Lawsuit: Pending Muggy21 v. Riverardd [2025] DCR 96

[ToadKing]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Muggy21 (represented by ToadKing)
Plaintiff

v.

Riverardd (aka @Mrriverardd)
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendants as follows:

The Defendant breached a Non-Disclosure Agreement by publicly disclosing the Plaintiff's confidential review role and falsely representing that the Plaintiff provided legal validation of the Defendant's work, constituting Breach of Contract and Defamation.

I. PARTIES​

1. Muggy21
2. Riverardd (aka @Mrriverardd)

​

II. FACTS​

1. On or around 3 October 2025, the Defendant approached the Plaintiff to review a document titled "Constitutional Vulnerability Assessment" analysing structural issues in the Commonwealth of Redmont's Constitution (the "Analysis").
2. On or around 3 October 2025, the Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a Non-Disclosure Agreement (the "NDA"). (P-001)
3. The NDA included "Appendix A" providing four signatory participation options for the Plaintiff to select. (P-002)
4. Under the NDA Section 2, "Confidential Information" is explicitly defined to include (P-003):

• The Constitutional Vulnerability Assessment document (full and brief versions)
• All supporting materials, appendices, and proposed amendments
• Discussions, feedback, or correspondence regarding the Analysis
• The fact that the Receiving Party has been approached to review the Analysis
• Any notes, summaries, or derivative works prepared by the Receiving Party containing or reflecting the Analysis

5. Under the NDA Section 3, the Receiving Party (Plaintiff) agreed to :

• Maintain confidentiality of all Confidential Information using reasonable care
• Use Confidential Information solely for the Purpose stated in Section 1
• Not disclose any Confidential Information to third parties without prior written consent

6. On or around 3 October 2025, the Plaintiff explicitly informed the Defendant: "So my legal opinion is 'law,' I can't offer that. If you want someone to help you by proofreading and offering suggestions, sure." (P-005)
7. On or around 3 October 2025, the Defendant acknowledged and accepted this limited scope, stating: "That makes perfect sense, I don't want to put you in the position of issuing 'law.' What I really had in mind was exactly what you mentioned: proofreading, structure, whether the arguments come across clearly, etc.. If you're open to that kind of feedback, it would mean a lot." (P-005)
8. On or around 4 October 2025, the Plaintiff accepted the NDA and explicitly selected "3. Confidential Reviewer" under Appendix A, stating: "I, Muggy21, agree to enter into and be bound by the terms of the Non-Disclosure Agreement and Appendix A attached to this message between Riverardd and myself. This message serves as my acceptance of that contract. I select '3. Confidential Reviewer' under Appendix A." (P-006)
9. Appendix A, Option 3 "Confidential Reviewer" provides (P-007):

• Provides feedback with no public attribution
• Feedback incorporated at the Disclosing Party’s discretion
• Confidentiality maintained per NDA terms

10. The Plaintiff explicitly stated in his acceptance: "I can't do 1 or 2 without knowing anything bout it," indicating he could not serve as a Lead or Endorsing Signatory. (P-006)
11. On or around 6 November 2025, an article titled "These 21 Constitutional Flaws Could Collapse Redmont" was published by TheBlockTimes, authored by CastoloGR. (P-008)
12. The article contained an interview section titled "Questions" with the Defendant. (P-008)
13. In the published interview, the Defendant made the following false statements:
a. Question: "How can I be sure this analysis is valid?"
Defendant's Response:

Fair question. The analysis has been reviewed and validated by Mug, who has legal background both irl and ingame as a supreme court magistrate.

b. Question: "Did you acquire help by anyone during this analysis, or was it independent effort?"
Defendant's Response:

The analysis itself was independent work. After completing it, I had Mug review and validate it, he has legal background both in real life and in-game as a supreme court magistrate. His validation confirmed the findings were sound.

