Lawsuit: Pending 12700k v. .Savannah212467

[ToadKing]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

12700k (represented by ToadKing)
Plaintiff

v.

.Savannah212467 (@Savannah)
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complain against the Defendants as follows:

The Defendant breached Attorney-Client Privilege by publicly disclosing confidential attorney-client communications from a legal ticket to a public Discord channel without the written permission of the client, in direct violation of the Criminal Code Act and Modern Legal Reform Act.

I. PARTIES​

1. 12700k
2. .Savannah212467 (@Savannah)

​

II. FACTS​

1. On 31 December 2025, at approximately 4:07 PM EST, the Plaintiff joined the Iustitia Law Discord server seeking legal services.
2. On 31 December 2025, at approximately 4:08 PM EST, the Plaintiff opened a confidential service ticket with Iustitia Law to seek information regarding a legal matter. (P-001, P-002)
3. Section 8(4)(a) of the Modern Legal Reform Act, states: "Attorney-Client Privilege shall exist as soon as a client or potential client engages in a formal discussion with a lawyer or law firm regarding a case, potential case, or other legal matter."
4. The Plaintiff engaged in a formal discussion with the Defendant regarding "employee poaching laws", a "legal matter", thereby establishing Attorney-Client Privilege pursuant to Section 8(4)(a). (P-002)
5. The Defendant holds the positions of "Founder" and "Managing Partner" at Iustitia Law, as well as the role of "Mentor/Supervising Lawyer." (P-003)
6. The Defendant is a licensed legal practitioner holding the rank of Barrister, with specialisations in Administrative, Constitutional, Contracts, Corporate, Criminal, and Property law. (P-004)
7. During the confidential ticket conversation, the Plaintiff asked the Defendant: "This is ACP right?" (P-005)
8. The Defendant responded affirmatively at 2:16 PM, stating: "Attorney client privilege? Ya" - thereby confirming that the communications within the ticket were protected by Attorney-Client Privilege. (P-005)
9. On or around 31 December 2025, the Defendant publicly posted screenshots of the confidential ticket conversation in the #legal channel of the DemocracyCraft Discord server, stating: "Let me ss what he sent in my firm." (P-006)
10. The screenshots disclosed by the Defendant included the confidential communications from the service ticket, including messages where the Defendant had affirmed the attorney-client privileged nature of the communications. (P-005)
11. The Plaintiff did not provide written permission for the Defendant to disclose these attorney-client communications.
12. The disclosure was made in a public channel visible to any member of the DemocracyCraft Discord server.
13. At least one third party, "BlueRiverOtter", viewed and replied directly to the disclosed communications, stating: "I'm gonna write a cease and desist letter for harassment at this point." (P-007)
14. The Defendant has been practising law since at least 03 March 2025, demonstrating experience in legal practice and expected knowledge of attorney-client privilege obligations. (P-008)
15. As of the filing of this case, the disclosed screenshots remain publicly visible in the #legal channel of the DemocracyCraft Discord server.
16. The Defendant, as a licensed Barrister and law firm leadership, knew or should have known that disclosing attorney-client communications without written permission constitutes a violation of law.

​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. Breaching Attorney-Client Privilege​

Part III, Section 10 of the Criminal Code Act states:

10 - Breaching Attorney-Client Privilege
Offence Type: Indictable
Penalty: Up to 200 Penalty Units; Up to 20 minutes imprisonment; disbarment for a period of up to one month.
A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) discloses attorney-client communications without written permission.
Relevant Law: Act of Congress - Modern Legal Reform Act

The Defendant committed Breaching Attorney-Client Privilege by:

• Disclosing confidential attorney-client communications from the Plaintiff's service ticket to a public Discord channel without the Plaintiff's written permission.
• Posting screenshots of the privileged communications in the #legal channel of the DemocracyCraft Discord server where they were viewed by third parties.

Pursuant to Part I, Section 6(1) of the Criminal Code Act:

(1) Civil Damages
(a) In civil lawsuits, crimes may be used to seek damages, although damages are not presumed.
(b) 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.
(c) Law regarding legal damages shall also apply to damages caused by crimes.

