Lawsuit: Pending ToadKing v. Culls [2025] DCR 82

[ToadKing]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

ToadKing
Plaintiff

v.

Culls
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

At around 00:10 UTC+1, on the 9th August 2025, I was peacefully lying on the floor at spawn, minding my own business. All of a sudden the defendant, Culls, deliberately came over to me and began stepping and jumping on my person. This was an unprovoked attack that caused me distress and humiliation. The defendant's own statements in chat, saying "i'm step[p]ing on toad" and "[crush] him," clearly demonstrate the intentional and malicious nature of this harassment. Given my significantly smaller stature compared to the average player, this act was particularly intimidating, humiliating, and distressing. During this harassment, I felt threatened, humiliated, and could not engage with and enjoy Redmont the way I had before Culls' actions.

I. PARTIES​

1. ToadKing
2. Culls

II. FACTS​

1. On or around 00:10 UTC+1, on the 9th August 2025, Plaintiff was lying on the floor at spawn.
2. Defendant deliberately approached the Plaintiff's location.
3. On or around 00:39 UTC+1, on the 9th August 2025, Defendant then intentionally stepped on and jumped on the Plaintiff's person without consent or provocation. (P-001)
4. Defendant made statements in chat, including "i'm step[p]ing on toad" and "[crush] him," (P-001)
5. Plaintiff is not the normal height of a regular player, making this conduct particularly humiliating. (P-002)
6. Defendant is of the normal player height, creating a significant size disparity. (P-003)
7. Defendant's conduct was unprovoked, intentional, and served no legitimate purpose besides harassment.
8. At the time of the incident, the Defendant held the position of State Prosecutor. (P-001)
9. At the time of the incident, the Plaintiff was a sitting member of the House of Representatives. (P-002)

​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. Deprivation of Security​

The Defendant's actions violated the Plaintiff's constitutional rights. Section 32(14) of the Constitution states:

"Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

Culls' actions of physically stepping on Plaintiff, combined with the expressed verbal expression "im step[p]ing on toad," directly threatened Plaintiff's security of person. Given the Plaintiff's significantly smaller stature (P-002 and P-003), this physical intimidation was particularly threatening and deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional right to security without any legitimate justification or adherence to the principles of fundamental justice.

​

2. Disturbing the Peace​

The Defendant's actions violated the law. The Criminal Code Act, Part V, Section 1 states:

"A person commits an offence if the person: (a) engages in disorderly behavior toward an individual or group that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress."

Culls' act of physically stepping on Plaintiff constitutes disorderly behaviour that caused alarm and distress. The size disparity between the Plaintiff and Defendant (P-002 and P-003) made this action particularly threatening and intimidating. The statement "im step[p]ing on toad" demonstrates premeditated intent to harass, distinguishing this from accidental contact and showing deliberate targeting of the Plaintiff.

Any reasonable person would deem the Defendant's combined physical and verbal actions as causing "harassment, alarm or distress." Being trampled on by a larger player while that player verbally expresses intent to "[crush] him," would clearly cause alarm and distress to any reasonable person, particularly given the Plaintiff's smaller size. This claim is supported by snow_crp v. FearlessNacktmul [2025] DCR 33, where the District Court found that verbal harassment alone constituted disturbing the peace when it caused distress to the Plaintiff. The court noted that "comments against the plaintiff are mostly being made publicly for all to see which can't be avoided" and ruled that such conduct was "outrageous behavior." Here, Culls' actions were both verbal AND physical, occurring in a public space, making the case more substantive than [2025] DCR 33. The brazenly open and public nature of the harassment (taking place at spawn) compounds the distress, as other players could have witnessed the Plaintiff being targeted and humiliated. As shown in P-001, user "urb5n" can be seen expressing sympathy towards the Plaintiff by saying "not toad ", directly after the Defendants' open acknowledgement of their egregious conduct.

