Lawsuit: Pending T04DS74 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 65

[ToadKing]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


T04DS74 (aka ToadKing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

I was minding my own business when I was suddenly fired from the Department of Justice (DOJ) as a State Prosecutor. This termination came without any prior warning whatsoever. Throughout my entire tenure at the Department of Justice, I had never received any previous warnings for misconduct or performance issues. The sudden dismissal was completely unexpected and without justification, leaving me shocked and confused about the basis for my termination. This arbitrary action has caused me significant harm both financially and personally.

I. PARTIES
1. T04DS74
2. Gribble19 (Attorney General)
3. Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. On or about 16th May, 2025, Plaintiff was hired as a State Prosecutor by then Attorney General, Juniperfig, who actively recruited Plaintiff, stating: "I'd want you as a prosecutor [...] you would be a total asset." (P-001)
2. During Plaintiff's employment in May 2025, Plaintiff received total compensation of $7,836, paid in three instalments (P-003):

• $3,500 on 18th May
• $3,500 on 30th May
• $836 on 31st May

3. Throughout Plaintiff's tenure, Plaintiff provided exemplary service, including legal input in numerous cases and investigations for the DOJ.
4. Plaintiff successfully helped defend the Commonwealth in the case of MrFluffy2U94 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 58, demonstrating competent legal representation.
5. Plaintiff consistently recused from cases that would cause conflicts of interest.
6. Throughout the month of June 2025, Plaintiff performed duties as State Prosecutor but received no compensation from the Defendant.
7. On June 26, 2025, at approximately 19:10:59 (UTC+1), Plaintiff was terminated from employment by "Gribble19" stating only "DOJ » You have been fired as a State Prosecutor!"(P-002)
8. Plaintiff received no prior notice, warning, explanation, or opportunity to respond to any allegations or performance concerns.
9. Plaintiff was given no opportunity to understand the basis for termination or to defend against any charges.
10. The termination was sudden, unexplained, and conducted without due process.
11. The Attorney General has the sole power to hire/fire people within the DOJ.
12. On 29th June, 2025, Plaintiff was paid $10,000 by the Department of Justice for duties performed during June 2025, representing Plaintiff's monthly salary and bonuses for completed cases.
13. On 1st July, 2025, five days after termination, Plaintiff was provided with the first and only explanation for the termination: "You seriously breached department policy which resulted in your immediate dismissal." and that "Ur dismissal was not unjust and was in line with department policy"
14. This explanation provided no details about which specific policy was allegedly breached, what conduct constituted the alleged breach, or when the alleged breach occurred.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Unfair Dismissal:
1. Defendant's termination of Plaintiff constitutes unfair dismissal in violation of Section 13(1) of the Commercial Standards Act.
2. The termination was unjust as it failed to meet the criteria established in Section 13(1)(a)-(d), specifically failing to demonstrate financial necessity, detriment to business operations, or legitimate cause.
3. The summary dismissal without notice or explanation violates fundamental principles of fair employment practices.

Constitutional Violation:
4. Defendant's actions violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights under Section 32(13) of the Constitution, which guarantees: "Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination"
5. The arbitrary and unexplained termination denied the Plaintiff due process and equal treatment under the law.
6. Defendant failed to afford Plaintiff the same procedural protections and fair treatment that would be expected for any government employee.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. Consequential Damages: Damages for Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont under Section 7(1)(III) of the Legal Damages Act, specifically for the loss of ability to practice law on behalf of the Commonwealth, capped at $50,000 as provided by law.

2. Punitive Damages: $100,000 in punitive damages under Section 5 of the Legal Damages Act for the DOJ's outrageous conduct in summarily terminating Plaintiff without warning, explanation, or due process, demonstrating a callous disregard for basic employment rights and constitutional protections.

3. A formal written apology from the Defendant, acknowledging the improper termination and violation of the Plaintiff's rights.

4. 30% legal fees as provided under Section 9 of the Legal Damages Act.

EVIDENCE:

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

WITNESSES:
1. Juniperfig
2. Gribble19

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 26th day of June 2025

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@gribble19 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of T04ds74 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 65

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.

 

[gribble19]

Your Honor, the Commonwealth is present.

 

[ko531]

Your Honor, the Commonwealth is present.

You have 48 hours to provide your answer to complaint.

 

[gribble19]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

T04DS74
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defendant AFFIRMS that Plaintiff was hired as a State Prosecutor by then Attorney General, Juniperfig, on May 16 2025.
2. The Defendant lacks information or knowledge to form a belief about the truth of Juniperfig actively recruiting Plaintiff by stating “I’d want you as a prosecutor [...] you would be a total asset.” and therefore DENIES this.
3. The Defendant AFFIRMS that Plaintiff received total compensation of $7,836 from the Department of Justice during May 2025, in the three installments as specified in the Complaint.
4.The Defendant AFFIRMS that Plaintiff provided legal input in numerous cases and investigations for the DOJ during their tenure.
5. Whether this provided legal input was “exemplary” is an opinion rather than a fact. Defendant therefore DENIES this.
6. The Defendant AFFIRMS that Plaintiff consistently recused from cases that would cause conflicts of interest.
7. The Defendant AFFIRMS that Plaintiff successfully helped defend the Commonwealth in FCR 58.
8. Whether this defense demonstrates competent legal representation is an opinion rather than a fact. Defendant therefore DENIES this.
9. The Defendant DENIES that Plaintiff received no compensation from the Defendant for their duties performed during June 2025. The Plaintiff was paid their monthly salary, as well as their bonus for their completed cases on the 29th of June 2025. This is the same date on which all other employees and former employees, who left the department during the month of June 2025 and were still owed compensation, of the Department of Justice were paid their monthly salaries as well as their bonuses for the month of June 2025. The Plaintiff was paid a total sum of $10,000 by the Department of Justice for their duties performed during June 2025.
10. The Defendant AFFIRMS that Plaintiff was terminated from Employment on June 26th 2025 at approximately 19:10:59 (UTC+1) by Gribble19.
11. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the automated message sent by the plugin upon firing stated “DOJ » You have been fired as a State Prosecutor!”
12. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the Plaintiff received no prior notice, warning, explanation or opportunity to respond to any allegations or performance concerns.
13. The Defendant DENIES that the Plaintiff was given no opportunity to understand the basis for termination, as the Plaintiff could have either reached out to the Attorney General privately or have opened a ticket with the Department of Justice to ask for the basis of their termination.
14. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the Plaintiff was not given the opportunity to defend against any charges, as no formal charges have currently been laid against Plaintiff.
15. The Defendant AFFIRMS that Plaintiff’s termination was sudden and unexplained.
16. The Defendant DENIES that Plaintiff’s termination was conducted without due process, as there was no due process to be had as of yet, since no formal civil or criminal charges have currently been laid against the Plaintiff.
17. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the Attorney General has the sole power to hire and fire people within the Department of Justice.
18. The Defendant AFFIRMS that Plaintiff was told on July 1st 2025 that "You seriously breached department policy which resulted in your immediate dismissal." as well as "Ur dismissal was not unjust and was in line with department policy." and that no other explanation was provided before then.
19. The Defendant AFFIRMS that this explanation does not provide detail about the specific policy which was breached, does not state the specific conduct which constituted the breach, and does not state when specifically the breach occurred.
20. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on 29th June, 2025, Plaintiff was paid $10,000 by the Department of Justice for duties performed during June 2025, representing Plaintiff's monthly salary and bonuses for completed cases.

