Lawsuit: Pending ToadKing & Omegabiebel v. 12700k [2025] FCR 129

[ToadKing]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

ToadKing
Omegabiebel
Plaintiffs

v.

12700k
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiffs complain against the Defendants as follows:

The Defendant breached a Non-Disclosure Agreement by publicly disclosing confidential settlement terms to a third party not bound by the Agreement, in direct violation of Section 2 (Non-Disclosure Obligations) and Section 3 (Permitted Disclosures) of the Non-Disclosure Agreement, constituting Breach of Contract under Section 7 of the Contracts Act.

I. PARTIES​

1. ToadKing
2. Omegabiebel
3. 12700k

​

II. FACTS​

1. On 3 December 2025, at approximately 12:04 UTC, the Plaintiff ToadKing proposed a Non-Disclosure Agreement ("NDA" or "Agreement") to govern confidential settlement discussions between parties in a related legal matter. (P-001)
2. The NDA was entered into by the following Participants: ToadKing, 12700k, Omegabiebel, and Multiman155 (Franciscus). (P-001)
3. Section 1 of the Agreement defines Confidential Information as: "Any and all information, communications, plans, strategies, or discussions shared within this Direct Message." (P-001)
4. Section 2 of the Agreement states: "Each Participant agrees to maintain all Confidential Information in strict confidence and shall not disclose, distribute, reproduce, or share such information with any third party outside of this Direct Message without prior written authorisation from all other Participants." (P-001)
5. Section 3 of the Agreement states: "No disclosure of information from the Direct Message is permitted unless explicitly authorised in writing by all Participants." (P-001)
6. Section 5 of the Agreement states: "Any breach of this Agreement will result in legal action under the Contracts Act, which provides for damages and penalties for breach of contract." (P-001)
7. Section 5 of the Agreement states: "All Participants are considered equal parties to this Agreement." (P-001)
8. Between 12:06 UTC and 12:18 UTC on 3 December 2025, all four Participants signed the NDA by replying with the required acceptance language. (P-002)
9. The Defendant signed the Agreement at 12:07 PM UTC on 3 December 2025, stating: "I, 12700k, sign and agree to the terms outlined in the NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT." (P-002)
10. On 3 December 2025, at approximately 12:17 PM UTC, Plaintiff ToadKing shared a proposed settlement agreement within the confidential Direct Message for review by the Participants. (P-003)
11. Shortly thereafter, on 3 December 2025, approximately six hours after signing the NDA, Defendant publicly disclosed the terms of the confidential settlement agreement to ElysiaCrynn (also known as "ElysiaTukk"), a third party who was not a Participant to the NDA and had not been authorised to receive Confidential Information. (P-004, P-005)
12. ElysiaCrynn was not a party to the NDA and had not received written authorisation from all Participants to access Confidential Information.
13. The Defendant's disclosure was made publicly and was potentially witnessed by other third parties, who had not received written authorisation.
14. The Defendant attempted to cover up this breach by deleting his message after sending it.
15. The Defendant did not obtain prior written consent from all Participants before disclosing the Confidential Information, as required by Sections 2 and 3 of the Agreement.
16. The Plaintiffs did not authorise the disclosure of Confidential Information to ElysiaCrynn or any other third party.
17. The Defendant's public disclosure of confidential settlement terms constitutes a breach of the Non-Disclosure Agreement.

​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

Section 7 of the Contracts Act states:

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 Non-Disclosure Agreement under Section 7 of the Contracts Act by:

1. Publicly disclosing confidential settlement terms to ElysiaCrynn, a third party not bound by the Agreement, in direct violation of Section 2 (Non-Disclosure Obligations) of the Agreement.
2. Failing to obtain prior written authorisation from all Participants before disclosing Confidential Information, in direct violation of Section 3 (Permitted Disclosures) of the Agreement.
3. Sharing Confidential Information outside of the designated Direct Message without consent, breaching the fundamental purpose of the Agreement.

Section 14 of the Contracts Act provides:

14 - Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.
(1) Parties to a contract shall perform their respective duties and exercise their rights under the contract in good faith and in a manner that is fair and just.
(2) There exists an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract covered by this Act, whether or not expressly stated. This covenant shall be read into contracts to ensure that the parties act with honesty, integrity, and fairness in all aspects of their contractual relationship.

