Lawsuit: Dismissed snow_crp v. cixudy, Pepecuu, Case 10 (Mag. Ct., 2025)

[snow_crp]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CIVIL ACTION

snow_crp
PlainTiff

V.
cixundy
Defendant

Complaint

Parties,
snow_crp (plaintiff)
cixundy (defendant)
pepecuu (defendant)
Facts.
1. on 5/23/2025 4:50 AM (GMT+1) The Defendant made a damaging claim that I Was corrupt Including the entire policeforce.
2. [/ISPOILER
]


3. Even members of the magistrate Where agreaing which puts a deeper cut to the actaul corruption of the courts.
4.
5. The hate amongs other players aswell shows.
6.
7. As for the suggestion, Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games This is the link to it.
Claims for relief.
1. The facts as showed show profoundly show loss of enjoyment.
2. This seems rather childish for not dealing with consquences of the crimes they commited.
3. It aswell shows that the courts/goverment Cant be trusted if they show this type of hate against police officers.

Prayer of relief.
The plaintfill seeks the following from the defendant('s)
1. Compensation for the loss of enjoyment as in of 525 Pounds.
2. Compensation for harming reputation as in 175 Pounds.

Witness.
Pepecuu,
snow_crp,
cixundy,
SoggehToast,
Thriftystone,
lukeyyyMC_,
A5Wagyu,
BrotherC3BD,
lucaaaa,
PhillinDeBlanc,
Zlost,
bloodyrebels,
Krisztie.

 

[Gribble19]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
SUMMONS


@cixudy and @Pepecuu are commanded to appear before the Magistrates Court of the Kingdom of Alexandria in

Case 10 (Mag Ct., 2025)

snow_crp
Plaintiff
v.

cixudy, Pepecuu
Defendants

Every Defendant is hereby required, within seventy-two (72) hours, to file an Answer to Complaint.
Failure to do so may result in a default judgment.​

 

[Pepecuu]

I am present your honor.

 

[cixudy]

I am present

 

[Gribble19]

As stated in the summons, the deadline for both the Defendants to file their Answer to Complaint is set for seventy-two (72) hours after the summons was posted.

 

[Pepecuu]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY OF DISMISSAL

Defendant Pepecuu hereby submits an entreaty to dismiss this case due to the following reasons.

1. This case has violated the No Progress Clause for Civil Lawsuits
Under §8 of the Statute of Limitations Act, "If the filing side in any action either civil or criminal takes no steps in furtherance of the case after seven days, the case shall be dismissed.". This applies here as the "filing side" (also known as the Claimant or Plaintiff in civil lawsuits) has not made any steps in the furtherance of this case for a total of 31 days since the initial case filing, or 12 days if the deportation of the Claimant was to be accounted for. In either case, the time between their availability and the case proceedings today is incredibly significant, far surpassing the time limit set by the Statute of Limitations Act.

2. The case lacks any evidence-backed Claims for Relief
Under the General Court Rules and Procedures, "An Entreaty of Dismissal may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge." In this aspect, the Claimant fails to state any Claim for Relief that is explicitly backed by the evidence submitted within the case filing, and each of the Claimant's claims for relief does not state a legal argument or precedent that permits the Claimant to request relief through a lawsuit.

Therefore, given these reasons above, the Defendant humbly requests your honor to dismiss this case with prejudice due to the most recent conduct of the cause of action occurred after fourteen days of a possible new case filing, and therefore any new case filings on this matter would be in violation of §5 of the Statute of Limitations Act.

 

[Pepecuu]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

snow_crp
Claimant

v.

Pepecuu
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES this fact, as it is not applicable to this Defendant specifically.
2. The Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES this "fact", as it is a piece of evidence rather than a statement of fact.
3. The Defendant DENIES this fact, as the Defendant agreed with the suggestion and was retelling a personal experience which relates to the suggestion, rather than agreeing that the Claimant was corrupt.
4. The Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES this "fact", as it is a piece of evidence rather than a statement of fact.
5. The Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES this fact, as it is not applicable to this Defendant specifically, and I am not qualified to answer on behalf of all people mentioned by the Claimant.
6. The Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES this "fact", as it is a piece of evidence rather than a statement of fact.
7. The Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES this "fact", as it is a piece of evidence rather than a statement of fact.

