Lawsuit: Dismissed In re IGNITE v. Crown of Alexandria (ex rel. TheSnowGuardian) Case 4 (Ch. 2026)

[ConsequencesInc]

IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
NOTICE OF APPEAL

for

TheSnowGuardian
Plaintiff

against

The Chancery of Alexandria
Respondent


I. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT AND VENUE

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this suit pursuant to §14 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Alexandria which vests judicial power in the courts to interpret and administer the law, including appeals.

2. As the Chancery Court issued the charges against my client and the Courts of Alexandria are responsible for adjudicating, punishing and managing the appeals of Court offenses per the Criminal Procedure Act, this court is the only proper venue for this appeal. See §19 (1), §24 (3) A.P. 04-19.


II. PARTIES

1. TheSnowGuardian (Plaintiff) who was charged with 4 counts of Contempt of Court on May 30th, 2026.

2. The Chancery of Alexandria (Respondent), the Court that charged him with the crime.


III. FACTS

1. On May 30th, 2026. An in-game hearing was held for the IGNITE v. Crown that was open to the public.

2. TheSnowGuardian, a former Deputy Speaker of Parliament and avid political follower, was present for the hearing.

3. During a tense moment in the proceedings that afflicted his mental state, TheSnowGuardian blacked out and attacked Chancellor SmallFries when the threat of democracy in Alexandria ending made him panic.

4. Chancellor SmallFries, with High Chancellor Asexualdinosaur's concurrence, charged TheSnowGuardian with 4 counts of Contempt of Court and later fined £1100.

5. For a criminal offense to occur, a player requires a guilty mind which shows "that the player acted intentionally, knowingly, willfully, recklessly, or negligently". See §2 (2) A.P. 04-20.

6. Undergoing further evaluation, the Ministry of Welfare noted that TheSnowGuardian on the day in question suffered from temporary insanity and was in an impaired mental state (See P-001).

7. Due to his impaired mental state, TheSnowGuardian does not meet the definition of having a guilty mind as established in §2 (2) of the Criminal Code Act and therefore could not have committed a crime in his state on that day.


IV. CLAIMS AND PRAYERS FOR RELIEF

Given the facts of this case and that TheSnowGuardian was not competent to be charged with a crime, the request my client has before the court is simple: Reverse the Contempt charges and refund my client his £1100.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

Spoiler: Evidence

P-001: Official Statement from MoW regarding TheSnowGuardian's mental state at the time of the incident:

Submitted Respectfully,

∴ ⨿🝛
The Artist Formerly Known as ConsequencesInc
6/18/2026

 

[Smallfries]

Administratively moved, and renamed to be an appeal relative to the proceedings it was a part of.

 

[Smallfries]

Verdict

In a unanimous decision, the Chancery dismisses this appeal out of hand.

The Chancery does not recognize Appellant's "insanity" defense. This argument is non-cognizable, has no limitations, and if granted would be inappropriate and highly abusable. We appreciate the attempt at roleplay, but there must be some sanity (get it?) in how we approach such things.

There is no legal error on display in this appeal, and so we dismiss.