2. Violation of Attorney-Client Privilege Under the Modern Legal Reform Act​

Section 8(4) of the Modern Legal Reform Act establishes:

(4) Attorney-Client Privilege
(a) Attorney-Client Privilege shall exist as soon as a client or potential client engages in a formal discussion with a lawyer or law firm regarding a case, potential case, or other legal matter.
(b) The lawyer or law firm shall not be permitted to disclose the contents of the discussion except with the voluntary and written permission of the client.
(c) Lawyers and law firms shall not be held liable for conspiracy or acting as an accessory to a crime when it is in connection with matters protected by Attorney-Client Privilege.
(d) Breaking Attorney-Client Privilege
(i) Classification: Indictable Criminal Offense
(ii) Definition: “Disclosing discussions of a client without their written permission.”
(e) Clients may also sue the lawyer or law firm that broke Attorney-Client Privilege for any losses that can be proven in court.

The Defendant violated Section 8(4)(b) by disclosing the contents of attorney-client discussions without the voluntary and written permission of the Plaintiff. Section 8(4)(e) expressly authorises clients to sue for violations of Attorney-Client Privilege.

​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant the following relief:

1. $25,000 in Punitive Damages for the Defendant's outrageous conduct in publicly disclosing confidential attorney-client communications after explicitly confirming their privileged nature, pursuant to Section 5 of the Legal Damages Act.

2. $25,000 in Punitive Damages for aggravating circumstances, including the Defendant's professional standing as a Barrister and law firm Founder/Managing Partner, and the public nature of the disclosure, which was viewed by third parties, pursuant to Section 5 of the Legal Damages Act.

3. 30% Legal Fees pursuant to Legal Damages Act, Section 9.

EVIDENCE​

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: P-007

Spoiler: P-008

S

Lawsuit: Adjourned Post in thread 'Vernicia v.Tonga1 [2025] FCR 24'

Mar 3, 2025

Objection

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



This statements are false, as we can see in the Plaintiff's own evidence, the campaign message received a total of 11 'fire' reactions, not 13. The Plaintiff provided this evidence themselves and even repeated this statement, and therefore the Defence alleges that this is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened in order to favour the Plaintiff.

Your Honour, The first statement was "gaining a maximum of 13 fire reactions" which implies that the number of fire reactions could have been...

• Savannah

WITNESSES​

1. 12700k
2. BlueRiverOtter

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 1st day of January 2026

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[BlueRiverOtter]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

12700k (represented by ToadKing)
Plaintiff

v.

.Savannah212467 (@Savannah)
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complain against the Defendants as follows:

I. PARTIES​

1. 12700k
2. .Savannah212467 (@Savannah)

​

II. FACTS​

1. On 31 December 2025, at approximately 4:07 PM EST, the Plaintiff joined the Iustitia Law Discord server seeking legal services.
2. On 31 December 2025, at approximately 4:08 PM EST, the Plaintiff opened a confidential service ticket with Iustitia Law to seek information regarding a legal matter. (P-001, P-002)
3. Section 8(4)(a) of the Modern Legal Reform Act, states: "Attorney-Client Privilege shall exist as soon as a client or potential client engages in a formal discussion with a lawyer or law firm regarding a case, potential case, or other legal matter."
4. The Plaintiff engaged in a formal discussion with the Defendant regarding "employee poaching laws", a "legal matter", thereby establishing Attorney-Client Privilege pursuant to Section 8(4)(a). (P-002)
5. The Defendant holds the positions of "Founder" and "Managing Partner" at Iustitia Law, as well as the role of "Mentor/Supervising Lawyer." (P-003)
6. The Defendant is a licensed legal practitioner holding the rank of Barrister, with specialisations in Administrative, Constitutional, Contracts, Corporate, Criminal, and Property law. (P-004)
7. During the confidential ticket conversation, the Plaintiff asked the Defendant: "This is ACP right?" (P-005)
8. The Defendant responded affirmatively at 2:16 PM, stating: "Attorney client privilege? Ya" - thereby confirming that the communications within the ticket were protected by Attorney-Client Privilege. (P-005)
9. On or around 31 December 2025, the Defendant publicly posted screenshots of the confidential ticket conversation in the #legal channel of the DemocracyCraft Discord server, stating: "Let me ss what he sent in my firm." (P-006)
10. The screenshots disclosed by the Defendant included the confidential communications from the service ticket, including messages where the Defendant had affirmed the attorney-client privileged nature of the communications. (P-005)
11. The Plaintiff did not provide written permission for the Defendant to disclose these attorney-client communications.
12. The disclosure was made in a public channel visible to any member of the DemocracyCraft Discord server.
13. At least one third party, "BlueRiverOtter", viewed and replied directly to the disclosed communications, stating: "I'm gonna write a cease and desist letter for harassment at this point." (P-007)
14. The Defendant has been practising law since at least 03 March 2025, demonstrating experience in legal practice and expected knowledge of attorney-client privilege obligations. (P-008)
15. As of the filing of this case, the disclosed screenshots remain publicly visible in the #legal channel of the DemocracyCraft Discord server.
16. The Defendant, as a licensed Barrister and law firm leadership, knew or should have known that disclosing attorney-client communications without written permission constitutes a violation of law.

