Lawsuit: Pending ToadKing v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 18

ToadKing

ToadKing

Illegal Lawyer
Public Defender
Supporter
Aventura Resident
5th Anniversary Change Maker Popular in the Polls Statesman
ToadKing__
ToadKing__
Public Defender
Joined
Apr 4, 2025
Messages
170

Motion


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Judge AmityBlamity was confirmed by the Senate to the Federal Court on 4 September 2025, in direct violation of the Conflict of Interest Standards Act. The nominee provided zero financial disclosure during their confirmation hearing, despite Section 5(2) of the Act explicitly requiring:

(2) These disclosures must be made available to the confirming body in the nominee’s opening statement.
Click to expand...
Section 5(3) provides that:
(3) Failure to provide complete and accurate disclosure shall disqualify the nominee from consideration.
Click to expand...

Judge AmityBlamity is currently presiding over active cases and making judicial decisions despite the fundamental defect in their appointment. These actions, if allowed to continue, will cause irreversible harm to the administration of justice, the integrity of the courts, and the parties appearing before this illegally-confirmed judge, in addition to undermining the rule of law and Congressional intent behind the Conflict of Interest Standards Act.

Thus, Plaintiff ask that for the duration of this case:
  • All cases currently assigned to Judge AmityBlamity be immediately frozen and stayed
  • Judge AmityBlamity be prohibited from presiding over any cases, issuing any orders, or exercising any judicial authority
  • All cases currently assigned to Judge AmityBlamity be reassigned to other Federal Court judges


Case Filing


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

ToadKing
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On 23 August 2025, Congress enacted the Conflict of Interest Standards Act, establishing mandatory disclosure requirements for all judicial nominees. This Act explicitly requires nominees to provide detailed financial disclosures in their opening statement during confirmation hearings. Despite this clear legal requirement, the Commonwealth proceeded to confirm AmityBlamity as Federal Court Judge on 4 September 2025, without the nominee having provided any financial disclosure whatsoever during their confirmation hearing.

I bring this action not out of any personal grievance against Judge AmityBlamity, but to uphold the rule of law and ensure that our government officials - particularly those in the judiciary - are appointed in accordance with the law. If we allow this violation to stand, we establish a precedent that compliance with appointment requirements is optional, and that the Senate may confirm nominees regardless of whether they meet statutory requirements.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES​

1. ToadKing
2. Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS​

1. On or around 23 August 2025, the Conflict of Interest Standards Act was signed into law and enacted immediately upon signature. (P-001)
2. The Conflict of Interest Standards Act applies to "all positions within the Judicial Branch, including but not limited to: Chief Justice, Justice, Judge, and Magistrate."
3. Section 5(1) of the Act mandates that "All nominees for positions covered by this Act must provide a detailed financial disclosure statement, including:
  • (a) All business ownership interests
  • (b) All executive officer positions held in the past 3 months
  • (c) All significant financial investments and assets"
4. Section 5(2) of the Act explicitly states: "These disclosures must be made available to the confirming body in the nominee's opening statement."
5. Section 5(3) provides the consequence for non-compliance: "Failure to provide complete and accurate disclosure shall disqualify the nominee from consideration."
6. On or around 30 August 2025, President JuniperFig nominated AmityBlamity for the position of Federal Court Judge, occurring seven days after the Conflict of Interest Standards Act took effect. (P-002)
7. On or around 30 August 2025, AmityBlamity provided an opening statement during their confirmation hearing. (P-003)
8. AmityBlamity's opening statement contained only information about their qualifications, legal experience, and goals for the position.
9. AmityBlamity's opening statement contained zero information regarding:
  • Business ownership interests
  • Executive officer positions held in the past 3 months
  • Significant financial investments and assets
10. Throughout the entire confirmation hearing, which lasted from 30 August through 4 September 2025, no financial disclosure statement was ever provided by the nominee in any form. (P-003)
11. No Senator questioned the nominee about potential conflicts of interest or requested financial disclosures during the hearing.
12. On or around 4 September 2025, the Senate voted to confirm AmityBlamity as a Federal Court Judge.
13. The confirmation occurred despite the nominee's complete failure to comply with Section 5 of the Conflict of Interest Standards Act.
14. Since confirmation, and as of 25 October 2025, Judge AmityBlamity has presided over and/or made rulings in eight Federal Court cases:
15. As of 25 October 2025, Judge AmityBlamity currently presides over five active Federal Court cases:
16. The Commonwealth has taken no action to remedy this violation despite the clear language of Section 5(3) that non-disclosure "shall disqualify the nominee from consideration."

