- Joined
- Jan 16, 2026
- Messages
- 99
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
mar_milk
(Plaintiff)
v.
Plura72,
Social Democrat Party
(Defendant(s))
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
I. PARTIES
1. mar_milk (known as Plaintiff)2. Plura72 (Defendant)
3. Social Democrat Party (Co-Defendant)
Collectively, parties listed in 2 and 3 shall be known as ‘Defendants’
II. FACTS
1. On or around 20/21/22 March 2026, the Plaintiff sent an application to the Co-Defendant (Social Democrat Party) under the ‘Young League Applications’ part of the Co-Defendant’s Discord Server’s ‘apply for membership’ chanel. (P-002)2. On or around 22/23/24 March 2026, the Plaintiff’s Application was denied by the Defendant. (P-002)
3. On or around 19/20 April 2026, the Defendant shared the Plaintiff’s Application in the #politics channel. (P-001)
4. The Application’s image contained the Plaintiff’s username, their opinion about the LBTQ+ (aka, queer) community, and whether the Plaintiff agreed with the rules in their charter. (P-001, P-002)
5. That message which contained the leaked application is no longer available in the #politics channel and is presumed to have been deleted. (P-003)
6. The Plaintiff never consented to their application information being distributed or shared by the Defendant.
7. On or around 21 April 2026, Talion & Partners INC. on behalf of the Plaintiff further investigated the root causes and actions that led to the Application’s image sharing. (P-004)
8. When TheSnowGuardian, acting in his capacity as an employee of Talion & Partners INC., opened a ticket with the SDP, he asked for the legal department. (P-004)
9. On asking for the legal department, he had asked for the process of information processing that he had a right to know pursuant to the Privacy Act. (P-004)
10. Dodrio3, a member of the Co-Defendant’s Legal Department, said they “have no idea”, and “personally have no access to anything like that.” (P-004)
11. TheSnowGuardian refused to accept the lack of knowledge as an answer, it was later revealed that Dodrio3 was not representing the whole legal department. (P-004)
12. The Head of the Co-Defendant’s Legal Department, Dearev, was later referred to the question, and said question was repeated again with better clarity by TheSnowGuardian. (P-005)
13. Dearev did respond to some degree, however, TheSnowGuardian was not satisfied and asked for where the Co-Defendant disclaimed the process of personal data/information collection, processing, storage, and distribution. (P-005)
14. Dearev responded again with “it is implied appy has logs” and “i have answered your question to my fullest extent” (P-005)
15. Dearev also said in between the above two statements, “we are not responsible for member’s actions ..” (P-005)
16. The Plaintiff does believe, Dearev on behalf of the Co-Defendant, has exercised some remorse and tried to curtail the actions of the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff does not believe the Co-Defendant should be completely stripped of liability.
17. The underlying cause for the sharing of the image was that the Defendant believed the Plaintiff hated the Co-Defendant and shared the image in order to contradict the Plaintiff. (P-001)
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
A. Breach of Privacy by Plura72
Breach of Privacy is committed when a person “knowingly or recklessly discloses private information of another individual or entity to the public domain, or to unauthorised third parties without lawful authority or consent” according to Part XII, Section 4 (a) of the Redmont Civil Code Act.What the Defendant did is nothing short of this definition. The Defendant with full intention and sound mind knowingly AND recklessly disclosed the private information and the details of the Plaintiff’s application in a public channel.
B. Consequential Damages from Plura72
Not only did the Defendant violate the Plaintiff’s Privacy Rights, they did it in #politics channel, this aims to show that the Defendant wanted to tarnish the Plaintiff’s reputation and their political career and wanted to make them look foolish.Consequential Damages for Humiliation is defined “(s)ituations in which a person has been disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish.” according to the RCCA.
C. Punitive Damages from Plura72
The Plaintif’s political opinion was made to look foolish, he was made to look foolish, and this was done by violating his rights. This act by itself is outrageous.The RCCA has many tests for Punitive Damages, and the Defendant’s actions seems to have fit multiple of these.
The Defendant did intend to cause harm. Witness testimony, along with the fact that it was posted in #politics will continue prove this. As such, the Plaintiff prays for 10,000$ in Punitive Damages.
The Defendant did act knowing that their conduct was likely to disadvantage the Plaintiff in their political career. As such, the Plaintiff prays for 10,000$ in Punitive Damages.
The Defendant did act with reckless indifference as to whether harm or loss would occur. As such, the Plaintiff prays for 10,000$ in Punitive Damages.
The Defendant did act in bad faith, and abused their power granted by the Co-Defendant, whom which the Plainitff had trusted not to share their private details (later confirmed by clarification, see P-005), as such, the Plaintiff prays for 10,000$ in Punitive Damages.
The conduct of the Defendant does demonstrate gross negligence, with a lack of care for any consequences or the rights of the Plaintiff, as such, the Plaintiff prays for 10,000$ in Punitive Damages.
D. Violation of the Plaintiff’s Privacy Rights by the Co-Defendant
The Co-Defendant has also equally acted egregiously in this entire situation.The Co-Defendant never disclosed why information is collected, how it will be stored, who it will be disclosed to, and other provisions of the Privacy Act.
When confronted about it (see P-005), the Co-Defendant’s Head of Legal Department simply said “it is implid Appy has logs”. This does not meet the threshold of what the Privacy Act requires. Anything can be implied, but the Privacy Act specifically requires that the above be disclaimed before or during the time of Data Collection.
E. Punitive Damages from the Co-Defendant
The Co-Defendant has also acted recklessly, when confronted about this situation, the Plaintiff’s legal counsel was given “we are not responsible for member’s actions”.There has been gross negligence from the Co-Defendant, and as such the Plaintiff prays for 10,000$ in Punitive Damages.
The Court should note that soley acting on a complaint may diminish other tests for Punitive Damages, however, the sole fact that the Plaintiff’s Privacy Rights were violated by the Co-Defendant and the neglect shown warrants Punitive Damages.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:1. A Court Order stopping/preventing the Defendant from violating the Plaintiff’s privacy rights.
2. A Court Order mandating that the Co-Defendant disclaim the information required by the Privacy Act so as to respect the Plaintiff’s (and the general public’s) Privacy Rights.
3. 50,000$ in Consequential Damages from the Defendant.
4. 50,000$ in Punitive Damages from the Defendant.
6. 10,000$ in Punitive Damages from the Co-Defendant.
7. 30% of the Total Case Value awarded as legal fees to Talion & Partners INC.
8. Any other awards or actions the Court deems just.
V. Witnesses
1. Dearev2. Plura72
3. mar_milk
4. Dodrio3
Additionally, we would like to treat witnessess Dearev, Plura72 and Dodrio3 as hostile.
VI. Evidence
See attached 'Social Democrat Party (SDP) - ticket-0029.pdf'
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 23rd day of April, 2026.
Motion
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL
The Plaintiff believes that the Defendant has deleted messages that replied to JuliaMC_ and messages that were sent in regards to this whole controversy. (See P-001 and P-003)
TheSnowGuardian, on behalf of the Plaintiff, opened a staff ticket.
As such, we motion that the Court order the staff team:
(a) Produce the first message deleted that caused this whole controversy (The message that can be seen in P-001).
(b) Messages that contextually reply to JuliaMC_'s "What?" question.
(c) Other messages sent by Plura72 related to this matter that were deleted within that timeframe, to specify, witihin a 1 hour timeframe.