Lawsuit: Dismissed ToadKing v. Anchor Watch [2025] DCR 98

[ToadKing]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

ToadKing
Plaintiff

v.

Anchor News
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendants as follows:

On 18 November 2025, the Defendant published a defamatory article containing false statements about the Plaintiff's motivations for filing a lawful Freedom of Information request, constituting Libel under the No More Defamation Act. Additionally, the article was based on leaked private government communications, constituting Breach of Confidence under the Privacy Act.

I. PARTIES​

1. ToadKing
2. Anchor Watch (owner/operator currently unknown to Plaintiff)

​

II. FACTS​

1. On or around November 2025, the Plaintiff made a lawful Freedom of Information (FOI) request for judicial deliberations pursuant to Section 8 of the Classified Materials Act.
2. The Plaintiff was unable to submit the FOI request personally due to being unable to access Discord for private reasons.
3. Senator Omegabiebel submitted the FOI request on behalf of the Plaintiff as a proxy.
4. The FOI request was submitted through official government channels via the DOJ ticket system.
5. Access to the FOI ticket and its contents was restricted to members of the Department of Justice and select Judicial Officers.
6. On or around 18 November 2025, the Defendant published an article titled "Judicial FOIs?!" to #news. (P-001)
7. The article contained the following statement regarding the Plaintiff: "Senator Omega representing former representative ToadKing_ and current counsel in a relevant appeals case seeks to get judicial discussions to likely aide their political goals."
8. This statement is false. The Plaintiff's FOI request was made for legitimate purposes under the Classified Materials Act and was not made to "aide political goals."
9. The article further stated: "Reports suggest Omega is against these types of FOIs but is simply facilitating the process - The hypocritical nature of this does not go unnoticed. Voters beware for the two-faced politicians, they say one thing and do another."
10. The article included screenshots of private government ticket communications that were not publicly available.
11. Only individuals with access to the DOJ ticket system would have been able to obtain the information published in the article.
12. The Plaintiff has not consented to the disclosure of their FOI request or its contents.

​

II. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. DEFAMATION (LIBEL)​

Section 4(2) of the No More Defamation Act defines libel as:

(a) A method of defamation expressed by documents, signs, published media, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business, profession or organization.

The Defendant published an article on 18 November 2025 containing the false statement that the Plaintiff sought judicial deliberations "to likely aide their political goals." This statement was embodied as published media and constitutes defamation under the Act.

The statement is demonstrably false. The Plaintiff made a lawful FOI request pursuant to Section 8 of the Classified Materials Act, exercising a right afforded to all individuals under that legislation. There is no evidence that the request was made to advance any political objective. The Defendant's characterisation of the Plaintiff's motives as political is a fabrication designed to mislead readers and damage the Plaintiff's standing in the community.

The false statement is injurious to the Plaintiff's reputation by implying corrupt or improper motivations. It exposes the Plaintiff to public contempt and ridicule by characterising them as engaging in politically-motivated abuse of the FOI process. Furthermore, it injures the Plaintiff in their capacity as a former Representative and practising Attorney by suggesting they misuse legitimate legal processes for personal political gain, thereby undermining public trust in their professional integrity.

​

2. BREACH OF CONFIDENCE​

Section 7(1) of the Privacy Act provides that

An individual/entity is guilty of breaching confidence when they share private information in the public domain unlawfully, punishable for up to $10,000 in fines as decided by the court.

Section 6(1)(a) of the Act defines private information as including "anything beyond these examples which may be considered of a personal nature, that if released, would be adverse to the individual." The contents of the Plaintiff's FOI request constitute private information under this definition. The request revealed the Plaintiff's identity as the requester, the subject matter of their inquiry, and their involvement in related legal proceedings - all information of a personal nature that, when released, was used adversely against the Plaintiff to publish defamatory content.

The Defendant published information obtained from a private government FOI ticket that was not publicly available. Access to this ticket was restricted to members of the Department of Justice and Judicial Officers. The Plaintiff did not consent to the disclosure of this information, nor does any exception under Section 9 of the Privacy Act apply. The information was not disclosed pursuant to law, court order, or official Congressional or Court proceedings. It was leaked and published without authorisation.

The Defendant's conduct violates the privacy principles enshrined in Section 4 of the Privacy Act, including the Plaintiff's right to have access to private information restricted on a need-to-know basis.

​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief:

1. Compensatory Damages as determined by the Court for injury to the Plaintiff's reputation pursuant to Section 4 of the Legal Damages Act.

2. Nominal Damages up to $7,500 pursuant to Section 6 of the Legal Damages Act, should the Court find the Plaintiff has established a cause of action but cannot quantify other damages.

3. An order requiring the Defendant to issue a public apology and retraction of the defamatory statements pursuant to Section 5(1)(a) of the No More Defamation Act.

4. 30% legal fees pursuant to Section 9 of the Legal Damages Act.

​

EVIDENCE​

Spoiler: P-001

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 27th day of November 2025

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

The Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to compel the disclosure of the identity of the owner, operator, and/or author of the news organisation known as "Anchor Watch."

The requested information is essential to this proceeding. The Plaintiff cannot properly serve, identify, or prosecute a claim against an anonymous party. Permitting anonymous defamation without recourse would deny the Plaintiff access to justice.