​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. Violation of Mandatory Statutory Requirements​

The appointment of Judge AmityBlamity to the Federal Court is fundamentally defective because it violated mandatory requirements established by the Conflict of Interest Standards Act.

As this Court held in Plura72 v. Realimza [2025] SCR 17:
In a 2-0 vote, the Supreme Court dismisses this case sua sponte for lack of standing under rule 2.1(3). The only standing the Plaintiff alleges before the Supreme Court is through the removal of office of Representative Imza. This is a remedy available in very few circumstances—only through criminal prosecution or after proving a defect in the manner in which the government official obtained their office. See Plura72 v. JuniperFig [2025] SCR 16; zLost v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 14; ToadKing v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 13; ToadKing v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 12; bigpappa140 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 11.

We have made it abundantly clear at this point that we, the Supreme Court of Redmont, may only remove an individual from office using our constitutional powers under limited circumstances. These include if the State is prosecuting a crime, or if there was an alleged defect, mistake, or otherwise illegitimate background to the defendant's obtaining the office that the plaintiff is asking us to remove the defendant from.
Click to expand...
This case presents exactly such a defect. The Conflict of Interest Standards Act established clear, mandatory requirements for judicial appointments:
  • Section 5(1) requires detailed financial disclosure statements from all judicial nominees
  • Section 5(2) mandates that these disclosures "must be made available to the confirming body in the nominee's opening statement"
  • Section 5(3) provides the consequence: "Failure to provide complete and accurate disclosure shall disqualify the nominee from consideration"
The use of "shall" in Section 5(3) is mandatory, not discretionary.

Judge AmityBlamity provided zero financial disclosure during their confirmation hearing (P-003). This is not a matter of incomplete disclosure or technical deficiency - it is complete non-compliance with a mandatory statutory requirement. The nominee's opening statement contained only career qualifications and goals, with no mention whatsoever of business interests, executive positions, or financial investments (P-003).

The Senate confirmed this nomination despite this clear violation. Whether this occurred through oversight, ignorance of the new law, or deliberate disregard is immaterial. The law was in effect, the requirement was mandatory, and the confirmation proceeded in violation of that law.

This creates a fundamental defect in how Judge AmityBlamity obtained their office. The confirmation was not merely procedurally irregular - it was legally invalid. Section 5(3) states that failure to disclose "shall disqualify the nominee from consideration." Once disqualified, a nominee cannot be validly confirmed, regardless of the Senate's vote.

2. Ongoing Violation of Law​

The Commonwealth's continued allowance of Judge AmityBlamity to serve constitutes an ongoing violation of the Conflict of Interest Standards Act.

Section 5(3) provides that failure to disclose "shall disqualify the nominee from consideration." The plain meaning of "disqualify" is to render ineligible or unfit. A disqualified nominee cannot become a validly appointed judge, regardless of Senate confirmation.

By allowing Judge AmityBlamity to continue serving despite never having provided the mandatory disclosure, the Commonwealth is effectively nullifying Section 5(3) of the Conflict of Interest Standards Act. The Commonwealth cannot simply ignore mandatory statutory requirements because they prove inconvenient or because the violation was not caught until after confirmation. The rule of law requires that government officials, particularly judicial officers, be appointed in accordance with the law.