II. DEFENCES
1. The facts do not show any loss of enjoyment by the Claimant.
2. The facts do not show any reputational harm that the Claimant might have suffered.
3. The Defendants have made these statements based on their personal opinion on the matter being discussed at the time, rather than the opinion of a governmental institution on the Claimant themselves.

By making this submission, I agree that I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 25th day of June 2025.

 

[Pepecuu]

Your honor, I would like to notify the Court that I am now representing cixudy as their legal counsel. The proof of retainer is attached below.

Spoiler: Proof of Retainer

 

[Pepecuu]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

snow_crp
Claimant

v.

cixudy (Represented by Pepecuu)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defendant DENIES this fact, as the Defendant made a sweeping claim based on their personal opinion of the entire Alexandrian police force, rather than the Claimant specifically as a Police Officer (which has been renamed to Constable).
2. The Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES this "fact", as it is a piece of evidence rather than a statement of fact.
3. The Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES this fact, as it is not applicable to this Defendant specifically.
4. The Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES this "fact", as it is a piece of evidence rather than a statement of fact.
5. The Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES this fact, as it is not applicable to this Defendant specifically.
6. The Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES this "fact", as it is a piece of evidence rather than a statement of fact.
7. The Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES this "fact", as it is a piece of evidence rather than a statement of fact.

II. DEFENCES
1. The facts do not show any loss of enjoyment by the Claimant.
2. The facts do not show any reputational harm that the Claimant might have suffered.

By making this submission, I agree that I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 25th day of June 2025.

 

[Pepecuu]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The Claimant has stated that "Even members of the magistrate Where agreaing which puts a deeper cut to the actaul corruption of the courts." in Fact number 3. This is evidently false as there are no evidence by the Claimant to state that the Courts were corrupt, and severely damages the reputation and trustworthiness of the Courts from this statement by the Claimant.

Additionally, the intent of the statement is made clear, as it is re-emphasized in the 3rd Claim of Relief submitted by the Claimant, where the Claimant asserts that "the courts/goverment Cant be trusted", compounding the idea that the Courts are corrupt despite no evidence to back such ridiculous claims, and dangerously spreading misinformation which the Claimant asserts as a Fact.

Accordingly, the Defendants humbly request that the Claimant be found guilty of perjury and be punished for their actions through fines, as stated in the 'Crimes against the Court' section of the General Court Rules and Procedures Act.

 

[Pepecuu]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY OF STRIKING

The Defendants submit this Entreaty of Striking to request to strike portions of the case filing listed below.

1. Request to Strike Fact 6
The "fact" submitted by the Claimant is irrelevant to this case, as it does not address or add to any of the claims made by the Claimant against the Defendants, instead showing a list of all the people who had reacted to the suggestion, making it too broad to be relevant.

2. Request to Strike Fact 7
As stated in the General Court Rules and Procedures Act, "Evidence which are "cdn.discord.com" links are INADMISSIBLE as evidence as they tend to disappear after ~2 weeks.". This "fact" submitted by the Claimant uses "cdn.discord.com", therefore is inadmissible and should be struck.

3. Request to Strike Claim for Relief 2
The Claimant does not even bother to make this Claim for Relief legally appropriate, and it is completely irrelevant for the Relief requested by the Claimant in the case filing.

 

[Gribble19]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF DISMISSAL
​

The Court has reviewed the Entreaty to Dismiss filed by one of the Defendants (#6).

Defendant alleges a Lack of Claim in their Entreaty to Dismiss and the Court finds that there is indeed a Lack of Claim.
The first Claim for Relief in the Complaint alleges an injury, namely a loss of enjoyment, however no evidence has been submitted to support the Claim that Plaintiff has suffered a loss of enjoyment. The second Claim for Relief does not allege any injury caused against Plaintiff at all and does not constitute a valid civil charge. The third Claim for Relief also does not allege any injury caused against Plaintiff at all and does not constitute a valid civil charge. Although not listed under their Claims for Relief, the Plaintiff does appear to attempt to allege in their Complaint that their reputation has been harmed by Defendants: "Compensation for harming reputation as in 175 Pounds." However, this potential Claim for Relief also is not supported by any evidence, and therefore also does not constitute a valid Claim for Relief sufficiently supported by the evidence submitted. As there are no valid Claims for Relief properly supported by evidence, against either Defendant, the Court will dismiss the case against both Defendants for Lack of Claim.

Accordingly,
Defendant's Entreaty to Dismiss is GRANTED and the Case is hereby dismissed against all Defendants.