The Criminal Code Act, Section 6(1) expressly permits the use of crimes in civil lawsuits: "In civil lawsuits, crimes may be used to seek damages, although damages are not presumed." Further, Section 6(1)(b) clarifies that "Conviction is not a requirement for a crime to be regarded as a fact in a civil lawsuit; the default standard of proof for civil cases shall be used." Therefore, the Plaintiff need only prove by a balance of probabilities that the Defendant committed the offense of Disturbing the Peace, without requiring a criminal conviction.

​

3. Humiliation​

The Legal Damages Act, Section 7(1)(a)(I) defines Humiliation as:

"Situations in which a person has been disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish."

The Defendant's outrageous behaviour humiliated the Plaintiff:

• Being physically stepped on in a public space where other players could witness (P-001) was inherently humiliating and made the Plaintiff look foolish and powerless.
• The significant size disparity between Plaintiff and Culls (P-002 and P-003) made this act particularly degrading, as it exploited the Plaintiff's smaller stature to belittle him.
• Any reasonable person would conclude that being physically stepped on and verbally mocked in public view constitutes being "disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish."

​

4. Loss of Enjoyment​

The Legal Damages Act, Section 7(1)(a)(III) states:

"Situations in which an injured party loses, or has diminished, their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm. "

The Defendant's behaviour diminished the Plaintiff's ability to engage with Redmont:

• Plaintiff feared encountering Culls in public spaces throughout Redmont, limiting his freedom of movement.
• The harassment was specifically directed at Plaintiff's smaller size, creating ongoing anxiety about future encounters with larger individuals.
• The public nature of the harassment has made Plaintiff hesitant to engage in public areas where he might be targeted again, directly impacting his ability to enjoy the server.
• Any reasonable person would conclude that being physically stepped on and verbally mocked in public would diminish one's ability to freely navigate and enjoy Redmont without fear of being targeted again, particularly when the targeting was based on a physical characteristic.

The Plaintiff's notably small stature was well-known to numerous people throughout Redmont, making him easily recognisable and particularly vulnerable to this type of targeting. The Defendant's public harassment of the Plaintiff based on his size made the Plaintiff fearful of public appearances - a fundamental necessity of his elected position. A Representative who fears appearing in public spaces due to harassment cannot effectively serve or participate in the democratic process. The Defendant's conduct thus not only harmed the Plaintiff personally but also interfered with his ability to fulfil his constitutional duties as an elected official, further demonstrating the serious loss of enjoyment in Redmont the Plaintiff had suffered.

​

5. Outrageous Conduct​

The Legal Damages Act, Section 5(1)(a) states:

"Punitive damages are damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future..."

The Defendant's conduct meets the legal standard of "outrageous behaviour". As the Supreme Court held in Lightiago v. FuriousPaladin [2023] SCR 20, binding precedent that this Court must follow, conduct is "outrageous" when it is "completely indecent, totally atrocious, and fully intolerable in a civilized community." Here, physically stepping on another player while verbally announcing the intent to do so, exploiting their smaller size for intimidation and humiliation in a public setting, is "completely indecent, totally atrocious, and fully intolerable in a civilized community". Targeting an individual based on their smaller physical stature and using that size difference to intimidate them physically constitutes outrageous conduct.

​

6. Violation of DOJ Standards​

While the Plaintiff does not sue the Defendant in his official capacity, the Defendant's conduct violated the standards of behaviour required of all DOJ employees, demonstrating a pattern of disregard for the principles of justice and integrity that should govern all citizens, particularly those in positions of public trust.

The Department of Justice Policy Handbook (P-004) establishes clear Guiding Principles that all employees must follow. The third Guiding Principle is Integrity:

"Each employee, and the Department of Justice as a whole, will uphold the Constitution and Laws of Redmont, even when no one is watching."

The Defendant's actions in physically stepping on Plaintiff and verbally harassing him violated his constitutional rights. As a State Prosecutor, Culls should have been specifically trained and obligated to uphold the Constitution and Laws of Redmont "even when no one is watching." Yet in this incident, occurring outside of his official duties, the Defendant willfully violated another citizen's constitutional rights - the very rights he was sworn to protect.