14. These statements by the Defendant violated multiple provisions of the NDA:

• Disclosed "the fact that the Receiving Party has been approached to review the Analysis" in violation of NDA Section 2
• Provided public attribution to the Plaintiff in violation of Appendix A, Option 3
• Failed to maintain "confidentiality per NDA terms" in violation of Appendix A, Option 3
• Violated the Plaintiff's explicit selection of "Confidential Reviewer" status with "no public attribution"

15. The Defendant's statements falsely represented that the Plaintiff:

• "Reviewed and validated" the Analysis, when the Plaintiff only agreed to provide proofreading and suggestions
• Provided legal validation, when the Plaintiff explicitly stated "my legal opinion is 'law,' I can't offer that"
• Used his position as a judicial officer to endorse the work when the Plaintiff declined to do so

16. These false statements were made knowingly, as the Defendant was directly informed by the Plaintiff on or around 3 October 2025, that the Plaintiff could not and would not provide legal opinions or validation.
17. On or around 6 November 2025, approximately 2.5 hours after the article was published, TheBlockTimes issued a correction stating: "Turns out, Mug did NOT in fact validate the contents of the shared document, which means that Riverardd lied on broad daylight about a thing this simple. Additionally, based on the replies under the above article, it seems that the contents of the document are almost certainly, 100% inaccurate. You can go ahead and dismiss the contents of the above article." (P-009)
18. Despite the correction, the original article with the false statements remains published and accessible to the public.
19. The article generated 177 messages in response on the DemocracyCraft Discord server. (P-010)
20. The Plaintiff was mentioned 15 times in discussions related to the article.
21. As a direct result of the Defendant's false statements, members of the community publicly made the following statements about the Plaintiff:

• Robidemon2 stated: "wow @Mug I can't believe you offered your legal opinion and validated this article" (P-011)
• Imza stated: "@Mug I'm so disappointed." (P-012)
• juniperfig stated: "mug bribed smallfries to resign and also gave his legal opinion on a very wrong document about the constitution so we have to kill and impeach him i think" (P-013)

22. When the Plaintiff objected to the false statements, CastoloGR (the article author) responded with a meme stating "cry about it BITCH" and added "im joking for the record, idc if i get sued im barely playing on DC anymore." (P-014)
23. Under NDA Section 7 "Remedies," the agreement provides (P-015):

The Receiving Party acknowledges that unauthorized disclosure or misuse of Confidential Information may cause irreparable harm. The Disclosing Party is entitled to seek injunctive relief, specific performance, and any other legal or equitable remedies in addition to monetary damages.

24. Under NDA Section 10 "Good Faith," the agreement provides (P-016):

Both parties agree to act honestly, fairly, and in good faith with respect to all matters under this Agreement.

​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. BREACH OF CONTRACT​

Section 7 of the Contracts Act provides:

7 - Breach of Contract
(1) A breach of contract occurs when a party fails to fulfil its contractual obligations.
(a) Remedies for breach may include damages, specific performance, or other equitable relief.

The Defendant breached the NDA in multiple respects.

The Defendant violated NDA Section 2 regarding "Confidential Information" by disclosing "the fact that the Receiving Party has been approached to review the Analysis" and making public statements revealing the Plaintiff's involvement. The Defendant violated Appendix A, Option 3 regarding "Confidential Reviewer" Terms by providing public attribution when "no public attribution" was guaranteed and by failing to maintain "confidentiality per NDA terms." The Defendant violated NDA Section 10 regarding Good Faith by failing to "act honestly, fairly, and in good faith," misrepresenting the Plaintiff's role and scope of work, and falsely claiming the Plaintiff provided "validation" when he only agreed to proofreading.

The Defendant's breaches were knowing and intentional, as evidenced by several facts. The Defendant signed the NDA and was bound by its terms. The Defendant was explicitly informed of the Plaintiff's limited role, specifically that he would only provide proofreading. The Defendant acknowledged this limitation in writing. Despite this knowledge and acknowledgement, the Defendant nevertheless publicly claimed the Plaintiff "reviewed and validated" the work.

Under NDA Section 7 "Remedies", while this section is written from the Disclosing Party's perspective, good faith duties should apply to both parties, so Plaintiff is entitled to the same "injunctive relief, specific performance, and any other legal or equitable remedies in addition to monetary damages" because the unauthorised disclosure has caused "irreparable harm."