II. DEFENCES
1. Plaintiff breached DOJ policy as written and available to all DOJ employees.
2. Plaintiff’s termination was in line with DOJ policy as written and available to all DOJ employees.
3. Plaintiff’s continued employment after the level to which they breached DOJ policy would have been a detriment to the workflow and reputation of the Department of Justice, as well as lead to security concerns for the Government of the Commonwealth of Redmont.
4. Plaintiff’s termination did not constitute an unfair dismissal pursuant to Commercial Standards Act § 13.(1).(b) and considering Plaintiff’s breach of employer’s policy.

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 third day of July 2025

 

[ko531]

We will know be entering discovery. Discovery will last 5 days starting now.

 

[ToadKing]

Pursuant to Rule 3.3 (Amendment to Complaint), the Plaintiff amends the Complaint as follows:

II. FACTS
12. On 29th June, 2025, Plaintiff was paid $10,000 by the Department of Justice for duties performed during June 2025, representing Plaintiff's monthly salary and bonuses for completed cases.

13. On 1st July, 2025, five days after termination, Plaintiff was provided with the first and only explanation for the termination: "You seriously breached department policy which resulted in your immediate dismissal." and that "Ur dismissal was not unjust and was in line with department policy"

14. This explanation provided no details about which specific policy was allegedly breached, what conduct constituted the alleged breach, or when the alleged breach occurred.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. Compensatory Damages: Payment of unpaid wages for June 2025 services as State Prosecutor, in an amount not less than the monthly equivalent of the May 2025 compensation.


The Plaintiff seeks to amend their complaint to reflect new facts that occurred before the discovery process began.



Pursuant to Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Plaintiff requests the Defendant to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

NOTE: The term "documents" includes all materials in any form, including but not limited to:
written documents, digital files, electronic communications, Discord messages, memoranda, reports, notes, minutes, transcripts, recordings (audio and video), screenshots, policies, procedures, handbooks, manuals, training materials, presentations, spreadsheets, logs, personnel files, disciplinary records, investigation materials, legal documents, correspondence, contracts, agreements, organizational charts, decision trees, classification documents, security protocols, meeting agendas, meeting minutes, meeting recordings, and any other materials regardless of format, location, or medium of storage.

1. Any documents showing exactly which DOJ policy Plaintiff allegedly breached.

2. Any documents showing what specific conduct Plaintiff did that breached this policy.

3. Any documents showing when this alleged breach occurred.

4. Any evidence that supports the claim Plaintiff breached any policy.

5. Any communications about Plaintiff's termination between any government officials.

6. Any records of meetings or discussions where Plaintiff's termination was decided.

7. Any documents showing who made the final decision to fire Plaintiff.

8. Any documents showing what alternatives to firing Plaintiff were considered.

9. Any documents showing why immediate termination was chosen instead of warnings or other discipline.

10. Any DOJ policies about how to discipline employees for policy violations.

11. Any documents showing the standard steps DOJ takes before firing someone.

12. Any documents showing when employees must be given notice before being fired.

13. Any documents showing when employees get opportunities to respond to accusations.

14. Any documents about progressive discipline (warnings before termination).

15. Any records of other DOJ employees disciplined for policy violations since January 1, 2025.

16. Any documents showing what procedures were followed for other employee discipline cases.

17. Any records showing which employees got warnings instead of immediate firing.

18. Any documents showing how other policy violation cases were handled differently than Plaintiff's.

19. Any DOJ policies requiring investigation before employee termination.

20. Any documents about employee rights during disciplinary proceedings.

21. Any policies requiring employees to be told why they are being disciplined.

22. Any documents showing when employees must be given chances to defend themselves.

23. Any documents defining the Attorney General's power to fire employees.

24. Any policies limiting or controlling how the Attorney General can terminate employees.

25. Any documents showing what procedures the Attorney General must follow before firing someone.

26. Any records of the Attorney General's training on proper termination procedures.

27. Any policies requiring fired employees to ask why they were terminated.

28. Any documents showing it's the employee's responsibility to find out why they were fired.

29. Any communications about whether to tell Plaintiff why he was fired.

30. Any policies about whether employers must explain termination reasons.

31. Any CABINET classified discussions about Plaintiff's termination.

32. Any other classified or confidential communications about firing Plaintiff.

33. Any government official communications about Plaintiff between 01/05/25 - 03/06/25

34. Any documents showing political considerations in Plaintiff's firing.

35. Any versions of the DOJ Policy Handbook in effect during Plaintiff's employment.

36. Any documents showing how the handbook was distributed to employees.

37. Any training materials about DOJ policies given to employees.

38. Any amendments or changes to DOJ policies during Plaintiff's employment.



Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Plaintiff submits the following interrogatories, which the Defendant must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability:

1. Describe in detail how Plaintiff's continued employment would have been "a detriment to the workflow and reputation of the Department of Justice," including examples of how Plaintiff's work performance, conduct, or presence would have negatively impacted department operations.

2. Explain the legal basis for your position that government employment termination requires no due process, and identify any law, policy, or court decision supporting the claim that due process is only required when "formal civil or criminal charges" are filed.

3. Identify the specific legal authority, DOJ policy, or established precedent that places the burden on a terminated employee to "reach out privately" or "open a ticket" to learn the basis for their termination, rather than requiring the employer to provide this information at the time of termination.

