ToadKing
Illegal Lawyer
Representative
Public Defender
Supporter
Aventura Resident
5th Anniversary
Change Maker
Popular in the Polls
Statesman
ToadKing__
Representative
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2025
- Messages
- 366
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
ToadKing
Plaintiff
v.
AsexualDinosaur
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendants as follows:
I. PARTIES
1. ToadKing2. AsexualDinosaur
II. FACTS
1. On or around 17 August 2025, AsexualDinosaur was hired as a State Prosecutor by the Department of Justice. (P-001)2. As a State Prosecutor, the Defendant would have had access to the DOJ's private ticket system used for, among other things, Freedom of Information requests.
3. On or around November 2025, the Plaintiff made a lawful FOI request for judicial deliberations pursuant to Section 8 of the Classified Materials Act.
4. On or around 26 August 2025, a news registration request for "Anchor Watch" was submitted by user "@Zodd.kt". (P-002)
5. "@Zodd.kt" is the Discord username for the Defendant.
6. On or around 18 November 2025, while the Defendant was still employed as a State Prosecutor, Anchor Watch published an article titled "Judicial FOIs?!" containing screenshots of the Plaintiff's private FOI with the DOJ. (P-003)
7. The published article included screenshots showing the Plaintiff's FOI request and subsequent communications. (P-004, P-005, P-006)
8. The article specifically stated: "Are judicial FOIs a step too far? Senator Omega representing former representative ToadKing_ and current counsel in a relevant appeals case seeks to get judicial discussions to likely aide their political goals." (P-003)
9. The Plaintiff did not authorise or consent to the publication of these private communications with the DOJ.
10. The DOJ did not grant permission for the release of the communications published by Anchor Watch on 18 November 2025.
11. The Defendant, by virtue of his DOJ employment, had access to the private ticket containing these communications.
12. On or around 27 November 2025, the Plaintiff filed ToadKing v. Anchor Watch [2025] DCR 98 in the District Court, alleging defamation and breach of confidence against the news organisation Anchor Watch. (P-007)
13. On or around 27 November 2025, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel in [2025] DCR 98, requesting that the Court order disclosure of "the identity of the owner, operator, and/or author of the news organisation known as Anchor Watch." (P-007)
14. On or around 27 November 2025, Magistrate Vennefly granted the Motion to Compel, ordering the Staff Team "to produce any logs identifying the Owner, Operator and/or Author of the news organisation known as "Anchor Watch" into the Custody of the Court" (P-008)
15. On or around 27 November 2025, the Staff Team produced evidence to which Magistrate Vennefly remarked: "Accordingly, the Court identifies the Owner/Operator of "Anchor Watch" to be @asexualdinosaur." (P-009)
16. [2025] DCR 98 is the first case in which the Defendant was identified as "the Owner/Operator" of Anchor Watch.
17. On or around 18 November 2025, the same day Anchor Watch published the Plaintiff's private communications, AsexualDinosaur approached the Plaintiff and requested legal representation in a civil lawsuit against the DOJ for wrongful termination.
18. The Defendant knew at this time that he was the owner and operator of Anchor Watch, the same entity that had just published the Plaintiff's private communications without authorisation.
19. The Defendant did not disclose to the Plaintiff that he owned or operated Anchor Watch at any time during their attorney-client relationship.
