Lawsuit: Dismissed T04DS74 v. Gribble19 [2025] FCR 66

[ToadKing]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


T04DS74 (aka ToadKing)
Plaintiff

v.

Gribble19
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

I was subjected to a deliberate and outrageous violation of my privacy rights when the Attorney General publicly announced my termination in a Discord channel three minutes before actually firing me. This public disclosure of confidential employment information violated the Privacy Act and the Department of Justice's (DOJ) own policies regarding confidentiality. The Defendant's conduct was not only unlawful but also demonstrated a callous disregard for my privacy rights and professional dignity.

I. PARTIES
1. T04DS74
2. Gribble19

II. FACTS
1. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was employed as a State Prosecutor in the DOJ under the supervision of Defendant Gribble19, who served as Attorney General.
2. On 26th June, 2025, at approximately 19:07 UTC, Defendant posted a message in the #general channel of a Discord server stating "Okay im firing toad" (P-001)
3. This message was posted in a Discord server, "[CLASSIFIED: CABINET] NEXALIN IS F*CKED", to which Plaintiff was not a member and had no access.
4. As confirmed by the Affidavit of Stoppers (P-002), the Discord server contained high-ranking government officials, including:

• President
• Vice President
• Department of Commerce Secretary and Deputy Secretaries
• Gribble19 (Attorney General)
• Omegabiebel (Speaker of the House)
• CaseyLeFaye (Senator)
• Smokedchief (FRB Governor)
• Stoppers (FRB Lieutenant Governor)

5. At approximately 19:10 UTC on the same date, exactly three (3) minutes later, Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment as documented in T04DS74 v. Commonwealth of Redmont, Fact No. 7.
6. At no time prior to the announcement did Defendant inform Plaintiff of the impending termination or provide any opportunity for Plaintiff to respond.
7. The public disclosure by the Defendant occurred before Plaintiff was fired as State Prosecutor.
8. Multiple high-ranking government officials learned of Plaintiff's termination before Plaintiff himself was informed.
9. The message was seen by multiple third parties who had no legitimate need to know about Plaintiff's employment status or disciplinary actions.
10. As Attorney General, Defendant is bound by both the Privacy Act and the DOJ Policy Handbook regarding confidential handling of employee information.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Defendant violated Section 6(1) of the Privacy Act, which requires that "Government organisations must ensure confidentiality when handling a current or past employee's private information."
2. Section 6(1)(a) specifically defines private information as including "administrative action taken against the employee (nature of dismissal and or punishment)"
3. Defendant's public announcement of Plaintiff's termination constituted a direct violation of this confidentiality requirement.
4. The disclosure was made without Plaintiff's consent and in a Discord server to which Plaintiff had no access, meaning other government officials learned of the termination before Plaintiff himself.
5. Under Section 7 of the Privacy Act, Defendant is "guilty of breaching confidence when they share private information in the public domain unlawfully."
6. The public Discord announcement constituted sharing private employment information in a public domain without authorisation.
7. Defendant's conduct violated the DOJ Policy Handbook's (P-003) requirements for integrity and confidentiality, specifically:
a. Page 2, Guiding Principle 3 - Integrity: "Each employee, and the Department of Justice as a whole, will uphold the Constitution and Laws of Redmont, even when no one is watching."
b. Page 5, Confidentiality Principle 1: "Confidential Communication – All communication regarding ongoing and future investigations and cases are classified, and should only be accessed by employees of the Department of Justice throughout the course of their duties. Leaking confidential communication is a crime in most circumstances, and you may be prosecuted for doing so. Furthermore, leaking confidential communication will result in disciplinary action, up to and potential including termination of employment from the department."
8. As Attorney General, Defendant was held to the highest professional standards and failed to meet those obligations through deliberate and willful violation of privacy laws.

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

1. Punitive Damages: $500,000 in punitive damages under Section 5 of the Legal Damages Act for Defendant's outrageous conduct in publicly announcing Plaintiff's termination before notifying Plaintiff, violating mandatory privacy protections, demonstrating callous disregard for confidentiality requirements.

2. Consequential Damages: Damages for humiliation under Section 7(1)(I) of the Legal Damages Act, specifically for the public embarrassment and professional harm caused by the unauthorised disclosure, capped at $50,000 as provided by law.

3. 30% legal fees as provided under Section 9 of the Legal Damages Act.

EVIDENCE:

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Affidavit of Stoppers

Spoiler: P-003

DoJ Policy Handbook.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 27th day of June 2025

 

[ko531]

I am dismissing this case Sua Sponte under rule 2.1 for lack of standing.

Standing requires three elements and this case has a glaring hole with the second requirement "The cause of injury was against the law." By the plaintiff's own facts, the comment in which caused the alleged damages was stated in an entire discord server that had the classification level of Cabinet. The plaintiff later equates this highly classified channel and server as public domain in their claims of relief.

The claims for relief rely on breachs of the Privacy Act by the defendant and a breachs of the DOJ policy based on the same previously stated breachs of the Privacy Act. The Privacy Act does require information such as nature of dismissal and punishments to be kept private and that information was shared in a cabinet level classifed discord server. The plaintiff equates this channel/server to the public domain which the court can not corroborate. Highly classified channels/servers like the one mentioned are exactly the opposite of the public domain as their entire purpose is to keep the general public out and keep information in. As this channel was classifed and not public domain this also means the information being shared still remained confidentional.

As there was no release of private infomation to the public domain, there is no violation of section 6 or 7 of the privacy act and by extension no breach of DOJ policy. This case then must be dismissed for no standing.


This case is dismissed with prejudice.