The Defendant breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by:

1. Publicly disclosing confidential settlement negotiations while those negotiations were ongoing and in good faith.
2. Acting contrary to the reasonable expectations of the Plaintiffs, who relied on the confidentiality of the NDA to engage in settlement discussions.

​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant the following relief:

1. $125,000 in Punitive Damages ($62,500 per Plaintiff), pursuant to Legal Damages Act, Section 5, for the outrageous conduct of breaching a confidentiality agreement within approximately six hours of signing it, and attempting to cover it up.

2. 30% Legal Fees pursuant to Legal Damages Act, Section 9.

EVIDENCE​

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

WITNESSES​

1. ElysiaCrynn
2. RealImza (ImzaKRD)
3. Omegabiebel

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 3rd day of December 2025

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order to Show Cause - Excessive Prayer


The Court, on initial reading of the Complaint, is concerned that the Prayers being alleged are excessive and without reasonable basis. In Smokeyybunnyyy v. GisUsAQuiche, [2023] FCR 89, the Federal Court awarded punitive damages in the amount of $6,250 for "through a multiday, violent, organized, aggression." Similarly, the Federal Court in GnomeWhisperer v. Commonwealth of Redmont, [2025] FCR 11 found that an overly excessive and unlawful jail sentence (3 days) made the Commonwealth liable to the Plaintiff in that case for $150,000 in punitive damages. Finally, the Supreme Court in Rylandw v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 4, awarded $35,000 for the Plaintiff's unlawful removal as a result of errors during a recount.

Without adjudicating the Facts nor the Claims of the Complaint, the Court has reason to believe the that punitive damage prayer is excessive and is legally unsustainable ( see Plura72 v. RBP et al - in this case, Plaintiff sued for $40k in punitive damages with an incoherent legal claim.) For this purpose, the Federal Court orders the following:

@ToadKing, within 48 Hours, you must show cause as to why the punitive damages prayer is not frivolous and is based on an sufficient legal claim. Failure to do so, and the Court will review punitive measures and dismissal with prejudice.


So ordered,
Judge Mug.

 

[ToadKing]

Response

The Plaintiffs submit this response to the Court's Order to Show Cause.

I. NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THIS ORDER​

The Plaintiffs object to the procedural basis of this Order. The Court Rules and Procedures establish the framework for case progression, including Rule 5 (Motion to Dismiss) and Rule 6 (Extraneous Court Material). Nowhere in these rules is there provision for an "Order to Show Cause" requiring a plaintiff to pre-justify their prayer for relief before the normal trial process has commenced.

Under the established court procedure:

1. The Complaint is filed
2. The Defendant files an Answer
3. Discovery occurs
4. Opening statements, witness testimony, and closing arguments proceed
5. The Court renders a verdict

The determination of whether punitive damages are warranted is a matter to be proven at trial through evidence, witness testimony, and legal argument - not pre-adjudicated on "initial reading" before the Defendant has even answered.

​

II. THE COURT'S COMPARISONS ARE INAPPOSITE​

The Court cites four cases as benchmarks. None involve breach of a Non-Disclosure Agreement, and all are factually distinguishable:

1. Smokeyybunnyyy V. GisUsAQuiche [2023] FCR 89 - Involved harassment and killing. This is not a contract case.
2. GnomeWhisperer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 11 - Involved government misconduct in inprisonment. This is not a contract case, and notably awarded $150,000 in punitive damages - higher than the Plaintiffs' request here.
3. RylandW v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 4 - Involved electoral recount errors by the government. This is not a contract case.
4. Plura72 v. The Redmont Beach Party et al. [2025] DCR 71 - The Court itself characterises this case as having "an incoherent legal claim." It is unclear why an incoherent case should serve as precedent for anything.

None of these cases involve the deliberate breach of a confidentiality agreement. The Court has not cited any case establishing that $125,000 is per se excessive for breach of an NDA.

​

III. PRECEDENT SUPPORTS THE PLAINTIFFS' PRAYER​

The Court's Order conspicuously omits other Federal Court precedent involving contract breaches and punitive damages:

1. KingBOB99878 v. truffleboy123 [2025] FCR 104 - The Plaintiff requested $200,000 in punitive damages. The Court did not require the Plaintiff to "show cause" before trial. The case proceeded through normal court procedure, and the Court ultimately awarded $40,000 in punitive damages after hearing the evidence.
2. MegaMinerM v. Blazora Corporation [2025] FCR 27 - The Plaintiff requested $875,000 in punitive damages across multiple claims. The Court did not require the Plaintiff to "show cause" before trial. The case proceeded through normal court procedure, and the Court ultimately awarded $475,000 in punitive damages after hearing the evidence.