20. On or around 18 November 2025, the Plaintiff, unaware of the Defendant's ownership of Anchor Watch, agreed to represent the Defendant and filed AsexualDinosaur v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 95 in the District Court (P-010)
21. One of the issues in [2025] DCR 95 was whether the DOJ's suspicions that the Defendant was involved with Anchor Watch constituted legitimate grounds for termination. (P-010, Facts 10(c); 16-17)
22. The Defendant's complaint in [2025] DCR 95 specifically alleged that "The Attorney General provided no evidence whatsoever that Plaintiff was responsible for any leak of Department information," and that "A reasonable person would find it absurd and unjust to terminate an employee based on unsubstantiated suspicion of wrongdoing." (P-010, Fact 17; Section III.1)
23. During the course of that case, on or around 26 November 2025, AsexualDinosaur was asked by opposing counsel in written interrogatories: "State whether AsexualDinosaur, under any name or alias, directly or indirectly operates, manages, or controls Anchor Watch News." (P-011)
24. On or around 26 November 2025, the Plaintiff, acting as the Defendant's legal counsel and based on the Defendant's representations, responded: "I do not directly or indirectly operate, manage, or control Anchor Watch" (P-012)
25. On or around 27 November 2025 - one day after the Plaintiff made this statement on the Defendant's behalf - the Court in [2025] DCR 98 publicly identified the Defendant as the owner/operator of Anchor Watch. (P-009)
26. Upon learning of the Defendant's involvement with Anchor Watch, the Plaintiff immediately withdrew from representation in [2025] DCR 95, stating: "I notify the court that I will be withdrawing from this case as the Plaintiff's counsel." (P-013)
27. Later on in [2025] DCR 95, Magistrate Vennefly ruled: "Accordingly, for the purposes of this case, the Court finds it a settled matter of fact that the Plaintiff operates, manages, and/or controls Anchor Watch News." (P-014)
28. [2025] DCR 95 is the second case in which the Defendant was confirmed as "the Owner/Operator" of Anchor Watch.
29. On or around 27 November 2025, the Commonwealth of Redmont filed Commonwealth of Redmont v. AsexualDinosaur [2025] FCR 127, charging the Defendant with Breaching Attorney-Client Privilege under the Criminal Code Act for leaking confidential DOJ communications through Anchor Watch. (P-015)
30. On 16 January 2026, the presiding officer, Judge Mug, delivered a verdict in [2025] FCR 127. (P-016)
31. While the Court found the Defendant not guilty of the criminal charge, Judge Mug made the following findings regarding the civil standard of proof: (P-016)
32. The Defendant's ownership and operation of Anchor Watch is established by three separate judicial proceedings:
(a) ToadKing v. Anchor Watch [2025] DCR 98 - Court order identifying "the Owner/Operator of "Anchor Watch" to be @asexualdinosaur" (P-009)
(b) AsexualDinosaur v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 95 - Court affirming that Defendant " operates, manages, and/or controls Anchor Watch News." (P-014)
(c) Commonwealth of Redmont v. AsexualDinosaur [2025] FCR 127 - Court finding under civil preponderance standard that Defendant is "the owner of Anchor Watch."
33. As a direct result of the Defendant's actions, the Plaintiff's private communications with the DOJ were exposed to the public without authorisation, violating the Plaintiff's reasonable expectation of privacy in government communications.
34. As a direct result of the Defendant's concealment of his Anchor Watch ownership, the Plaintiff was caused to make false statements under oath in court proceedings, subjecting the Plaintiff to perjury. (P-017)
35. The Plaintiff invested time and effort into representing the Defendant in [2025] DCR 95, consisting of 10 separate filings of varying length and complexity. (P-010, P-018, P-019, P-020, P-021, P-022, P-023, P-024, P-025)
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. BREACH OF CONFIDENCE
The Defendant is liable for breach of confidence in violation of the now-amended Privacy Act. Under the Privacy Act as it existed at the time of the breach:The Plaintiff submitted an FOI request to the DOJ via a private government ticket. The Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that these communications would remain confidential and would only be accessed by authorised government personnel for legitimate governmental purposes.
The Defendant, as a State Prosecutor employed by the DOJ, had access to this private ticket system. The Defendant exploited his official position and access to obtain the Plaintiff's private communications. Rather than maintaining the confidentiality of these communications as required by his position, the Defendant published them through his news organisation, Anchor Watch, without authorisation or consent.
Neither the Plaintiff nor the DOJ granted permission for publication of these communications.
The Defendant's actions constitute a clear and unlawful breach of confidence.