4. In the Defence's view, would a reasonable person consider it "unfair dismissal" for a government employee to be terminated without being provided any warning, prior notice, explanation of the reason for termination, or opportunity to respond to allegations, either before or after the termination occurred?

5. Explain why Plaintiff was not provided any warning, written notice, or opportunity to correct the alleged policy violation before termination, and describe whether providing such warning is standard DOJ practice for policy violations before resorting to immediate termination.



Pursuant to Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol), the Plaintiff submits the following list of additional witnesses:

1. ameslap
2. AmityBlamity
3. AsexualDinosaur
4. Dearev
5. JimmyGamer0911
6. JunkCereal
7. Kaiserin_
8. Malka
9. Mask3D_WOLF
10. pricelessAgrari
11. Rubilubi55
12. Sir_Dogeington
13. xDarkkex

 

[ToadKing]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR CLOSED COURT SESSION

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff is requesting a Closed Court Session on the basis that certain evidence relevant to this case is classified to a CABINET level, specifically relating to the Discord server titled "[CLASSIFIED: CABINET] NEXALIN IS F*CKED."

This server includes communications among senior government officials, including the President, Vice President, Cabinet Secretaries, and members of Congress. The existence and participants of this server have already been disclosed in T04DS74 v. Gribble19 [2025] FCR 66 (see Facts 3-4) and have a direct bearing on the events leading to the Plaintiff’s termination.

The Plaintiff believes this server contains key evidence surrounding the Defendant’s decision-making process, discussions about the Plaintiff, and other material directly relevant to the claim of unfair dismissal.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Pursuant to Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol), the Plaintiff submits the following list of additional witnesses:

1. ameslap
2. AmityBlamity
3. AsexualDinosaur
4. Dearev
5. JimmyGamer0911
6. JunkCereal
7. Kaiserin_
8. Malka
9. Mask3D_WOLF
10. pricelessAgrari
11. Rubilubi55
12. Sir_Dogeington
13. xDarkkex

Objection

OBJECTION - Relevance

Plaintiff has resorted to calling every single member of the department, whether ever even having an interaction with him or not, as witnesses. Defense requests that it be ordered that plaintiff's witness list be consolidated, or that the specific relevance of every witness is stated.

 

[ToadKing]

Objection

OBJECTION - Relevance

Plaintiff has resorted to calling every single member of the department, whether ever even having an interaction with him or not, as witnesses. Defense requests that it be ordered that plaintiff's witness list be consolidated, or that the specific relevance of every witness is stated.

Response

TO OBJECTION

1. All listed witnesses are DOJ employees who worked with Plaintiff during his employment period and can provide relevant testimony about his work performance and character.
   
   
2. The Defendant has specifically DENIED in their Answer (8) that Plaintiff's legal work was "exemplary", making witness testimony about Plaintiff's work quality directly relevant to the case.
   
   
3. These witnesses are relevant to Plaintiff's claims under Commercial Standards Act Section 13(1)(b), as they can testify whether Plaintiff's continued employment would have been "a detriment to the workflow and reputation" of the DOJ, which is the Defence's core argument.

 

[gribble19]

The Defendant enters the following evidence, pursuant to Rule 4.6:

 

[gribble19]

Pursuant to Rule 4.7, the Defendant requests the Plaintiff to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

Any and all messages sent by the Plaintiff, during or after Plaintiff's employment at the Department of Justice and sent anywhere other than in the Department of Justice discord server, that:

1. directly or indirectly reference Plaintiff's employment at the Department of Justice and the accompanying level of access to classified information;
   
   
2. directly or indirectly reference any non-public evidence shared in the Department of Justice server for any case;
   
   
3. directly or indirectly reference any classified messages sent within the Department of Justice server;
   
   
4. contain knowledge or information only available to the Plaintiff through non-public evidence shared in the Department of Justice server for any case;
   
   
5. contain knowledge or information only available to the Plaintiff through classified messages sent within the Department of Justice server;
   
   
6. contain direct or indirect requests to leak classified information or information that Plaintiff could reasonably expect may be classified;

as well as the context of any and all such messages.

 

[ToadKing]

Pursuant to Rule 4.7, the Defendant requests the Plaintiff to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

Any and all messages sent by the Plaintiff, during or after Plaintiff's employment at the Department of Justice and sent anywhere other than in the Department of Justice discord server, that:

1. directly or indirectly reference Plaintiff's employment at the Department of Justice and the accompanying level of access to classified information;
   
   
2. directly or indirectly reference any non-public evidence shared in the Department of Justice server for any case;
   
   
3. directly or indirectly reference any classified messages sent within the Department of Justice server;
   
   
4. contain knowledge or information only available to the Plaintiff through non-public evidence shared in the Department of Justice server for any case;
   
   
5. contain knowledge or information only available to the Plaintiff through classified messages sent within the Department of Justice server;
   
   
6. contain direct or indirect requests to leak classified information or information that Plaintiff could reasonably expect may be classified;

as well as the context of any and all such messages.

Response

All requested messages are protected by Attorney-Client Privilege, as defined in Section (8)(4) Modern Legal Reform Act, as they may have occurred between Plaintiff and clients in private Discord DMs, MZLD retainer channels, and consultation tickets. These communications are legally privileged and not subject to discovery.

 

[ToadKing]

Pursuant to Rule 3.3 (Amendment to Complaint), the Plaintiff amends the Complaint as follows:

II. FACTS
12. On 29th June, 2025, Plaintiff was paid $10,000 by the Department of Justice for duties performed during June 2025, representing Plaintiff's monthly salary and bonuses for completed cases.

13. On 1st July, 2025, five days after termination, Plaintiff was provided with the first and only explanation for the termination: "You seriously breached department policy which resulted in your immediate dismissal." and that "Ur dismissal was not unjust and was in line with department policy"

14. This explanation provided no details about which specific policy was allegedly breached, what conduct constituted the alleged breach, or when the alleged breach occurred.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. Compensatory Damages: Payment of unpaid wages for June 2025 services as State Prosecutor, in an amount not less than the monthly equivalent of the May 2025 compensation.


The Plaintiff seeks to amend their complaint to reflect new facts that occurred before the discovery process began.



