Lawsuit: Dismissed ToadKing v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 82

[ToadKing]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

ToadKing
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Department of Justice on 1st August, 2025, requesting access to "any and all unclassified government work inside this group chat" relating to communications between members of the Executive. After receiving no response within the required seven-day period, I sent reminders on 7th August and 13th August , 2025. The Acting Attorney General finally responded on 13th August, stating "there are no instances of government work on that group chat except the instance you mentioned." I believe this response to be false and inadequate. Under Section 8(7)(a) of the Classified Materials Act, I have the right to appeal this improper denial to the Federal Court. The requested materials are of legitimate public interest and the denial was unreasonable under the standards set forth in the Act.

I. PARTIES
1. ToadKing
2. Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. On 1st August, 2025, Plaintiff submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Department of Justice requesting access to "any and all unclassified government work inside this group chat" relating to Executive branch communications. (P-001)
2. The FOI request failed to receive a response within the required seven (7) day period under Section 8(2) of the Classified Materials Act.
3. On 7th August, 2025, Plaintiff sent a reminder to the Acting Attorney General regarding the pending FOI request.
4. On 13th August, 2025, Plaintiff sent a second reminder to the Acting Attorney General.
5. On 13th August, 2025, the Acting Attorney General finally responded, stating, "there are no instances of government work on that group chat except the instance you mentioned."
6. Plaintiff believes this response to be false and that additional government work exists in the referenced group chat beyond what was acknowledged.
7. The requested materials fall within the jurisdiction of the Executive branch and the Department of Justice's responsibility to handle
8. Executive FOI requests under Section 8(5)(a) of the Classified Materials Act.
9. Plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies by making the initial FOI request and following up with reminders.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Under Section 8(7)(a) of the Classified Materials Act, Plaintiff appeals the denial of his FOI request.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following relief:
1. An order requiring Defendant to release the requested materials in full or in part as determined reasonable by the Court.
2. An order that the Court may impose appropriate redactions or conditions on disclosure as provided by Section 8(7)(a) of the Classified Materials Act.

V. EVIDENCE:

Spoiler: P-001

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 13th day of August 2025

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@dearev is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Toadking v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 82

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.

 

[dearev]

The commonwealth is present

 

[ko531]

The commonwealth has 48 hours to provide an answer to complaint.

 

[Dogeington]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS - Lack of Jurisdiction

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The group chat in question is not related to DC and is, in fact, a private chat. The government work done in that chat has already been publicly released.
2. Staff policy on DMs between private individuals is that they are off limits and not within the powers of the courts to request.

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS - Lack of Jurisdiction

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The group chat in question is not related to DC and is, in fact, a private chat. The government work done in that chat has already been publicly released.
2. Staff policy on DMs between private individuals is that they are off limits and not within the powers of the courts to request.

View attachment 59821

Case is dismissed based on staff policy. The court cannot offer any remedy if such remedy is against staff's wishes.