In both cases, the Court allowed the trial to proceed, heard the evidence, and then exercised its discretion under Legal Damages Act Section 5(3)(a) to assess the appropriate award. That is the correct procedure.

​

IV. THE LEGAL DAMAGES ACT CONTEMPLATES JUDICIAL DISCRETION AT VERDICT, NOT PRE-TRIAL DISMISSAL​

The Legal Damages Act, Section 5, provides:

5 - Punitive Damages
(1) Definition:
(a) “Punitive damages” are damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future, as a counter claim if a party believes the case to be frivolous and outrageous, or as authorized by law. These damages are distinct from 4 - Compensatory Damage as there does not need to be any actual loss to be compensated. A penalty clause in a contract would fall under this definition as well.
(2) Award:
(a) Punitive damages will not be awarded unless they are either authorized by statute or unless the conduct of the other party in causing the party’s harm is outrageous.
(b) In the event that punitive damages are being argued because an authorized statute grants it, the award shall be limited by the amount granted by law.
(3) Diminution of award:
(a) In assessing a punitive damage award, the judicial officer can properly consider the character of the defendant's act, the nature and extent of the harm to the plaintiff that the defendant caused or intended to cause and the wealth of the defendant.
(b) A defense against punitive damages can be made to assess whether or not conduct was “outrageous”.

This statutory framework explicitly contemplates that:

1. The determination of whether conduct is "outrageous" is a defense to be raised by the Defendant - not a pre-trial burden on the Plaintiff
2. The assessment of the award occurs after the Court has heard the case, considering "the character of the defendant's act" and "the nature and extent of the harm"
3. The Court has discretion to diminish the award at verdict - not to dismiss the claim before trial

The Plaintiffs are entitled to plead their damages. The Defendant is entitled to defend. The Court assesses at verdict. That is the process.

​

V. THE PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT​

Without prejudice to the Plaintiffs' right to prove their case at trial, the Complaint alleges:

1. The Defendant voluntarily signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement
2. The NDA explicitly warned: "Any breach of this Agreement will result in legal action under the Contracts Act, which provides for damages and penalties for breach of contract"
3. Within approximately six hours of signing, the Defendant publicly disclosed confidential settlement terms to an unauthorised third party
4. The Defendant then deleted the messages in an apparent attempt to conceal the breach
5. The Plaintiffs intend to present evidence that this is not the first NDA the Defendant has signed under similar terms

The deliberate breach of a confidentiality agreement - signed voluntarily, with explicit warning of legal consequences, breached within hours, followed by attempted concealment - is precisely the type of conduct the Legal Damages Act describes as warranting punitive damages "to punish [...] outrageous conduct and to deter [...] similar conduct in the future."

Whether the Plaintiffs can prove this at trial is a matter for trial. Whether $125,000 is the appropriate amount is a matter for the Court's assessment at verdict. But the claim is not frivolous, and the prayer is not without legal basis.

​

VI. DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE WOULD BE IMPROPER​

The Court's Order threatens "punitive measures and dismissal with prejudice."

Rule 5.5 permits dismissal for "failure to state a claim for relief, or against a claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge." However, Rule 5.2 specifies that such a motion "must be submitted at any time before the beginning of opening statements" - and critically, it is a motion to be filed by a party, not an sua sponte action by the Court before the Defendant has even answered.

Rule 2.2 permits Sua Sponte dismissal only for failure to meet the standing requirements of Rule 2.1. The Plaintiffs have clear standing: they suffered injury (breach of contract), caused by a clear second party (the Defendant), against the law (Contracts Act, Section 7), with remedy applicable under relevant law (Legal Damages Act, Section 5).

There is no rule permitting sua sponte dismissal with prejudice because the Court believes, on initial reading, that a damages prayer is too high.

Motion

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

Pursuant to Section 16 of the Judicial Standards Act and the Motions Guide, the Plaintiffs move for the recusal of the presiding judicial officer.