The Defendant cannot hide behind the corporate veil of "Anchor Watch" when the entity is unregistered, and he operates it as a sole proprietorship. Under the precedent established in Privacy Matters v. Nexalin [2025] FCR 36, the owner of a sole proprietorship may be held personally liable for the business's activities. As stated in Section II.B, Paragraph 2 of [2025] FCR 36:
Three separate judicial proceedings have now conclusively established that the Defendant is the owner, operator, and controller of Anchor Watch. The Defendant is therefore personally liable for Anchor Watch's breach of confidence. Moreover, the Defendant's personal culpability is heightened by his exploitation of his official DOJ position to access private communications that he then published.
This Court should particularly note the reasoning in [2025] FCR 127, which supports liability for breach of confidence in this civil matter. In that criminal case, Judge Mug found the Defendant not guilty of Breaching Attorney-Client Privilege, with the following reasoning:
The criminal statute required the actor to be "an attorney" - a licensed professional bound by specific ethical duties. Because Anchor Watch (the sole proprietorship) is not an attorney, the Defendant could not be convicted of the criminal offence, despite the Court finding under a civil preponderance standard that the Defendant is the owner of Anchor Watch and that Anchor Watch leaked the material without permission.
However, breach of confidence contains no such professional limitation. The statute applies to an "individual/entity" - not an "attorney," not "licensed professional," not "journalist," but any "individual" or "entity". The very reasoning that acquitted the Defendant of the criminal charge actually reinforces liability here. The only reason the Defendant escaped criminal liability was the specific requirement that the actor be an attorney - a requirement that does not exist in the Privacy Act's breach of confidence provision.
Therefore, the same facts that were insufficient to establish criminal liability beyond a reasonable doubt for breaching attorney-client privilege are more than sufficient to establish civil liability by a preponderance of the evidence for breach of confidence.
2. FRAUD
The Defendant committed fraud in violation of PART VII, Section 7 of the Criminal Code Act.Under Section 6(1) of the Criminal Code Act:
The Defendant knowingly omitted material facts from the Plaintiff when he:
1. Failed to disclose his ownership and operation of Anchor Watch when requesting legal representation from the Plaintiff;
2. Failed to disclose this ownership throughout the attorney-client relationship; and
3. Allowed the Plaintiff to make false statements on his behalf in response to interrogatories, knowing those statements to be false.
The Defendant knew that his ownership of Anchor Watch was directly relevant to the lawsuit he was asking the Plaintiff to prosecute, as one of the central claims was that the DOJ had wrongfully terminated him based on unsubstantiated suspicions of involvement with Anchor Watch.
The Plaintiff relied on the Defendant's omission of this material fact to his detriment by agreeing to represent the Defendant, filing and prosecuting the lawsuit on the Defendant's behalf, making false statements under oath in response to interrogatories on the Defendant's behalf, and investing substantial time and professional resources into the representation.
This reliance resulted in quantifiable harm to the Plaintiff, including:
1. The statement "I do not directly or indirectly operate, manage, or control Anchor Watch" was objected to as perjury by opposing counsel. Magistrate Vennefly sustained the perjury objection and struck the statement from the record, ruling that the Court would "draw an adverse inference" from the false statement and finding "it a settled matter of fact that the Plaintiff operates, manages, and/or controls Anchor Watch News." The Plaintiff was therefore caused to commit perjury in open court on behalf of the Defendant, who knew the statement to be false.
2. Wasted time and resources invested in representing the Defendant across 10 separate court filings.
3. Loss of the ability to prosecute legitimate claims against Anchor Watch without the taint of having been deceived by the Defendant into representing him.
The Defendant did not merely cause the Plaintiff to make a false statement - he caused the Plaintiff to commit an act that was judicially determined to be perjury, sustained by the Court, and struck from the record. This is not a matter of interpretation or dispute; the statement was found to be perjurious as a matter of judicial record.
3. OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT
Under Section 5 of the Legal Damages Act:The Defendant's conduct in this matter is precisely the type of outrageous behaviour that punitive damages are designed to address.