​

3. Undermining Judicial Integrity​

The Constitution, Section 21 states:
21. Judicial Officers ‌
They are responsible for presiding over and delivering unbiased verdicts in all lawsuits.
Click to expand...
The entire purpose of the Conflict of Interest Standards Act is to "preserve the integrity of public service" and ensure "all government appointees can serve the public interest and provide for a clear separation between public and private interests."

Congress determined that mandatory financial disclosure was essential to prevent conflicts of interest and maintain public confidence in judicial appointments. The Act clearly states:
(3) The appointment of individuals with clear conflicts of interest to positions of public trust constitutes an affront to the Commonwealth and undermines public confidence in government.
Click to expand...
By confirming a judge without the mandatory disclosure, the Commonwealth has:
  • Undermined the integrity safeguards that Congress specifically enacted
  • Created uncertainty about whether Judge AmityBlamity has conflicts of interest
  • Made it impossible for the public to assess whether the judge should have been disqualified under Section 4
  • Established a precedent that compliance with appointment requirements is optional
The harm is not merely theoretical - it is extensive and ongoing. Since their illegal confirmation, Judge AmityBlamity has:
  • Presided over and/or made rulings in eight cases that could potentially be subject to appeal on grounds of judicial illegitimacy
  • Currently presides over five active cases where parties are being denied their right to appear before a legally confirmed judge
Every one of these eleven cases is now tainted by the defect in Judge AmityBlamity's appointment. The parties in Dartanboy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 101, Nimq_ v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 92, and Vanguard & Co v. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 32 may reasonably seek to appeal their verdicts on the grounds that the presiding judge was never legally confirmed.

The parties in The parties in DeltaruneTMRW v. Culls [2025] FCR 111, Vendeka Inc. and Pepecuu v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 107, KingBOB99878 v. truffleboy123 [2025] FCR 104, Gribble19 v. The Exchange Inc [2025] FCR 102, and 12700k v jb4bass [2025] FCR 93 are currently litigating before a judge who should have been disqualified from consideration.

This is precisely the type of systemic harm to judicial integrity that the Conflict of Interest Standards Act was designed to prevent.

​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honourable Court:

1. Declare that the confirmation of AmityBlamity as Federal Court Judge was legally defective due to the violation of mandatory requirements in the Conflict of Interest Standards Act;

2. Remove AmityBlamity from the office of Federal Court Judge pursuant to this Court's constitutional authority under Section 20(1)(a);

3. Order that the five active cases currently assigned to Judge AmityBlamity be immediately reassigned to other Federal Court judges;

4. Declare that the three verdicts issued by Judge AmityBlamity (Dartanboy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 101, Nimq_ v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 92, and Vanguard & Co v. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 32) were issued by an illegally-confirmed judge, and that parties in those cases have grounds to seek appropriate remedies;

5. Order that the Commonwealth implement procedures to ensure future judicial nominations comply with the Conflict of Interest Standards Act.

EVIDENCE:​

Kaiserin_

Act of Congress Post in thread 'Conflict of Interest Standards Act'

Presidential Assent


This bill has been granted assent and is hereby signed into law.

cKO6Qoe.png

Screenshot 2025-10-14 232945.png
P-001.png
P-002.png
P-003.png

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 15th day of October 2025

 

Attachments

  • P-001.png
    P-001.png
    243 KB · Views: 24
  • P-002.png
    P-002.png
    179.1 KB · Views: 25
  • P-003.png
    P-003.png
    96.3 KB · Views: 21
Last edited:
Matthew100x said:
Due to a conflict I am recusing from this case.
Click to expand...
Is the Plaintiff able to know the nature of the conflict, and/or if it is defined in the 'Non-exhaustive grounds for recusal' in the Motions page?
 

Writ of Summons



@Attorney General's Office is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of ToadKing v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 18.

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.




In a 2-0 vote, Supreme Court will not be granting an emergency injunction. As discussed in the dissenting opinion in zLost v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 10, the alleged defect in this matter is purely technical in nature: ". . . Even if [the reason for the EI was true,] it does not make sense that for such a minor deficiency all policy changes should be halted with no nuance for over a month. . . . If nothing else, freezing an entire department's ability to change policy . . . can have a far greater permanent impact [than] letting [policy change.]"