​

2. 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 made false statements of fact that were published in a public media outlet (TheBlockTimes), and were "embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation" under the No More Defamation Act - specifically:

1. "The analysis has been reviewed and validated by Mug"
2. "After completing it, I had Mug review and validate it"
3. "His validation confirmed the findings were sound"

These statements were demonstrably false for several reasons. The Plaintiff explicitly stated he could not provide legal opinions, telling the Defendant "my legal opinion is 'law,' I can't offer that." The Plaintiff only agreed to "proofreading and offering suggestions." The Defendant acknowledged this limited scope in writing. The Plaintiff selected "Confidential Reviewer" status, not a validating role.

The statements were injurious to the Plaintiff's reputation as a sitting Magistrate because they falsely suggested he provided legal validation of controversial analysis, misused his judicial credentials to lend credibility to work he did not endorse, exposed him to public criticism for allegedly giving improper legal opinions, and associated him with analysis described by TheBlockTimes as "100% inaccurate."

The statements exposed the Plaintiff to public contempt or ridicule, as evidenced by community members publicly stating he gave "legal opinion on a very wrong document," should be "killed and impeached,". Multiple members also expressed dissatisfaction and disappointment with the Plaintiffs' supposed involvement with the article.

The Defendant's statements were made with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth because the Defendant knew the statements were false, the Plaintiff explicitly told him what he could and could not do, the Defendant acknowledged this limitation in writing, and the Defendant nevertheless made the false claims publicly.

As a direct and proximate result of the defamatory statements, the Plaintiff suffered multiple forms of harm. He suffered injury to his professional reputation as a Magistrate, particularly regarding his ability to maintain the impartiality required under Section 12 of the Judicial Standards Act. He suffered public humiliation and ridicule, as evidenced by the 177 public messages responding to the article and the 15 instances where he was mentioned in related discussions. He was falsely associated with an analysis he did not validate. As a result, he suffered a loss of credibility in his judicial role, creating potential grounds for future recusal motions in lawsuits, under Section 16 of the Judicial Standards Act, based on an appearance of bias stemming from these false public statements.

​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

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

1. $25,000 in Consequential Damages for Humiliation pursuant to Legal Damages Act Section 7(1)(I).

2. $75,000 in Punitive Damages pursuant to Legal Damages Act Section 5, as the Defendant's conduct was outrageous.

3. A Court Order requiring the Defendant to retract all statements claiming the Plaintiff "reviewed and validated" his work and issue a public apology for breaching the NDA and making false statements.

4. 30% Legal Fees pursuant to Legal Damages Act Section 9(2)(c)

​

EVIDENCE​

Spoiler: P-001

See NDA.pdf

Spoiler: P-002

See APPENDIX A.pdf

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: P-007

Spoiler: P-008

These 21 Constitutional Flaws Could Collapse Redmont - TheBlockTimes

Redmont’s Constitution is intended to be the foundation of DC’s political system. Instead, a recent in-depth analysis by a community member sugge...

theblocktimes.demcraft.site

Spoiler: P-009

Spoiler: P-010

Spoiler: P-011

Spoiler: P-012

Spoiler: P-013

Spoiler: P-014

Spoiler: P-015

Spoiler: P-016

WITNESSES​

1. Muggy21
2. Riverardd

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 22nd day of November 2025

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[dearev]

Writ of Summons

@Riverardd, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Muggy21 v. Riverardd [2025] DCR 96

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.

 

[ToadKing]

Writ of Summons

@Riverardd, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Muggy21 v. Riverardd [2025] DCR 96

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.

Your Honour,

As the Defendant lacks Discord, I have taken it upon myself to uncover the Defendant's forum account.
To ensure they are properly notified, and to ensure the case filing is accurately reflected, I request leave of this court to update the case filing to include the Defendant's forum account - @Mrriverardd

 

[dearev]

Your Honour,

As the Defendant lacks Discord, I have taken it upon myself to uncover the Defendant's forum account.
To ensure they are properly notified, and to ensure the case filing is accurately reflected, I request leave of this court to update the case filing to include the Defendant's forum account - @Mrriverardd

Granted. You may update your filing.