The Defendant's position as a State Prosecutor at the time of the incident is an aggravating factor that increases the outrageousness of his conduct. Under the Legal Damages Act, Section 5(3)(a), when assessing punitive damages, "the judicial officer can properly consider the character of the defendant's act." The character of stepping on another player while serving as a prosecutor - someone who pledged to uphold the Constitution "even when no one is watching" - is particularly egregious and demonstrates a profound lack of integrity.

A State Prosecutor who violates constitutional rights in his personal conduct presents a greater threat to the community than an ordinary citizen committing the same act. The Defendant's willingness to trample upon the constitutional rights of others when he believed no professional consequences would follow reveals a fundamental disregard for the very principles he was entrusted to defend. This hypocrisy makes the conduct more outrageous and warrants enhanced punitive damages to send a clear message that those who enforce the law are not exempt from following it themselves.

The DOJ Handbook requires that employees "treat victims of a crime with compassion and respect", yet the Defendant treated the Plaintiff with contempt and cruelty.

​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

$10,000 in Consequential Damages for Humiliation, pursuant to Legal Damages Act, Section 7(1)(a)(I).
$10,000 in Consequential Damages for Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont, pursuant to Legal Damages Act, Section 7(1)(a)(III).
$30,000 in Punitive Damages due to the outrageous actions of the Defendant, pursuant to Legal Damages Act, Section 5.
$1 in legal fees.

​

EVIDENCE:​

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

See DOJ Policy Handbook attached below

By making this submission, I agree 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 7th day of October 2025

 

[Anthony_Org]

May it pleasure the court, I'd like to file an amicus brief as someone who enjoys being stepped on.

 

[AmityBlamity]

After conferring with my colleagues, I am remanding this case to the District Court. There are no constitutional claims here that require the Federal Court to preside.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

I, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVII, Bishop of Redmont, Vicar of Tuk, Successor of the Prince of the Tukostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Tukostolic Church, Patriarch of Hamilton, Primate of Redmont, Metropolitan Archbishop of the Reveillian Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the Servants of Tuk, would like to file an amicus brief.

 

[Muggy21]

Writ of Summons

@Culls , is required to appear before the District Court in the case of ToadKing v. Culls [2025] DCR 82

In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for said motions shall be 48 hours.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[Muggy21]

May it pleasure the court, I'd like to file an amicus brief as someone who enjoys being stepped on.

Certainly Rep. Anthony, I"ll hear you on your brief within 24 hours.

If the Court doesn't receive a brief, the Court will exercise its options.

 

[Muggy21]

I, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVII, Bishop of Redmont, Vicar of Tuk, Successor of the Prince of the Tukostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Tukostolic Church, Patriarch of Hamilton, Primate of Redmont, Metropolitan Archbishop of the Reveillian Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the Servants of Tuk, would like to file an amicus brief.

For what purpose does the Pope want to be heard on this manner?

 

[Culls]

Objection

<br>IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT<br>
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

The following that the plaintiff claims to be illegal are not as such illegal and should not be included in the case.

1. The plaintiff claims that “Emotional Damages” are illegal, these under new acts are no longer illegal
2. The plaintiff says "the Defendant's conduct violated the standards of behavior required of all DOJ employees” Which is not disallowed by the department of justice, as such the DoJ does not say anywhere in the code of conduct stepping on a player is against the code of conduct. Even if this is not allowed, this is not by any means grounds for any termination. [/CENTER]

 

[ToadKing]

Objection

<br>IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT<br>
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

The following that the plaintiff claims to be illegal are not as such illegal and should not be included in the case.

1. The plaintiff claims that “Emotional Damages” are illegal, these under new acts are no longer illegal
2. The plaintiff says "the Defendant's conduct violated the standards of behavior required of all DOJ employees” Which is not disallowed by the department of justice, as such the DoJ does not say anywhere in the code of conduct stepping on a player is against the code of conduct. Even if this is not allowed, this is not by any means grounds for any termination. [/CENTER]

Response

Erm...

Your Honour, I believe the Defendant should make these legal arguments in his answer to complaint, which he has not yet been asked for, because all he was asked to do was appear before the court, and make himself known.