Section 16(1) of the Judicial Standards Act, defines recusal as "the act of abstaining from participation in a case due to a conflict of interest," and Section 16(4)(a) identifies "Bias/appearance of bias" as grounds for disqualification. The Motions Guide further specifies that recusal is appropriate where "the judge has made previous rulings or comments suggesting they have pre-judged the case."

The Court's Order to Show Cause demonstrates an appearance of bias and pre-judgment. Before the Defendant has filed an Answer, before Discovery has occurred, and before any evidence or testimony has been presented, the presiding judicial officer has characterised the Plaintiffs' prayer as "excessive," "without reasonable basis," "legally unsustainable," and potentially "frivolous" - and has threatened "punitive measures and dismissal with prejudice." These comments suggest the Court has already formed conclusions about the merits of the case that should only be reached after a full trial. The Plaintiffs cannot receive a fair hearing before a judicial officer who has, on initial reading alone, prejudged their claim and threatened dismissal before the normal court process has even begun.

Additionally, the Motions Guide identifies "Relationship with Parties" and specifically "the judge has a close relationship with one of the parties, their lawyers, or key witnesses" as grounds for recusal. The Plaintiff ToadKing currently serves as legal counsel to the presiding judicial officer in Muggy21 v. Riverardd [2025] DCR 96. This attorney-client relationship between a party and the presiding judge creates an inherent conflict of interest and, at minimum, an appearance of impropriety that warrants recusal.

 

[Muggy21]

Response

The Plaintiffs submit this response to the Court's Order to Show Cause.

I. NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THIS ORDER​

The Plaintiffs object to the procedural basis of this Order. The Court Rules and Procedures establish the framework for case progression, including Rule 5 (Motion to Dismiss) and Rule 6 (Extraneous Court Material). Nowhere in these rules is there provision for an "Order to Show Cause" requiring a plaintiff to pre-justify their prayer for relief before the normal trial process has commenced.

Under the established court procedure:

1. The Complaint is filed
2. The Defendant files an Answer
3. Discovery occurs
4. Opening statements, witness testimony, and closing arguments proceed
5. The Court renders a verdict

The determination of whether punitive damages are warranted is a matter to be proven at trial through evidence, witness testimony, and legal argument - not pre-adjudicated on "initial reading" before the Defendant has even answered.

​

II. THE COURT'S COMPARISONS ARE INAPPOSITE​

The Court cites four cases as benchmarks. None involve breach of a Non-Disclosure Agreement, and all are factually distinguishable:

1. Smokeyybunnyyy V. GisUsAQuiche [2023] FCR 89 - Involved harassment and killing. This is not a contract case.
2. GnomeWhisperer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 11 - Involved government misconduct in inprisonment. This is not a contract case, and notably awarded $150,000 in punitive damages - higher than the Plaintiffs' request here.
3. RylandW v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 4 - Involved electoral recount errors by the government. This is not a contract case.
4. Plura72 v. The Redmont Beach Party et al. [2025] DCR 71 - The Court itself characterises this case as having "an incoherent legal claim." It is unclear why an incoherent case should serve as precedent for anything.

None of these cases involve the deliberate breach of a confidentiality agreement. The Court has not cited any case establishing that $125,000 is per se excessive for breach of an NDA.

​

III. PRECEDENT SUPPORTS THE PLAINTIFFS' PRAYER​

The Court's Order conspicuously omits other Federal Court precedent involving contract breaches and punitive damages:

1. KingBOB99878 v. truffleboy123 [2025] FCR 104 - The Plaintiff requested $200,000 in punitive damages. The Court did not require the Plaintiff to "show cause" before trial. The case proceeded through normal court procedure, and the Court ultimately awarded $40,000 in punitive damages after hearing the evidence.
2. MegaMinerM v. Blazora Corporation [2025] FCR 27 - The Plaintiff requested $875,000 in punitive damages across multiple claims. The Court did not require the Plaintiff to "show cause" before trial. The case proceeded through normal court procedure, and the Court ultimately awarded $475,000 in punitive damages after hearing the evidence.

In both cases, the Court allowed the trial to proceed, heard the evidence, and then exercised its discretion under Legal Damages Act Section 5(3)(a) to assess the appropriate award. That is the correct procedure.