​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. Breaching Attorney-Client Privilege​

Part III, Section 10 of the Criminal Code Act states:

The Defendant committed Breaching Attorney-Client Privilege by:

• Disclosing confidential attorney-client communications from the Plaintiff's service ticket to a public Discord channel without the Plaintiff's written permission.
• Posting screenshots of the privileged communications in the #legal channel of the DemocracyCraft Discord server where they were viewed by third parties.

Pursuant to Part I, Section 6(1) of the Criminal Code Act:

2. Violation of Attorney-Client Privilege Under the Modern Legal Reform Act​

Section 8(4) of the Modern Legal Reform Act establishes:

The Defendant violated Section 8(4)(b) by disclosing the contents of attorney-client discussions without the voluntary and written permission of the Plaintiff. Section 8(4)(e) expressly authorises clients to sue for violations of Attorney-Client Privilege.

​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant the following relief:

1. $25,000 in Punitive Damages for the Defendant's outrageous conduct in publicly disclosing confidential attorney-client communications after explicitly confirming their privileged nature, pursuant to Section 5 of the Legal Damages Act.

2. $25,000 in Punitive Damages for aggravating circumstances, including the Defendant's professional standing as a Barrister and law firm Founder/Managing Partner, and the public nature of the disclosure, which was viewed by third parties, pursuant to Section 5 of the Legal Damages Act.

3. 30% Legal Fees pursuant to Legal Damages Act, Section 9.

EVIDENCE​

Spoiler: P-001

View attachment 70784

Spoiler: P-002

View attachment 70785

Spoiler: P-003

View attachment 70786

Spoiler: P-004

View attachment 70787

Spoiler: P-005

View attachment 70788

Spoiler: P-006

View attachment 70789

Spoiler: P-007

View attachment 70790

Spoiler: P-008

S

Lawsuit: Adjourned Post in thread 'Vernicia v.Tonga1 [2025] FCR 24'

Mar 3, 2025

Objection

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



This statements are false, as we can see in the Plaintiff's own evidence, the campaign message received a total of 11 'fire' reactions, not 13. The Plaintiff provided this evidence themselves and even repeated this statement, and therefore the Defence alleges that this is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened in order to favour the Plaintiff.

Your Honour, The first statement was "gaining a maximum of 13 fire reactions" which implies that the number of fire reactions could have been...

• Savannah

WITNESSES​

1. 12700k
2. BlueRiverOtter

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 1st day of January 2026

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

View attachment 70791

Your honor, I as BlueRiverOtter request permission to file a amicus curiae briefing on the nature of my discord message in fact 13.

 

[ToadKing]

Your honor, I as BlueRiverOtter request permission to file a amicus curiae briefing on the nature of my discord message in fact 13.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honour, whomever it may be - no one has been assigned this case yet, Lutrinae.

The Plaintiff moves to strike BlueRiverOtter's request to file an amicus curiae brief. BlueRiverOtter is a named witness in this case and therefore cannot file an amicus brief - any information they wish to provide may be submitted during witness testimony if called by either party.

This is consistent with Judge Ameslap's ruling in GER v. DCT [2025] FCR 78, where an amicus brief was denied because the requester was a named witness.

Additionally, an Amicus Brief would be irrelevant as End has been called as a witness and so any such brief could be made during testimony if either party wishes to hear it.

End, your request for an Amicus Brief is hereby denied.

The Plaintiff further requests that BlueRiverOtter be warned about speaking out of turn, as they were not summoned to speak in these proceedings.