Pursuant to Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Plaintiff requests the Defendant to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

NOTE: The term "documents" includes all materials in any form, including but not limited to:
written documents, digital files, electronic communications, Discord messages, memoranda, reports, notes, minutes, transcripts, recordings (audio and video), screenshots, policies, procedures, handbooks, manuals, training materials, presentations, spreadsheets, logs, personnel files, disciplinary records, investigation materials, legal documents, correspondence, contracts, agreements, organizational charts, decision trees, classification documents, security protocols, meeting agendas, meeting minutes, meeting recordings, and any other materials regardless of format, location, or medium of storage.

1. Any documents showing exactly which DOJ policy Plaintiff allegedly breached.

2. Any documents showing what specific conduct Plaintiff did that breached this policy.

3. Any documents showing when this alleged breach occurred.

4. Any evidence that supports the claim Plaintiff breached any policy.

5. Any communications about Plaintiff's termination between any government officials.

6. Any records of meetings or discussions where Plaintiff's termination was decided.

7. Any documents showing who made the final decision to fire Plaintiff.

8. Any documents showing what alternatives to firing Plaintiff were considered.

9. Any documents showing why immediate termination was chosen instead of warnings or other discipline.

10. Any DOJ policies about how to discipline employees for policy violations.

11. Any documents showing the standard steps DOJ takes before firing someone.

12. Any documents showing when employees must be given notice before being fired.

13. Any documents showing when employees get opportunities to respond to accusations.

14. Any documents about progressive discipline (warnings before termination).

15. Any records of other DOJ employees disciplined for policy violations since January 1, 2025.

16. Any documents showing what procedures were followed for other employee discipline cases.

17. Any records showing which employees got warnings instead of immediate firing.

18. Any documents showing how other policy violation cases were handled differently than Plaintiff's.

19. Any DOJ policies requiring investigation before employee termination.

20. Any documents about employee rights during disciplinary proceedings.

21. Any policies requiring employees to be told why they are being disciplined.

22. Any documents showing when employees must be given chances to defend themselves.

23. Any documents defining the Attorney General's power to fire employees.

24. Any policies limiting or controlling how the Attorney General can terminate employees.

25. Any documents showing what procedures the Attorney General must follow before firing someone.

26. Any records of the Attorney General's training on proper termination procedures.

27. Any policies requiring fired employees to ask why they were terminated.

28. Any documents showing it's the employee's responsibility to find out why they were fired.

29. Any communications about whether to tell Plaintiff why he was fired.

30. Any policies about whether employers must explain termination reasons.

31. Any CABINET classified discussions about Plaintiff's termination.

32. Any other classified or confidential communications about firing Plaintiff.

33. Any government official communications about Plaintiff between 01/05/25 - 03/06/25

34. Any documents showing political considerations in Plaintiff's firing.

35. Any versions of the DOJ Policy Handbook in effect during Plaintiff's employment.

36. Any documents showing how the handbook was distributed to employees.

37. Any training materials about DOJ policies given to employees.

38. Any amendments or changes to DOJ policies during Plaintiff's employment.



Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Plaintiff submits the following interrogatories, which the Defendant must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability:

1. Describe in detail how Plaintiff's continued employment would have been "a detriment to the workflow and reputation of the Department of Justice," including examples of how Plaintiff's work performance, conduct, or presence would have negatively impacted department operations.

2. Explain the legal basis for your position that government employment termination requires no due process, and identify any law, policy, or court decision supporting the claim that due process is only required when "formal civil or criminal charges" are filed.

3. Identify the specific legal authority, DOJ policy, or established precedent that places the burden on a terminated employee to "reach out privately" or "open a ticket" to learn the basis for their termination, rather than requiring the employer to provide this information at the time of termination.

4. In the Defence's view, would a reasonable person consider it "unfair dismissal" for a government employee to be terminated without being provided any warning, prior notice, explanation of the reason for termination, or opportunity to respond to allegations, either before or after the termination occurred?

5. Explain why Plaintiff was not provided any warning, written notice, or opportunity to correct the alleged policy violation before termination, and describe whether providing such warning is standard DOJ practice for policy violations before resorting to immediate termination.



Pursuant to Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol), the Plaintiff submits the following list of additional witnesses:

1. ameslap
2. AmityBlamity
3. AsexualDinosaur
4. Dearev
5. JimmyGamer0911
6. JunkCereal
7. Kaiserin_
8. Malka
9. Mask3D_WOLF
10. pricelessAgrari
11. Rubilubi55
12. Sir_Dogeington
13. xDarkkex

As has been rightfully pointed out, this document request was perhaps overly excessive.

Pursuant to Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Plaintiff updates the initial discovery request and asks the Defendant to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

1. Any documents showing exactly which DOJ policy Plaintiff allegedly breached, what specific conduct constituted the breach, when it occurred, and any evidence supporting the breach claim.

2. Any communications about Plaintiff's termination between government officials and any records of meetings or discussions where Plaintiff's termination was decided.

3. Any documents showing what alternatives to firing Plaintiff were considered and why immediate termination was chosen instead of warnings or progressive discipline.

4. Any DOJ policies about employee discipline, standard steps taken before termination, progressive discipline requirements, and when employees must receive notice or opportunities to respond.

5. Any records of other DOJ employees disciplined for policy violations since January 1, 2025, including what procedures were followed and which employees received warnings instead of immediate termination.

6. Any documents defining the Attorney General's power to terminate employees, policies limiting termination authority, and required procedures the Attorney General must follow before firing someone.

7. Any CABINET classified discussions about Plaintiff's termination and any other classified or confidential communications about firing Plaintiff.

8. Any communications about whether to tell Plaintiff why he was fired and any policies about whether employers must explain termination reasons to fired employees.

9. Any documents showing political considerations, motivations, or factors in Plaintiff's firing decision.

10. Any government communications about Plaintiff between 01/05/25 - 03/07/25, insofar as the topic of said communication was related to criminal acts committed by the Plaintiff in a foreign nation, related to the Plaintiff's acquisition of the Exchange, and the Plaintiff's management of MZLD.

 

[gribble19]

1. Describe in detail how Plaintiff's continued employment would have been "a detriment to the workflow and reputation of the Department of Justice," including examples of how Plaintiff's work performance, conduct, or presence would have negatively impacted department operations.

2. Explain the legal basis for your position that government employment termination requires no due process, and identify any law, policy, or court decision supporting the claim that due process is only required when "formal civil or criminal charges" are filed.

3. Identify the specific legal authority, DOJ policy, or established precedent that places the burden on a terminated employee to "reach out privately" or "open a ticket" to learn the basis for their termination, rather than requiring the employer to provide this information at the time of termination.