​

IV. THE LEGAL DAMAGES ACT CONTEMPLATES JUDICIAL DISCRETION AT VERDICT, NOT PRE-TRIAL DISMISSAL​

The Legal Damages Act, Section 5, provides:

This statutory framework explicitly contemplates that:

1. The determination of whether conduct is "outrageous" is a defense to be raised by the Defendant - not a pre-trial burden on the Plaintiff
2. The assessment of the award occurs after the Court has heard the case, considering "the character of the defendant's act" and "the nature and extent of the harm"
3. The Court has discretion to diminish the award at verdict - not to dismiss the claim before trial

The Plaintiffs are entitled to plead their damages. The Defendant is entitled to defend. The Court assesses at verdict. That is the process.

​

V. THE PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT​

Without prejudice to the Plaintiffs' right to prove their case at trial, the Complaint alleges:

1. The Defendant voluntarily signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement
2. The NDA explicitly warned: "Any breach of this Agreement will result in legal action under the Contracts Act, which provides for damages and penalties for breach of contract"
3. Within approximately six hours of signing, the Defendant publicly disclosed confidential settlement terms to an unauthorised third party
4. The Defendant then deleted the messages in an apparent attempt to conceal the breach
5. The Plaintiffs intend to present evidence that this is not the first NDA the Defendant has signed under similar terms

The deliberate breach of a confidentiality agreement - signed voluntarily, with explicit warning of legal consequences, breached within hours, followed by attempted concealment - is precisely the type of conduct the Legal Damages Act describes as warranting punitive damages "to punish [...] outrageous conduct and to deter [...] similar conduct in the future."

Whether the Plaintiffs can prove this at trial is a matter for trial. Whether $125,000 is the appropriate amount is a matter for the Court's assessment at verdict. But the claim is not frivolous, and the prayer is not without legal basis.

​

VI. DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE WOULD BE IMPROPER​

The Court's Order threatens "punitive measures and dismissal with prejudice."

Rule 5.5 permits dismissal for "failure to state a claim for relief, or against a claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge." However, Rule 5.2 specifies that such a motion "must be submitted at any time before the beginning of opening statements" - and critically, it is a motion to be filed by a party, not an sua sponte action by the Court before the Defendant has even answered.

Rule 2.2 permits Sua Sponte dismissal only for failure to meet the standing requirements of Rule 2.1. The Plaintiffs have clear standing: they suffered injury (breach of contract), caused by a clear second party (the Defendant), against the law (Contracts Act, Section 7), with remedy applicable under relevant law (Legal Damages Act, Section 5).

There is no rule permitting sua sponte dismissal with prejudice because the Court believes, on initial reading, that a damages prayer is too high.

Motion

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

Pursuant to Section 16 of the Judicial Standards Act and the Motions Guide, the Plaintiffs move for the recusal of the presiding judicial officer.

Section 16(1) of the Judicial Standards Act, defines recusal as "the act of abstaining from participation in a case due to a conflict of interest," and Section 16(4)(a) identifies "Bias/appearance of bias" as grounds for disqualification. The Motions Guide further specifies that recusal is appropriate where "the judge has made previous rulings or comments suggesting they have pre-judged the case."

The Court's Order to Show Cause demonstrates an appearance of bias and pre-judgment. Before the Defendant has filed an Answer, before Discovery has occurred, and before any evidence or testimony has been presented, the presiding judicial officer has characterised the Plaintiffs' prayer as "excessive," "without reasonable basis," "legally unsustainable," and potentially "frivolous" - and has threatened "punitive measures and dismissal with prejudice." These comments suggest the Court has already formed conclusions about the merits of the case that should only be reached after a full trial. The Plaintiffs cannot receive a fair hearing before a judicial officer who has, on initial reading alone, prejudged their claim and threatened dismissal before the normal court process has even begun.

Additionally, the Motions Guide identifies "Relationship with Parties" and specifically "the judge has a close relationship with one of the parties, their lawyers, or key witnesses" as grounds for recusal. The Plaintiff ToadKing currently serves as legal counsel to the presiding judicial officer in Muggy21 v. Riverardd [2025] DCR 96. This attorney-client relationship between a party and the presiding judge creates an inherent conflict of interest and, at minimum, an appearance of impropriety that warrants recusal.

Thanks for the response to the OSC.
Recusal granted.