CV-25-01 also sets the following precedent §2 (“In addition, the Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to show that the Defendant knowingly made a false statement with malicious intent. [...]”)
3. The Plaintiff has not proven the most important part of the Anti-Slander Act. §1a states, “Slander is defined as making false and damaging statements about someone.” The statements by the cabinet are not provably false; the Plaintiff must prove that the statements by the cabinet are false and damaging. CV-25-01 sets a precedent in the Court Opinion §1 (“The Court notes that the Plaintiff has not provided clear, tangible evidence that the statements made by the Defendant in the case filing were demonstrably false. [...]”).
4. CV-26-14 Court Opinion (“First of all, an important issue here is to ensure that the Plaintiff has established sufficient standing in this case against alleged government overreach. As established in cases like Vontobel v. Ministry of Urban Development (2025) CV 07 and Anthony Org v. Azalea Isles (2026) CV 15, a plaintiff must demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury as a result of this government again.”)

Evidence:

Spoiler: Exhibit D-001

Spoiler: Exhibit D-002

Spoiler: Exhibit D-003

Verification:

I, Alexander Davis, hereby affirm that the allegations in the answer AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the defendant’s knowledge, information, and belief, and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.

 

[BiscuitPlaysYT]

Biscuit Cookie, Plaintiff

v.

Azalea Isles, Defendant

Answer to Civil Complaint:
The Cabinet of Azalea Isles issued a statement meant to inform the people of the Azalea Isles about an operation that caught a leak inside the highest levels of the government, and presented their process for catching the leak. No damages to the plaintiff have been proven, there has been no proven intent to harm the reputation of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has not proven that the claims of the government are provably false. The burden of proof for slander, as laid out in the Anti-Slander Act, has not been met.


Parties:

1. Plaintiff, Biscuit Cookie
2. Defendant, Azalea Isles

Factual Allegations:

1. Agreed
2. Agreed
3. Disagree, any person can scroll through the chat in the CityRP discord and see that the plaintiff owns the news company that posted the news story with the leaked information. (D-001), (D-002)
4. Disagree, while it is true that part of the thought process to weed out suspects for the leak was the news company, broader filters such as the government knowing it had to be 1 of 3 MP’s, served as a more decisive factor in who did it.
5. Disagree, the Plaintiff has labeled without proof that parliament is asleep (D-003), which, in the modern use of the words to describe inactivity, “dead” is a common and understandable synonym for "asleep."
6. Agree, but the defense will add that a case is being formed and will soon be presented.
7. Disagree, no reputational harm has been proven, and “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” is the plaintiff being speculative, and these claimed damages can not be proven. Speculative and presumptive damages are in clear contradiction to the Anti-Slander Act.
8. Agreed
9. Agreed
10. Agreed
11. Disagree, the Cabinet has simply posted an announcement to the people of the discovery of a leak in the highest levels of the government, and has let the citizens know the process they took to find the leak, and who that process points towards for the source of the leak. All of this is within the rights and powers of the government, attempting to let the citizens of Azalea Isles know what is currently going on in the government.

Legal Claims:

1. The Plaintiff has not met the first requirement laid out in §3b of the Anti-Slander Act: “Damages resulting from slander are not presumed and must be proven in a court of law.” The damages the plaintiff claims are, in fact, speculative and presumed. CV-25-01 sets a precedent for this §3 (“The Plaintiff has not proven that the Defendant otherwise caused reputational damage to them. While the Plaintiff does allege the proximity of the case close to the electoral period, they fail to acknowledge or explain how that impacted the outcome of the election, [...]”)
2. The Plaintiff has not met the second requirement laid out in §3c of the Anti-Slander Act: “In addition to proving damages, the plaintiff must also prove the defendant's intent to damage their reputation.” CV-25-01 also sets the following precedent §2 (“In addition, the Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to show that the Defendant knowingly made a false statement with malicious intent. [...]”)
3. The Plaintiff has not proven the most important part of the Anti-Slander Act. §1a states, “Slander is defined as making false and damaging statements about someone.” The statements by the cabinet are not provably false; the Plaintiff must prove that the statements by the cabinet are false and damaging. CV-25-01 sets a precedent in the Court Opinion §1 (“The Court notes that the Plaintiff has not provided clear, tangible evidence that the statements made by the Defendant in the case filing were demonstrably false. [...]”).
4. CV-26-14 Court Opinion (“First of all, an important issue here is to ensure that the Plaintiff has established sufficient standing in this case against alleged government overreach. As established in cases like Vontobel v. Ministry of Urban Development (2025) CV 07 and Anthony Org v. Azalea Isles (2026) CV 15, a plaintiff must demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury as a result of this government again.”)

Evidence:

Spoiler: Exhibit D-001

View attachment 821

Spoiler: Exhibit D-002

View attachment 822

Spoiler: Exhibit D-003

View attachment 823

Verification:

I, Alexander Davis, hereby affirm that the allegations in the answer AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the defendant’s knowledge, information, and belief, and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.

Motion to Suppress Evidence
Your Honour,
The defendant has not provided any evidence to submit D-003.

Additionally the freedom of political opinion is protected by the constitution.

 

[SHIELD_Hand3]

Motion to Suppress Evidence
Your Honour,
The defendant has not provided any evidence to submit D-003.

Additionally the freedom of political opinion is protected by the constitution.

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.