5. Explain why Plaintiff was not provided any warning, written notice, or opportunity to correct the alleged policy violation before termination, and describe whether providing such warning is standard DOJ practice for policy violations before resorting to immediate termination.

Objection

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

Your Honor, these are not questions, they are orders. The purpose of interrogatories is to ask specific questions to the other party, not to order them around.

4. In the Defence's view, would a reasonable person consider it "unfair dismissal" for a government employee to be terminated without being provided any warning, prior notice, explanation of the reason for termination, or opportunity to respond to allegations, either before or after the termination occurred?

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - INCOMPETENT
Your Honor, this would be something for a court to rule on, the Commonwealth of Redmont's counsel is not qualified to rule on this.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION
Your Honor, this question calls for the defence's opinion, rather than factual information as well as specifically calling for a conclusion on a question of interpretation of law.

1. Describe in detail how Plaintiff's continued employment would have been "a detriment to the workflow and reputation of the Department of Justice," including examples of how Plaintiff's work performance, conduct, or presence would have negatively impacted department operations.

2. Explain the legal basis for your position that government employment termination requires no due process, and identify any law, policy, or court decision supporting the claim that due process is only required when "formal civil or criminal charges" are filed.

5. Explain why Plaintiff was not provided any warning, written notice, or opportunity to correct the alleged policy violation before termination, and describe whether providing such warning is standard DOJ practice for policy violations before resorting to immediate termination.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - COMPOUND QUESTION
Although these are not questions at all, they all contain two or more different requests within a single interrogatory.

 

[gribble19]

3. Identify the specific legal authority, DOJ policy, or established precedent that places the burden on a terminated employee to "reach out privately" or "open a ticket" to learn the basis for their termination, rather than requiring the employer to provide this information at the time of termination.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Your Honor, this request assumes that there exists a specific legal authority, DOJ policy or established precedent that places the burden on a terminated employee to "reach out privately" or "open a ticket" to learn the basis for their termination, rather than requiring the employer to provide this information at the time of termination. This is not an established fact within the boundaries of this case.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Response

TO OBJECTION

1. All listed witnesses are DOJ employees who worked with Plaintiff during his employment period and can provide relevant testimony about his work performance and character.
   
   
2. The Defendant has specifically DENIED in their Answer (8) that Plaintiff's legal work was "exemplary", making witness testimony about Plaintiff's work quality directly relevant to the case.
   
   
3. These witnesses are relevant to Plaintiff's claims under Commercial Standards Act Section 13(1)(b), as they can testify whether Plaintiff's continued employment would have been "a detriment to the workflow and reputation" of the DOJ, which is the Defence's core argument.

Objection

OBJECTION - PERJURY

Many of the employees listed, myself included, did not work with Plaintiff directly. They therefore cannot provide relevant testimony about his work performance or character, having never interacted with him.

 

[ToadKing]

Objection

OBJECTION - PERJURY

Many of the employees listed, myself included, did not work with Plaintiff directly. They therefore cannot provide relevant testimony about his work performance or character, having never interacted with him.

The employees listed were employed at the same time as the Plaintiff. Whilst not all may have directly worked with the Plaintiff, they may have seen his work and can speak to his performance and character.

 

[gribble19]

Your Honor, the Defendant respectfully requests an extension to the deadline for answering the interrogatories, until 24 hours after all pending objections to those interrogatories have been ruled on.

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR CLOSED COURT SESSION

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff is requesting a Closed Court Session on the basis that certain evidence relevant to this case is classified to a CABINET level, specifically relating to the Discord server titled "[CLASSIFIED: CABINET] NEXALIN IS F*CKED."

This server includes communications among senior government officials, including the President, Vice President, Cabinet Secretaries, and members of Congress. The existence and participants of this server have already been disclosed in T04DS74 v. Gribble19 [2025] FCR 66 (see Facts 3-4) and have a direct bearing on the events leading to the Plaintiff’s termination.

The Plaintiff believes this server contains key evidence surrounding the Defendant’s decision-making process, discussions about the Plaintiff, and other material directly relevant to the claim of unfair dismissal.

Motion for Closed Court Session denied. The evidence being refered to hasn't been shown or argued to cause any harm if revealed publically. The interest of the public will prevail.

Objection

OBJECTION - Relevance

Plaintiff has resorted to calling every single member of the department, whether ever even having an interaction with him or not, as witnesses. Defense requests that it be ordered that plaintiff's witness list be consolidated, or that the specific relevance of every witness is stated.

Sustained. I am granting only one additional DOJ employee along with the AG. Please provide your choice before the end of discovery.

Response

All requested messages are protected by Attorney-Client Privilege, as defined in Section (8)(4) Modern Legal Reform Act, as they may have occurred between Plaintiff and clients in private Discord DMs, MZLD retainer channels, and consultation tickets. These communications are legally privileged and not subject to discovery.

Please provide the information requested. Most of the information being requested would be a criminal offense and attorney client privillege can not be used to conceal an active crime, if you wish to plead the fifth that is a different question. Only information that will be protected are conversations with your attorney involving this case directly.

Objection

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

Your Honor, these are not questions, they are orders. The purpose of interrogatories is to ask specific questions to the other party, not to order them around.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - INCOMPETENT
Your Honor, this would be something for a court to rule on, the Commonwealth of Redmont's counsel is not qualified to rule on this.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION
Your Honor, this question calls for the defence's opinion, rather than factual information as well as specifically calling for a conclusion on a question of interpretation of law.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - COMPOUND QUESTION
Although these are not questions at all, they all contain two or more different requests within a single interrogatory.

OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Sustained. Please restate so they are actual questions.

OBJECTION - INCOMPETENT + CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION
Sustained. Statement will be struck.

OBJECTION - COMPOUND QUESTION
Sustained.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Your Honor, this request assumes that there exists a specific legal authority, DOJ policy or established precedent that places the burden on a terminated employee to "reach out privately" or "open a ticket" to learn the basis for their termination, rather than requiring the employer to provide this information at the time of termination. This is not an established fact within the boundaries of this case.

Sustained.

Objection

OBJECTION - PERJURY

Many of the employees listed, myself included, did not work with Plaintiff directly. They therefore cannot provide relevant testimony about his work performance or character, having never interacted with him.

Overruled. Comment may be misleading but it doesn't seem to be false.

