Case: Pending Biscuit Cookie v. Ministry of Justice (2026) CV 42

[BiscuitPlaysYT]

Ruling on Plaintiff's Motion to Strike​

The Plaintiff's Motion to Strike is respectfully denied.

The templates for complaints and answers to complaints from the Court Library and the Case Structure Formalization Act provide guidance on the structure of such filings and establish a floor in regards to the information and other contents that must be provided.

So long as the minimum requirements are met, minor cosmetic or formatting differences are typically tolerated in cases handled by me.
Neither does it appear in any way beneficial for the Court to undermine the Defense's apparent efforts on efficient and timely filing of additional relevant information.

It is everyday practice within the Courts of Azalea Isles for multiple filings to be bundled into a single forum post.
Providing exhibits alongside the complaint or answer to the complaint is also well established common practice, and has been practiced by the Plaintiff within this very case already.

In regards to the preliminary witness list, while the intent on my part when drafting my Standing Orders was admittedly for them to be submitted after opening arguments, I do not see any reason at this time to prohibit their earlier inclusion.
The relevant wording in my Standing Orders can be commonly (and will be in this case) interpreted as a standing invitation by the Court for the submission of witness lists at any point before witness examination. As such, the Court finds that it does not constitute a response filed without leave of court, or similar.

Should this case eventually proceed to trial and enter the witness examination phase, the Defendant will be given an opportunity to submit a revised witness list at the same time as the Plaintiff. If they then reaffirm the preliminary list or do not respond in time, the preliminary witness list will be used.

---

Notice regarding Plaintiff's conduct​

The Court notes that the Plaintiff has already repeatedly behaved themselves highly unprofessionally within the scope of this civil case, even without considering the relevant prior history of the Plaintiff within the Hon. Justice Milk Crack's case (2026) CV 37.


(excerpt from my Standing Orders, section "On Motions and Objections")

Between the disrespect shown to the time of the Court and the Defendant by submitting a highly-defective initial civil complaint, and the seeming immaturity demonstrated by these recent disruptive or procedurally-improper motion and response filings, the Plaintiff is very close to being found guilty of Contempt of Court once more.

If this pattern of behavior continues, the Court will punish the Plaintiff, which may include (but is not limited to) Contempt of Court and/or an order requiring that Plaintiff appoint a more well-behaved Counsel to act on their behalf on pain of having this case dismissed otherwise.

---

Ruling on Defendant's 2nd Motion to Strike (post 18)​

Motion granted. While direct responses to Motion or Objections are permitted under my Standing Orders, responses to responses require justification and prior court approval.

This is intended to ensure that Court proceedings do not devolve into endless potentially-unprofessional back-and-forths, as well as to incentivize submitting more carefully thought out and complete court submissions in the first place.

Special circumstances may excuse uninvited submissions, such as notifications regarding settlements, other important and relevant out-of-court events or when other sufficiently compelling justification exists, but no such circumstance appears to apply here.

---

Statement regarding Jurisdiction and Case Scope​

Given the Defendant's Answer to the Complaint touches on the topic of jurisdiction, I wish to explicitly clarify something that has already been attempted to be communicated through the Court's response to the initial civil complaint and the Sua Sponte Motion to Strike.

The matter of the Plaintiff's criminal guilt of Contempt of Court as has been found by a then-Acting District Judge, the Hon. Justice Milk Crack, in (2026) CV 37, as well as his ruling on the Motion to Substitute Counsel, is not subject to review in this proceeding.

This Court possesses neither the authority nor the will to reverse Justice Milk Crack's decision in these matters, especially outside of a proper formal appeal.

The reason that the Court decided at the time to not sua sponte strike the remaining references to the Contempt of Court charge from the Plaintiff's amended civil complaint prior to the Writ of Summons is solely that the Plaintiff appears to believe the Ministry of Justice owes them civil damages from the manner by which the Contempt of Court charge came about.
Whether there is any merit to this position remains to be seen and needs to be proven by the Plaintiff, but the inclusion of the Defendant in the process of deciding on that matter appeared preferable.

---

Next steps​

In accordance with my Standing Orders, the Defendant's remaining Motions to Strike and Dismiss need to be resolved next.