 

[Muggy21]

Objection

<br>IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT<br>
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

The following that the plaintiff claims to be illegal are not as such illegal and should not be included in the case.

1. The plaintiff claims that “Emotional Damages” are illegal, these under new acts are no longer illegal
2. The plaintiff says "the Defendant's conduct violated the standards of behavior required of all DOJ employees” Which is not disallowed by the department of justice, as such the DoJ does not say anywhere in the code of conduct stepping on a player is against the code of conduct. Even if this is not allowed, this is not by any means grounds for any termination. [/CENTER]

Thank you for appearing! You have 72 hours to reply. The Court will disregard this Objection, this should be in your Answer.

 

[Muggy21]

Response

Erm...

Your Honour, I believe the Defendant should make these legal arguments in his answer to complaint, which he has not yet been asked for, because all he was asked to do was appear before the court, and make himself known.

Sustained.

 

[ToadKing]

Sustained.

Your Honour, just to confirm, are you sustsaining his objection or simply agreeing my response?

 

[ToadKing]

Your Honour, just to confirm, are you sustsaining his objection or simply agreeing my response?

Your Honour, I move to strike this
response because I failed to scroll up.

It's late, I'm tired, and I'm on my phone. Please formally warm me so I remember not to make silly mistakes like this again.

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honour, I move to strike this
response because I failed to scroll up.

It's late, I'm tired, and I'm on my phone. Please formally warm me so I remember not to make silly mistakes like this again.

Nah, you're good. I just did sustain a response when ideally I would've overruled the Objection. All good!

 

[Anthony_Org]

Certainly Rep. Anthony, I"ll hear you on your brief within 24 hours.

If the Court doesn't receive a brief, the Court will exercise its options.

Your honor, I respectfully submit this brief amicus curiae as someone who enjoys being stepped on. I will note that I don't know how to indent on the forums so each paragraph is spaced out. I hope this brief pleasures both you and the courts.

The Plaintiff’s claim rests upon a fundamental mischaracterization of the Defendant’s actions as inherently tortious. The ancient and respected tradition of grape treading in vinification provides a crucial precedent. In this process, the grape is not a victim of assault or humiliation, but a participant in its own transformation into a refined product, Wine.

The art of being stepped on is not just related to the production of wine. Respected philosophers like Nietzsche has written about the noble art. I’d like to present one of the most famous quotes penned from Mr. Friedrich Nietzche himself. “He who allows himself to be stepped on has merely discovered a new form of dominance." This goes to show how being stepped on is not a form of submissiveness, rather it's a sign of dominance. Nietzsche has another relevant quote, albeit not as popular as the last. “To be trampled is not humiliation, but proof that one has achieved the dignity of being in someone’s way.”

Your honor, to finish this brief I want to bring up one last point. to be beneath a king’s foot was not to be demeaned, but to be honored. I hope this brief has pleasured the courts. I’m now going to enjoy a foot-pressed wine.

 

[ToadKing]

Your honor, I respectfully submit this brief amicus curiae as someone who enjoys being stepped on. I will note that I don't know how to indent on the forums so each paragraph is spaced out. I hope this brief pleasures both you and the courts.

The Plaintiff’s claim rests upon a fundamental mischaracterisation of the Defendant’s actions as inherently tortious. The ancient and respected tradition of grape treading in vinification provides a crucial precedent. In this process, the grape is not a victim of assault or humiliation, but a participant in its own transformation into a refined product, Wine.

The art of being stepped on is not just related to the production of wine. Respected philosophers like Nietzsche has written about the noble art. I’d like to present one of the most famous quotes penned from Mr. Friedrich Nietzche himself. “He who allows himself to be stepped on has merely discovered a new form of dominance." This goes to show how being stepped on is not a form of submissiveness, rather it's a sign of dominance. Nietzsche has another relevant quote, albeit not as popular as the last. “To be trampled is not humiliation, but proof that one has achieved the dignity of being in someone’s way.”