 

[ToadKing]

Motion for Closed Court Session denied. The evidence being refered to hasn't been shown or argued to cause any harm if revealed publically. The interest of the public will prevail.


Sustained. I am granting only one additional DOJ employee along with the AG. Please provide your choice before the end of discovery.


Please provide the information requested. Most of the information being requested would be a criminal offense and attorney client privillege can not be used to conceal an active crime, if you wish to plead the fifth that is a different question. Only information that will be protected are conversations with your attorney involving this case directly.


OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Sustained. Please restate so they are actual questions.

OBJECTION - INCOMPETENT + CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION
Sustained. Statement will be struck.

OBJECTION - COMPOUND QUESTION
Sustained.


Sustained.

Overruled. Comment may be misleading but it doesn't seem to be false.

The witness list will remain as:
1. Juniperfig
2. Gribble19

I invoke my right under PART IV Section (32)(5) of the Constitution.

Updated questions:
1. How would the Plaintiff's continued employment have been "a detriment to the workflow and reputation of the Department of Justice"?
2. Why is it the Defence's position that government employment termination requires no due process?
3. Why was the Plaintiff not provided any warning, written notice, or opportunity to correct the alleged policy violation before termination?

 

[gribble19]

Updated questions:
1. How would the Plaintiff's continued employment have been "a detriment to the workflow and reputation of the Department of Justice"?
2. Why is it the Defence's position that government employment termination requires no due process?
3. Why was the Plaintiff not provided any warning, written notice, or opportunity to correct the alleged policy violation before termination?

1. Considering the severity of the policy violation that occurred, Plaintiff's continued employment would have been a detriment to the reputation of the Department of Justice as it would reflect badly on the Department of Justice, that consistently deals with classified and confidential information, to employ someone who has previously breached related policies. It would decrease trust in and opinion of the Department of Justice and the Government as a whole. Furthermore Plaintiff's continued employment would have been a detriment to the workflow for the Department of Justice, as the Department of Justice would not reasonably be able to trust Plaintiff to handle confidential and classified information properly and in line with our policies, which is necessary in many aspects of employment within the Department of Justice.
2. Burden of Proof lays on the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff has not provided any law, policy, or court decision supporting the claim that it does.
3. Due to the severity of the policy violation that occurred.

 

[gribble19]

Pursuant to Rule 3.4 (Amendment to Answer), the Defendant amends their Answer to Complaint as follows, in response to Plaintiff's amendments to their Complaint:

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
18. The Defendant AFFIRMS that Plaintiff was told on July 1st 2025 that "You seriously breached department policy which resulted in your immediate dismissal." as well as "Ur dismissal was not unjust and was in line with department policy." and that no other explanation was provided before then.

19. The Defendant AFFIRMS that this explanation does not provide detail about the specific policy which was breached, does not state the specific conduct which constituted the breach, and does not state when specifically the breach occurred.

20. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on 29th June, 2025, Plaintiff was paid $10,000 by the Department of Justice for duties performed during June 2025, representing Plaintiff's monthly salary and bonuses for completed cases.

 

[gribble19]

As has been rightfully pointed out, this document request was perhaps overly excessive.

Pursuant to Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Plaintiff updates the initial discovery request and asks the Defendant to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

1. Any documents showing exactly which DOJ policy Plaintiff allegedly breached, what specific conduct constituted the breach, when it occurred, and any evidence supporting the breach claim.

2. Any communications about Plaintiff's termination between government officials and any records of meetings or discussions where Plaintiff's termination was decided.

3. Any documents showing what alternatives to firing Plaintiff were considered and why immediate termination was chosen instead of warnings or progressive discipline.

4. Any DOJ policies about employee discipline, standard steps taken before termination, progressive discipline requirements, and when employees must receive notice or opportunities to respond.

5. Any records of other DOJ employees disciplined for policy violations since January 1, 2025, including what procedures were followed and which employees received warnings instead of immediate termination.

6. Any documents defining the Attorney General's power to terminate employees, policies limiting termination authority, and required procedures the Attorney General must follow before firing someone.

7. Any CABINET classified discussions about Plaintiff's termination and any other classified or confidential communications about firing Plaintiff.

8. Any communications about whether to tell Plaintiff why he was fired and any policies about whether employers must explain termination reasons to fired employees.

9. Any documents showing political considerations, motivations, or factors in Plaintiff's firing decision.

10. Any government communications about Plaintiff between 01/05/25 - 03/07/25, insofar as the topic of said communication was related to criminal acts committed by the Plaintiff in a foreign nation, related to the Plaintiff's acquisition of the Exchange, and the Plaintiff's management of MZLD.

1. The Defendant opposes this request. This request includes information that is confidential (Privacy Act, §6) and sharing the information in the public domain would cause the Commonwealth to be liable to fines (Privacy Act, §7).
2. The Defendant agrees to this request. The Defendant to the best of their ability has no unclassified documents to submit in response to this request.
3. The Defendant agrees to this request. The Defendant to the best of their ability has no unclassified documents to submit in response to this request.
4. The Defendant agrees to this request. The Defendant has entered DOJ's Employee Policy into evidence (D-001), the Defendant to the best of their ability has no other unclassified documents to submit in response to this request.
5. The Defendant agrees to this request. The Defendant to the best of their ability has no unclassified documents to submit in response to this request.
6. The Defendant partly opposes this request. The Attorney's General's power to terminate employees is already established as fact in this case per II.11 of Plaintiff's Complaint and I.17 of Defendant's Answer to Complaint. The Defendant agrees to provide any documents defining policies limiting termination authority, and required procedures the Attorney General must follow before firing someone. The Defendant has no unclassified documents to submit in response to that part of the request.
7. The Defendant agrees to this request. The Defendant to the best of their ability has no unclassified documents to submit in response to this request.
8. The Defendant agrees to this request. The Defendant to the best of their ability has no unclassified documents to submit in response to this request.
9. The Defendant agrees to this request. The Defendant to the best of their ability has no unclassified documents to submit in response to this request.
10. The Defendant opposes this request. The information requested does not pertain to the case. The request has no relevance to the case at hand.

