Appeal: Pending [2025] DCR 87 - Appeal

[ToadKing]

Username: ToadKing

I am representing myself

What Case are you Appealing?: [2025] DCR 87

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Pending - ToadKing v. Sofia2750, EATB, RealImza, and RaiTheGuy07 [2025] DCR 87

Basis for Appeal: The DCR committed a reversible legal error by misinterpreting its own precedent in ToadKing v. Culls [2025] DCR 82 and by inventing requirements for joinder of defendants that appear nowhere in the Court Rules or any Act of Congress.

I. THE MAGISTRATE MISINTERPRETED THEIR OWN VERDICT
The same Magistrate who decided ToadKing v. Culls [2025] DCR 82 dismissed this case, stating:

"This District Court found that merely stepping on a player is not harassment, 'verbal fixation' was required.

This misreads the Magistrate's own verdict.

The [2025] DCR 82 verdict states:

"The Court wholly rejects that the mere act of stepping on a short-king is inherently disorderly on its own... In this case, the Court finds the comments made by Defendant in October (Facts 10 and 11) are indications that the Defendant intended to harass Plaintiff. The October behaviours were not accidental, incidental, or playful; it was directed at the Plaintiff as an act of harassment."

The verdict used verbal statements as evidence proving intent - showing the conduct was "not accidental, incidental, or playful" but "directed at the Plaintiff as an act of harassment." The phrase "on its own" means "without evidence of harassing intent" - NOT "without verbal statements specifically."

Criminal Code Act, Part V, Section 1 defines Disturbing the Peace as:

"engages in disorderly behavior toward an individual or group that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress."

The statute requires disorderly behaviour causing harassment - nothing about "verbal fixation."
The Magistrate elevated "how intent was proven in one case" to "the only way intent can ever be proven."

The Complaint alleges Sofia2750 deliberately stepped on the Plaintiff five separate times over seventeen days - ALL after the public filing of [2025] DCR 82 on 7 October, 2025, which made public that such conduct was unwanted by the Plaintiff. Sofia2750's repetition after this notice proves harassing intent through conduct: knowledge (public lawsuit), deliberate continuation (5 times), pattern (17 days), and public incidents (spawn, witnesses).

In [2025] DCR 82, 1 stepping + later verbal statements = intent proven.
In this case, 5 steppings after public notice = intent proven.
Both provide evidence of harassment rather than being "accidental, incidental, or playful."

The Magistrate conflated "stepping alone, without evidence of intent, is insufficient" with "verbal statements are always required to prove intent."

The Magistrate's interpretation creates absurd results: A defendant who steps on someone once, then makes comments, commits Disturbing the Peace, but a defendant who steps on someone five times over seventeen days after public notice does NOT - simply by staying silent. This creates a loophole allowing silent harassers to escape liability.

II. THE "LACK OF NEXUS" DISMISSAL VIOLATES COURT RULES
The Magistrate stated:

"The Court sees no nexus between parties that would justify their inclusion in a single action. Absent a conspiracy, the Court will not entertain a reverse class-action."

This directly contradicts Court Rules and Procedures:
Rule 5.7 expressly permits joinder:

"A Motion to Dismiss can be filed for the plaintiff's failure to join all appropriate parties to the case."

This demonstrates Court Rules permit - and sometimes require - joining multiple parties. "Reverse class-action" does not exist in law.

No conspiracy requirement exists. Nowhere in Court Rules or any Act of Congress is "conspiracy" required for joinder. Defendants should be joined when they engaged in similar conduct against the same plaintiff during the same time period, giving rise to the same legal claims.

All four defendants engaged in the same conduct (deliberately stepping on Plaintiff), against the same victim (ToadKing), during the same time period (14 October - 1 November, 2025), after the same public notice (7 October lawsuit), in the same locations (spawn/polling place), causing the same harm (harassment, alarm, distress), violating the same statute (Criminal Code Act, Part V, Section 1).

The cited precedent, GER/WPR v. Vernicia et al. [2025] FCR 21, was dismissed without prejudice with no legal analysis or citation to Court Rules, involved different facts (defendants playing different roles), and rested on the erroneous premise that defendants cannot be required to share counsel - a requirement that does not exist.

The Plaintiff has not required or requested that Defendants retain the same counsel. The Complaint contains no language requiring, requesting, or suggesting that all Defendants must share legal representation. Each Defendant is entirely free to: retain separate counsel of their choosing; represent themselves pro se; retain a Public Defender if eligible; or choose not to retain counsel at all. There is NOTHING barring Multi-defendant litigation in civil proceedings, with each defendant exercising their independent right to counsel without conflict.

Supporting Evidence: N/A