 

[Vennefly]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO PRODUCE OWNERSHIP RECORDS

Before the Court is a Motion to Compel filed by the Plaintiff in this case requesting an order to compel the disclosure of the identity of the owner, operator, and/or author of the news organisation known as "Anchor Watch".

A. LEGAL STANDARD - A BALANCING ACT
In ruling on this Motion, the Court must balance the rights of the Plaintiff to a Speedy and Fair Trial (which includes the right to seek legal redress when actionable harm is alleged) with the right to Freedom of the Press, as well as Privacy Rights, of the Defendant. On the one hand, the Court must protect the public interest in safeguarding journalists, commentators, and citizens who participate in public discourse, especially where anonymity protects them from retaliation. On the other hand, the court must protect the interest of an injured party to hold a wrongdoer accountable. A Defendant cannot be allowed to use anonymity as a shield to avoid service of process or to frustrate legitimate legal claims.

Therefore, before this Motion is Granted, the Court must evaluate whether or not Plaintiff has shown a prima facie case. In other words: Plaintiff must present factual allegations which, if true, would constitute a legally actionable wrong, before the identity of an anonymous publisher may be compelled.

B. PLAINTIFF HAS STATED A PRIMA FACIE CLAIM
At this procedural stage, the Court does not resolve factual disputes or determine the truth of the published article. The only question is whether the Plaintiff has articulated claims that are plausible and legally cognisable.

The Complaint alleges that the article:

1. Published private or confidential communications;
2. Disclosed the Plaintiff's identity as the requestor without authorisation, and
3. Contained statements alleged to be false and harmful.

The Court finds that, without deciding the merits, the allegations relating to breach of privacy/confidence clearly satisfy the prima facie requirement.

The defamation claim, though facially weaker, nevertheless contributes additional weight by alleging reputational harm and factual falsity, which cannot be tested until an actual defendant is before the Court.

C. THE DEFENDANT IS A NEWS ORGANISATION WITH A DEFINITE, OUTWARD IDENTITY
The Defendant is not a casual or anonymous internet user operating behind an incidental pseudonym. "Anchor Watch" presents itself publicly as a structured and recurring news organisation. It regularly publishes articles in the #news channel, maintains consistent branding, and adopts a clear outward-facing identity through its name, style, and presentation.

Where an entity voluntarily projects itself as an institutional publisher, the weight afforded to anonymity is significantly reduced. Anonymity in such circumstances is not tied to personal safety or private commentary, but rather to institutional activity that carries public impact. This is especially true where the organisation engages in investigative reporting that concerns the conduct of individuals.

Permitting such an organisation to operate without accountability, while simultaneously denying litigants the ability to identify a responsible party, would effectively immunise it from all legal consequence. No court can allow a publisher to invoke anonymity as an impenetrable shield against legitimate claims arising from its own publications.

D. THE BALANCE TIPS IN FAVOUR OF DISCLOSURE
Having weighed the Defendant's interest in remaining anonymous against the Plaintiff's interest in pursuing actionable legal claims, the Court finds that the balance tips decisively in favour of disclosure. The Court will grant Plaintiff's motion.

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is GRANTED.
2. The Staff Team (@Staff) is humbly requested to produce any logs identifying the Owner, Operator and/or Author of the news organisation known as "Anchor Watch" into the Custody of the Court, who will disclose transcripts of this in Court.
3. Plaintiff will amend his filing accordingly by naming the identified Party as Defendant in this case.

SO ORDERED,
Magistrate Venne.

 

[Vennefly]

The Court, having requested Order 2 of the above Court Order be actioned by the Staff Team, enters the following documents received into the record.

Spoiler: Staff-1

See attachment Ticket.pdf

Spoiler: Staff-2

Spoiler: Staff-3

Accordingly, the Court identifies the Owner/Operator of "Anchor Watch" to be @asexualdinosaur.

Magistrate Venne.

 

[ToadKing]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI

The Court's identification of asexualdinosaur as the owner and operator of Anchor Watch has revealed circumstances that extend beyond the scope of this proceeding. The Plaintiff was serving as legal counsel for Asexual in AsexualDinosaur v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 95, a case which remains ongoing before this Court. The implications of this revelation require the Plaintiff to reassess the full scope of claims and parties involved before proceeding further.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this case be dismissed without prejudice so that the Plaintiff may file a new action that properly accounts for all relevant facts, claims, and parties now known. Continuing this action in its current form would be procedurally inefficient and would not serve the interests of justice.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Hello, its accurate i created the organization. I do not own or operate it.

 

[Vennefly]

Hello, its accurate i created the organization. I do not own or operate it.

These comments are stricken as they were made out of turn.

However, now that you are here, do you wish to be heard on the Court's findings or the Plaintiff's Motion to Nolle Prosequi?

 

[asexualdinosaur]

These comments are stricken as they were made out of turn.

However, now that you are here, do you wish to be heard on the Court's findings or the Plaintiff's Motion to Nolle Prosequi?

Im not here

 

[Vennefly]

Im not here

I'll take that as a no.

Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED, this matter is DISMISSED without prejudice.