 

[gribble19]

Pursuant to Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol), the Defendant submits the following witness list:
1. T04DS74

 

[gribble19]

Pursuant to Rule 4.7, the Defendant requests the Plaintiff to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

A list of all people that would at any point in time have been able to access, view or read:

Any and all messages sent by the Plaintiff, during or after Plaintiff's employment at the Department of Justice and sent anywhere other than in the Department of Justice discord server, that:

1. directly or indirectly reference Plaintiff's employment at the Department of Justice and the accompanying level of access to classified information;
   
   
2. directly or indirectly reference any non-public evidence shared in the Department of Justice server for any case;
   
   
3. directly or indirectly reference any classified messages sent within the Department of Justice server;
   
   
4. contain knowledge or information only available to the Plaintiff through non-public evidence shared in the Department of Justice server for any case;
   
   
5. contain knowledge or information only available to the Plaintiff through classified messages sent within the Department of Justice server;
   
   
6. contain direct or indirect requests to leak classified information or information that Plaintiff could reasonably expect may be classified;

 

[ToadKing]

Pursuant to Rule 4.7, the Defendant requests the Plaintiff to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

A list of all people that would at any point in time have been able to access, view or read:

Any and all messages sent by the Plaintiff, during or after Plaintiff's employment at the Department of Justice and sent anywhere other than in the Department of Justice discord server, that:

1. directly or indirectly reference Plaintiff's employment at the Department of Justice and the accompanying level of access to classified information;
   
   
2. directly or indirectly reference any non-public evidence shared in the Department of Justice server for any case;
   
   
3. directly or indirectly reference any classified messages sent within the Department of Justice server;
   
   
4. contain knowledge or information only available to the Plaintiff through non-public evidence shared in the Department of Justice server for any case;
   
   
5. contain knowledge or information only available to the Plaintiff through classified messages sent within the Department of Justice server;
   
   
6. contain direct or indirect requests to leak classified information or information that Plaintiff could reasonably expect may be classified;

Response

As previously stated, I invoke my right under PART IV Section (32)(5) of the Constitution to not produce self-incriminating evidence.

 

[ToadKing]

Pursuant to Rule 4.7, the Defendant requests the Plaintiff to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

A list of all people that would at any point in time have been able to access, view or read:

Any and all messages sent by the Plaintiff, during or after Plaintiff's employment at the Department of Justice and sent anywhere other than in the Department of Justice discord server, that:

1. directly or indirectly reference Plaintiff's employment at the Department of Justice and the accompanying level of access to classified information;
   
   
2. directly or indirectly reference any non-public evidence shared in the Department of Justice server for any case;
   
   
3. directly or indirectly reference any classified messages sent within the Department of Justice server;
   
   
4. contain knowledge or information only available to the Plaintiff through non-public evidence shared in the Department of Justice server for any case;
   
   
5. contain knowledge or information only available to the Plaintiff through classified messages sent within the Department of Justice server;
   
   
6. contain direct or indirect requests to leak classified information or information that Plaintiff could reasonably expect may be classified;

Objection

OBJECTION - ASKED AND ANSWERED

Your Honour, the Plaintiff has already answered these document requests, and it appears the Defence is trying to skirt around this answer by amending their requests without any substantive changes.

 

[ToadKing]

1. The Defendant opposes this request. This request includes information that is confidential (Privacy Act, §6) and sharing the information in the public domain would cause the Commonwealth to be liable to fines (Privacy Act, §7).

Motion

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

The Plaintiff moves that the Court compel the Defendant to produce the documents requested, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Privacy Act Section 4(1) establishes "Accessibility to your own private information" as a core privacy principle, meaning Defendant cannot use privacy protection to deny Plaintiff access to information about his own alleged conduct, termination decision, or the evidence underlying these claims.

2. Privacy Act Section 5(1)(c) grants individuals the right to "ask for access to your personal information," and Plaintiff is requesting information about his own alleged conduct and termination.

3. Privacy Act Section 9(1)(b) permits disclosure when "the disclosure is permitted by law or court order," and this Court has the authority to order production of relevant evidence.

4. Privacy Act Section 9(1)(c) specifically exempts disclosure restrictions for "Any information shared as part of official Congressional or Court proceedings," making Defendant's opposition legally baseless, as this is an official court proceeding.

5. If government departments can terminate employees while claiming evidence of misconduct exists, then refuse to produce that evidence, citing privacy protection, it creates a dangerous precedent allowing arbitrary termination without accountability or due process.

 

[ToadKing]

7. The Defendant agrees to this request. The Defendant to the best of their ability has no unclassified documents to submit in response to this request.

Objection

OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE

Your Honour, the Plaintiff specifically requested "Any CABINET classified discussions about Plaintiff's termination and any other classified or confidential communications about firing Plaintiff.". This response fails to answer the discovery request.

Pursuant to Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Plaintiff requests the Defendant to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

11. Any and all messages relating to the firing of the Plaintiff in the "[CLASSIFIED: CABINET] NEXALIN IS F*CKED" server.

 

[gribble19]

Objection

OBJECTION - ASKED AND ANSWERED

Your Honour, the Plaintiff has already answered these document requests, and it appears the Defence is trying to skirt around this answer by amending their requests without any substantive changes.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
Your Honor, it appears the Plaintiff misread the request. The Defendant is requesting something entirely different. Rather than requesting the messages, the Defendant is requesting a list of names of people who were at any point able to see any such messages which are known to exist per Plaintiff's claim to their fifth right. These are completely different things. Furthermore providing the requested document could in no way incriminate the Plaintiff and they can therefore not exercise their fifth right to avoid providing the Defendant with the requested information.

 

[gribble19]

Objection

OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE

Your Honour, the Plaintiff specifically requested "Any CABINET classified discussions about Plaintiff's termination and any other classified or confidential communications about firing Plaintiff.". This response fails to answer the discovery request.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
Your Honor, the Defendant is aware of the specifics of the request. The response does not fail to answer the discovery request, as the Defendant has, to the best of their ability, provided all unclassified documents that have been requested, since Defendant is not aware of the existence of any of such.

 

[gribble19]

Pursuant to Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Plaintiff requests the Defendant to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

11. Any and all messages relating to the firing of the Plaintiff in the "[CLASSIFIED: CABINET] NEXALIN IS F*CKED" server.

11. The Defendant agrees to this request. The Defendant to the best of their ability has no unclassified documents to submit in response to this request.

 

[gribble19]

Motion

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

Your Honor, the Defendant respectfully requests the court compel the Plaintiff to respond to both Discovery Requests submitted by the Defendant. The Plaintiff has not clearly responded to the six separate requests made in the first discovery request. The Plaintiff claims they are not responding to the request made in the second discovery request due to exercising their fifth right, however the documents requested would in no way incriminate the Plaintiff and this is therefore not possible. The Plaintiff has not provided any of the information requested in either of the discovery requests.