The Defendant:
1. Published the Plaintiff's private communications without authorisation;
2. Concealed his responsibility for that publication when seeking legal representation from the very person he had wronged;
3. Exploited the attorney-client relationship to shield himself from accountability;
4. Deliberately caused his own attorney to make false statements under oath to a court;
5. Built his defence in his DOJ lawsuit around the premise that suspicions of his Anchor Watch involvement were baseless, when in fact they were entirely accurate; and
6. Only after being exposed by court order did the truth come to light, forcing the Plaintiff to withdraw from representation.
This course of conduct demonstrates a calculated pattern of deception designed to manipulate the legal system and exploit a legal relationship for improper purposes. The Defendant showed complete disregard for his attorney's professional obligations, reputation, and legal jeopardy. He was willing to sacrifice his own attorney's career to maintain his deception.
Such conduct is outrageous and warrants substantial punitive damages to punish the Defendant and deter similar conduct by others who might consider using attorneys as unwitting shields for their misconduct.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from this Court:1. $10,000 in Compensatory Damages under Section 4 of the Legal Damages Act for breach of confidence, representing the maximum damages authorised under the Privacy Act at that time, for unlawful publication of private information.
2. $100,000 in Punitive Damages under Section 5 of the Legal Damages Act for the Defendant's outrageous conduct in concealing his ownership of Anchor Watch when requesting legal representation, thereby seeking counsel from the very person he had wronged.
3. $100,000 in Punitive Damages under Section 5 of the Legal Damages Act for the Defendant's outrageous conduct in causing the Plaintiff to commit perjury in court proceedings.
4. $50,000 in additional Punitive Damages under Section 5 of the Legal Damages Act for the Defendant's overall pattern of outrageous conduct, including manipulating court proceedings through deliberate deception and showing complete disregard for the professional and legal jeopardy he placed his own attorney in.
5. 30% legal fees as provided under Section 9 of the Legal Damages Act, as a pro se litigant.
EVIDENCE
Lawsuit: Dismissed Thread 'ToadKing v. Anchor Watch [2025] DCR 98'
Lawsuit: Dismissed Post in thread 'ToadKing v. Anchor Watch [2025] DCR 98'
Lawsuit: Dismissed Post in thread 'ToadKing v. Anchor Watch [2025] DCR 98'
The Court, having requested Order 2 of the above Court Order be actioned by the Staff Team, enters the following documents received into the record.
Accordingly, the Court identifies the Owner/Operator of "Anchor Watch" to be @asexualdinosaur.
Magistrate Venne.
See attachment Ticket.pdf
Accordingly, the Court identifies the Owner/Operator of "Anchor Watch" to be @asexualdinosaur.
Magistrate Venne.
Lawsuit: Dismissed Thread 'AsexualDinosaur v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 95'
Lawsuit: Dismissed Post in thread 'AsexualDinosaur v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 95'
Lawsuit: Dismissed Post in thread 'AsexualDinosaur v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 95'
Lawsuit: Dismissed Post in thread 'AsexualDinosaur v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 95'
Lawsuit: Dismissed Post in thread 'AsexualDinosaur v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 95'
Lawsuit: Adjourned Thread 'Commonwealth of Redmont v. AsexualDinosaur [2025] FCR 127'
Lawsuit: Dismissed Post in thread 'AsexualDinosaur v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 95'
Lawsuit: Dismissed Post in thread 'AsexualDinosaur v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 95'
Lawsuit: Dismissed Post in thread 'AsexualDinosaur v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 95'
Lawsuit: Dismissed Post in thread 'AsexualDinosaur v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 95'
Lawsuit: Dismissed Post in thread 'AsexualDinosaur v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 95'
Evidence
Pursuant to Rule 4.6 (Submission of Discovery, Voluntarily), the Plaintiff submits the following into evidence:
Lawsuit: Dismissed Post in thread 'AsexualDinosaur v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 95'
Lawsuit: Dismissed Post in thread 'AsexualDinosaur v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 95'
Lawsuit: Dismissed Post in thread 'AsexualDinosaur v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 95'
Lawsuit: Dismissed Post in thread 'AsexualDinosaur v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 95'
WITNESSES
1. ToadKing2. AsexualDinosaur
3. Vennefly
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 24th day of January 2026