Your honor, to finish this brief I want to bring up one last point. to be beneath a king’s foot was not to be demeaned, but to be honored. I hope this brief has pleasured the courts. I’m now going to enjoy a foot-pressed wine.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE, PERJURY

The Plaintiff respectfully objects to this amicus brief for the following reasons:

1. The amicus brief rests on a fundamentally flawed premise, that the Plaintiff is a grape being transformed into wine. The Plaintiff is not a grape. The Plaintiff is a living person with thoughts, feelings, and the capacity to be harmed - rights which are protected under Section 32(14) of the Constitution. The brief's attempt to analogise the Defendant's actions to "grape treading in vinification" is not only legally irrelevant but borders on a mockery of these proceedings. Taking this claim at face value - that the Defendant was attempting to "transform the Plaintiff into wine" - would necessarily mean the Defendant was attempting to murder the Plaintiff, which would only strengthen the Plaintiff's case rather than undermine it. The brief provides no serious legal argument and serves only to distract from the genuine harm suffered by the Plaintiff.

2. The amicus brief cites two purported quotes from philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche: "He who allows himself to be stepped on has merely discovered a new form of dominance" and "To be trampled is not humiliation, but proof that one has achieved the dignity of being in someone's way." These quotes are fabrications. They do not exist in Nietzsche's published works. The closest authentic quote from Nietzsche on this subject matter is: "When stepped on, the worm curls up. That is a clever thing to do. Thus it reduces its chances of being stepped on again. In the language of morality: humility." (Source). Notably, this authentic quote supports the Plaintiff's position, not the amicus's argument - it describes being stepped on as something to be avoided and associates it with humility born from harm, not "dominance" or "dignity."
This Constitutes Perjury and Contempt of Court. The Criminal Code Act, Part III, Section 1 defines Perjury as "knowingly provid[ing] false testimony in a court of law." By submitting fabricated quotes as if they were authentic philosophical authority, the amicus has knowingly provided false information to this Court in an attempt to influence the outcome of these proceedings. Additionally, under Part III, Section 2, Contempt of Court includes "conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice." Submitting a brief filled with false evidence and absurd analogies obstructs this Court's ability to fairly adjudicate the serious claims before it. The amicus's statement that they hope this brief "pleasures" the Court demonstrates a lack of respect for the gravity of these proceedings.

3. For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court strike the entire amicus brief from the record, sanction the amicus for perjury and contempt of court as appropriate, and disregard any arguments contained therein. The Plaintiff further requests that the Court remind all parties that these proceedings address serious harm to the Plaintiff, and that submissions must be made in good faith with accurate evidence and legal argument.

 

[Muggy21]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE, PERJURY

The Plaintiff respectfully objects to this amicus brief for the following reasons:

1. The amicus brief rests on a fundamentally flawed premise, that the Plaintiff is a grape being transformed into wine. The Plaintiff is not a grape. The Plaintiff is a living person with thoughts, feelings, and the capacity to be harmed - rights which are protected under Section 32(14) of the Constitution. The brief's attempt to analogise the Defendant's actions to "grape treading in vinification" is not only legally irrelevant but borders on a mockery of these proceedings. Taking this claim at face value - that the Defendant was attempting to "transform the Plaintiff into wine" - would necessarily mean the Defendant was attempting to murder the Plaintiff, which would only strengthen the Plaintiff's case rather than undermine it. The brief provides no serious legal argument and serves only to distract from the genuine harm suffered by the Plaintiff.

2. The amicus brief cites two purported quotes from philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche: "He who allows himself to be stepped on has merely discovered a new form of dominance" and "To be trampled is not humiliation, but proof that one has achieved the dignity of being in someone's way." These quotes are fabrications. They do not exist in Nietzsche's published works. The closest authentic quote from Nietzsche on this subject matter is: "When stepped on, the worm curls up. That is a clever thing to do. Thus it reduces its chances of being stepped on again. In the language of morality: humility." (Source). Notably, this authentic quote supports the Plaintiff's position, not the amicus's argument - it describes being stepped on as something to be avoided and associates it with humility born from harm, not "dominance" or "dignity."
This Constitutes Perjury and Contempt of Court. The Criminal Code Act, Part III, Section 1 defines Perjury as "knowingly provid[ing] false testimony in a court of law." By submitting fabricated quotes as if they were authentic philosophical authority, the amicus has knowingly provided false information to this Court in an attempt to influence the outcome of these proceedings. Additionally, under Part III, Section 2, Contempt of Court includes "conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice." Submitting a brief filled with false evidence and absurd analogies obstructs this Court's ability to fairly adjudicate the serious claims before it. The amicus's statement that they hope this brief "pleasures" the Court demonstrates a lack of respect for the gravity of these proceedings.