 

[gribble19]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor, the Defendant moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Per Rule 5.15 (Joinder Limitation) an individual Motion to Dismiss may include multiple rules for why the case should be dismissed, but must include no more than three rules under section 5. Defendant is filing this motion to dismiss under rules 5.13 (Failure to Provide Discovery) and 5.14 (Factual Error)
2. The Defendant in their first request for discovery made 6 requests to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not opposed any of these six requests, nor did Plaintiff respond to any of these six requests. Since the Plaintiff has thus not complied with a Discovery Request made within the Discovery Rules, Defendant moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed pursuant to Rule 5.13
3. The Defendant in their Complaint has stated two facts which are contradictory, namely II.5 and II.12. As two contradictory statements can clearly not both hold through, it is inevitable that Defendant has made a Factual Error in their complaint. Defendant therefore moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed pursuant to Rule 5.14.

 

[ToadKing]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor, the Defendant moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Per Rule 5.15 (Joinder Limitation) an individual Motion to Dismiss may include multiple rules for why the case should be dismissed, but must include no more than three rules under section 5. Defendant is filing this motion to dismiss under rules 5.13 (Failure to Provide Discovery) and 5.14 (Factual Error)
2. The Defendant in their first request for discovery made 6 requests to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not opposed any of these six requests, nor did Plaintiff respond to any of these six requests. Since the Plaintiff has thus not complied with a Discovery Request made within the Discovery Rules, Defendant moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed pursuant to Rule 5.13
3. The Defendant in their Complaint has stated two facts which are contradictory, namely II.5 and II.12. As two contradictory statements can clearly not both hold through, it is inevitable that Defendant has made a Factual Error in their complaint. Defendant therefore moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed pursuant to Rule 5.14.

The Plaintiff requests a response to this motion.

 

[ko531]

The Plaintiff requests a response to this motion.

you have 24 hours to do so.

 

[ToadKing]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor, the Defendant moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Per Rule 5.15 (Joinder Limitation) an individual Motion to Dismiss may include multiple rules for why the case should be dismissed, but must include no more than three rules under section 5. Defendant is filing this motion to dismiss under rules 5.13 (Failure to Provide Discovery) and 5.14 (Factual Error)
2. The Defendant in their first request for discovery made 6 requests to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not opposed any of these six requests, nor did Plaintiff respond to any of these six requests. Since the Plaintiff has thus not complied with a Discovery Request made within the Discovery Rules, Defendant moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed pursuant to Rule 5.13
3. The Defendant in their Complaint has stated two facts which are contradictory, namely II.5 and II.12. As two contradictory statements can clearly not both hold through, it is inevitable that Defendant has made a Factual Error in their complaint. Defendant therefore moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed pursuant to Rule 5.14.

Response

TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honour, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be DENIED.

GROUNDS:

1. Contrary to Defendant's false assertion that "Plaintiff has not opposed any of these six requests, nor did Plaintiff respond to any of these six requests," Plaintiff specifically responded to the Defendant's discovery requests twice. 1 & 2

2. This Court stated that "Most of the information being requested would be a criminal offense [...] if you wish to plead the fifth that is a different question," acknowledging the problematic nature of Defendant's discovery requests and recognising the Plaintiff's constitutional protection.

3. Defendant falsely claims Plaintiff's statements are contradictory.
II.6 "Throughout the month of June 2025, Plaintiff performed duties as State Prosecutor but received no compensation from the Defendant"
and
II.12 "On 29th June, 2025, Plaintiff was paid $10,000 by the Department of Justice for duties performed during June 2025" are not contradictory because they refer to different time periods.

4. Plaintiff was terminated on 26th June, 2025. Throughout June, while employed as State Prosecutor, Plaintiff received no compensation. Payment was only made on 29th June, 2025 - three days after termination. Both facts are simultaneously true at their respective time periods.

5. Fact II.12 was properly added as an amendment because the payment occurred after the original complaint was filed but before discovery began, as permitted under court rules.

6. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss fails to meet the standards for either Rule 5.13 or Rule 5.14, as Plaintiff did respond to discovery (with valid constitutional objections), and no factual errors exist in Plaintiff's Complaint.

7. This Motion appears to be filed in bad faith, containing multiple false factual assertions that are contradicted by the case record.

Objection

OBJECTION - PERJURY
The Defendant has made knowingly false statements in their Motion to Dismiss:

1. Falsely claiming "Plaintiff [did not] respond to any of these six requests" when Plaintiff demonstrably responded here: Lawsuit: Pending - T04DS74 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 65.

 

[gribble19]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor, the Defendant moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Per Rule 5.15 (Joinder Limitation) an individual Motion to Dismiss may include multiple rules for why the case should be dismissed, but must include no more than three rules under section 5. Defendant is filing this motion to dismiss under rules 5.13 (Failure to Provide Discovery) and 5.14 (Factual Error)
2. The Defendant in their first request for discovery made 6 requests to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not opposed any of these six requests, nor did Plaintiff respond to any of these six requests. Since the Plaintiff has thus not complied with a Discovery Request made within the Discovery Rules, Defendant moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed pursuant to Rule 5.13
3. The Defendant in their Complaint has stated two facts which are contradictory, namely II.5 and II.12. As two contradictory statements can clearly not both hold through, it is inevitable that Defendant has made a Factual Error in their complaint. Defendant therefore moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed pursuant to Rule 5.14.

Your Honor, it appears that I have made a typo in the filing of this motion. Under point 3 where I stated "namely II.5 and II.12", I of course intended to say "namely II.6 and II.12". Defendant respectfully requests that the intended statement be considered by the court, and requests the Plaintiff be allowed to amend their response to the motion based on this information.

 

[ko531]

Your Honor, it appears that I have made a typo in the filing of this motion. Under point 3 where I stated "namely II.5 and II.12", I of course intended to say "namely II.6 and II.12". Defendant respectfully requests that the intended statement be considered by the court, and requests the Plaintiff be allowed to amend their response to the motion based on this information.

Granted.

 

[ToadKing]

Granted.

Plaintiff requests to amend their response, as this now changes the Motion to Dismiss.

 

[ko531]

Plaintiff requests to amend their response, as this now changes the Motion to Dismiss.

Granted.