The Plaintiff has 48 hours beginning now, to provide their responses to the Motion to Strike (the one that was bundled with the Answer to the Complaint) and the Motion to Dismiss.

Your Honour, with respect the plaintiff wishes to inquire about this:
“Contempt of Court and/or an order requiring that Plaintiff appoint a more well-behaved Counsel to act on their behalf on pain of having this case dismissed otherwise.”

While the plaintiff is aware this hasn’t happened the mere threat of this forces the plaintiff to question the constitutionality of this.

The Constitution of the Azalea Isles gives the following right:
“The right to self-representation or counsel in a court of law”

Your Honour, I ask what right does this court have to prevent self-representation?

 

[jotoho]

Your Honour, with respect the plaintiff wishes to inquire about this:
“Contempt of Court and/or an order requiring that Plaintiff appoint a more well-behaved Counsel to act on their behalf on pain of having this case dismissed otherwise.”

While the plaintiff is aware this hasn’t happened the mere threat of this forces the plaintiff to question the constitutionality of this.

The Constitution of the Azalea Isles gives the following right:
“The right to self-representation or counsel in a court of law”

Your Honour, I ask what right does this court have to prevent self-representation?

Those who choose to represent themselves are held to the same standards as Counsel. The Courts have previously dismissed Counsel for inappropriate behavior.

It would not be reasonable to unconditionally expect opposing parties or the Court to put up with enduring poor behavior, and the courts have the inherent power and duty to maintain discipline within their legal proceedings.

If the recipient of such an order declined to appoint Counsel as substitute representation, that would be allowed, but means there is no longer any representative of that party, likely leading to dismissal/loss due to demonstrated unwillingness to continue presenting their position.

I recommend adhering to the standards of professional behavior expected by the Court going forwards and thus avoiding the issue.
If the court is forced to take punitive action in regards to your behavior, and you believe it to be illegal, the possibility of appeal after the issuance of such an order naturally remains.

The previously issued deadline for the Plaintiff's responses to the Defendant's Motions remains unchanged.

 

[BiscuitPlaysYT]

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motions

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff respectfully opposes the Defendant’s Motion to Strike and Motion to Dismiss.

I. Motion to Strike

The Defendant’s Motion to Strike relies largely on the argument that certain allegations are unclear or constitute legal conclusions. However, the allegations are supported by the facts and evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including P-003.

Even if the Court believes that certain wording could be clearer, striking the allegations entirely is unnecessary. The Defendant has clearly understood the allegations well enough to respond to them in its Answer and Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiff therefore respectfully requests that the Motion to Strike be denied, or that the Plaintiff be permitted to clarify any allegation the Court finds insufficiently specific.


II. Motion to Dismiss

The Defendant’s primary argument is that CV37 already decided the relevant issues. The Plaintiff acknowledges that CV37 resulted in a contempt finding and that the Court approved the substitution of counsel.

While, the Plaintiff did request that the CV37 decision be overturned, and that request is part of the relief originally sought.

The important distinction is that the Plaintiff’s claims against the Ministry under GEPA are independent of whether CV37 was correctly decided.

Even if CV37’s findings remain valid, the Ministry can still be responsible for its own conduct toward the Plaintiff. The question before this Court is therefore not simply whether the Plaintiff missed deadlines, but whether the Ministry’s response to those events complied with GEPA, including its requirements concerning good-faith mistakes, reasonable and proportionate discipline, and an opportunity to respond.

The Defendant also relies heavily on the fact that the substitution of counsel was approved by the CV37 Court. However, that approval does not necessarily decide whether the Ministry’s underlying decision to seek substitution complied with GEPA. Judicial approval of an action and the legality of the government’s conduct under an employment-protection statute are separate questions.

Finally, the Defendant’s arguments concerning the Plaintiff’s contempt-related damages depend on causation and the scope of GEPA’s remedies. Those issues should not be resolved merely by stating that CV37 found the Plaintiff responsible for the missed deadlines. The Court can determine whether the Ministry independently violated GEPA and, if so, what remedies GEPA permits.

Respectfully submitted,