3. For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court strike the entire amicus brief from the record, sanction the amicus for perjury and contempt of court as appropriate, and disregard any arguments contained therein. The Plaintiff further requests that the Court remind all parties that these proceedings address serious harm to the Plaintiff, and that submissions must be made in good faith with accurate evidence and legal argument.

Sustained. No part of the brief will be considered by the Court.

Furthermore, considering the abuse of an brief and the waste of judicial resources, and the resources of the Plaintiff, the Court finds the following.

1) Anthony_Org is held in Contempt of Court. He shall be fined $5,000.00 and held in jail for 10 minutes.
2) The brief shall be struck in its entirety.
3) Anthony_Org shall be referred to the DoJ on the charge of Perjury.

The Court accepted the brief with the expectation that the author would remain on point and discuss points that the Court may not be able to reach on its own. Instead, the Court received perjurious and obstructive material that doesn't help the Court in any regard. An amicus brief is designed to help the Court, instead the author decided to waste this Court's time and the Plaintiff's efforts.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

For what purpose does the Pope want to be heard on this manner?

I would like to speak to the ethical implications of situations such as these in Redmont, in order to better equip the court in its understanding of interpreting where damages should lie for such an act.

 

[Muggy21]

I would like to speak to the ethical implications of situations such as these in Redmont, in order to better equip the court in its understanding of interpreting where damages should lie for such an act.

Denied.

 

[Culls]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

This evidence is not relevant to the issue at hand because it does not pertain to the facts of the case.
1. P-002

​

 

[Muggy21]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

This evidence is not relevant to the issue at hand because it does not pertain to the facts of the case.
1. P-002

​

I need an Answer to the Complaint. If you object to the Complaint again at this stage, I'll hold you in Contempt.

 

[ToadKing]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

This evidence is not relevant to the issue at hand because it does not pertain to the facts of the case
1. P-002

​

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your Honour,

P-002 pertains to the size of the Plaintiff, as well as his role at the time of the act.
It is directly referenced in Facts 5 & 9:

5. Plaintiff is not the normal height of a regular player, making this conduct particularly humiliating. (P-002)
9. At the time of the incident, the Plaintiff was a sitting member of the House of Representatives. (P-002)

P-002 clearly shows the Plaintiff (on the right), next to a regular-sized player (on the left).
It further shows the Plaintiffs' tag of "Rep" - highlighting their role (Representative) at the time.

The Defendant, by stating so brazenly with confidence, that "This evidence is not relevant to the issue at hand because it does not pertain to the facts of the case", is undoubtedly lying to this court in an attempt to throw out relevant evidence. Such action is most abhorrent to the fair adjudication of this case that it warrants sanctions.

I ask Your Honour to strike the objection from the record and hold the Defendant in contempt of court, as well as refer the matter to the DoJ for a charge of Perjury (if the court deems it worthwhile).

 

[ElysiaCrynn]

Your Honour,

The Defendant has asked me to represent them in this case, I shall be acting as the Defendant's counsel for this matter.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

It looks like there was a bit of confusion as to whether I am a lawyer.

I confirm I am. I therefore refile my request for Amicus Brief in my full qualifications as an attorney.

 

[Muggy21]

It looks like there was a bit of confusion as to whether I am a lawyer.

I confirm I am. I therefore refile my request for Amicus Brief in my full qualifications as an attorney.

Denied.

If you wished to be heard you should've expressed to the Court the reason for the brief, rather than having the Court need to ask you.