Were the alleged defect to be related to Amity's qualifications to be a Judge, we would consider placing her on immediate furlough. However, given that the alleged defect is only technical in nature, the harm done by removing one third of all Judges for perhaps a month or more is far greater than allowing her to continue her work. Parties involved in a case presided by Judge Amity may move to have her recused if they believe she posses a conflict of interest.​
 
The Commonwealth is present, your honour.
 

Answer to Complaint


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

ToadKing
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM that “On or around 23 August 2025, the Conflict of Interest Standards Act was signed into law and enacted immediately upon signature.”
2. AFFIRM facts 2 through 5, which cite law.
6. AFFIRM that “On or around 30 August 2025, President JuniperFig nominated AmityBlamity for the position of Federal Court Judge, occurring seven days after the Conflict of Interest Standards Act took effect.”
7. AFFIRM that “On or around 30 August 2025, AmityBlamity provided an opening statement during their confirmation hearing.”
8. AFFIRM that “AmityBlamity's opening statement contained only information about their qualifications, legal experience, and goals for the position.”
9. AFFIRM that “AmityBlamity's opening statement contained zero information regarding:

  • Business ownership interests
  • Executive officer positions held in the past 3 months
  • Significant financial investments and assets”
10. AFFIRM that “Throughout the entire confirmation hearing, which lasted from 30 August through 4 September 2025, no financial disclosure statement was ever provided by the nominee in any form.”
11. AFFIRM that “No Senator questioned the nominee about potential conflicts of interest or requested financial disclosures during the hearing.”
12. AFFIRM that “On or around 4 September 2025, the Senate voted to confirm AmityBlamity as a Federal Court Judge.”
13. AFFIRM that the confirmation occurred but DO NOT CONTEST that Her Honour’s actions constituted a “complete failure to comply” with the law, NOTING that this is an interpretation of law rather than a fact.
14. DENY the list of cases completed under Her Honour; it is incomplete.
15. DENY the list of Her Honour’s active cases; it is incomplete.
16. DO NOT CONTEST that “The Commonwealth has taken no action to remedy this violation[...]” NOTING that the Commonwealth was not notified of the alleged error prior to a lawsuit taking place, and NOTING that qualifying the action as a violation is an interpretation of law, and not a fact.

II. DEFENCES
1. AmityBlamity does not, in fact, have any conflicts of interest that would disqualify her from her position as per the Conflict of Interest Standards Act. The only alleged error related to Her Honour’s ascension to office is the failure to include an overt statement of financial disclosure. The error is therefore, as pointed out by this Court in its earlier ruling on the emergency injunction, exclusively technical in nature.
2. While the Conflict of Interest Standards Act prescribes the remedy of removal, the Supreme Court has full discretion over when and how to use its constitutional authority to remove public officials. The Court has shown through its repeated refusal to consider removal, even in similar situations of alleged technical error, that it is apprehensive to use this power unless absolutely necessary. This case does not pose such a necessity.
3. The Plaintiff sought no alternative remedy before taking outright legal action. Alternative actions could have included notifying Congress for consideration of impeachment charges, notifying the Department of Justice regarding a breach of procedure, or any number of other available avenues.
4. The doctrine of de minimis empowers the Court to disregard trifling matters, such as technical errors in administration that do no harm, even when law has been broken from a strictly textual viewpoint. De minimis, explicitly named or not, has been used in past cases within the Commonwealth to dismiss or refuse to award available remedies when law has been broken but no harm done. In line with verdicts such as ToadKing v. Commonwealth [2025] FCR 106 and the Learned Justice Smallfries4’s dissenting opinion in zLost v. Commonwealth [2025] SCR 10, the Court must consider whether applying extreme measures in cases of minor error would, in fact, do more harm than solely recognising the error in abstract.

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 October 2025

 
The defence will call AmityBlamity as a witness.
 
Pursuant to Rule 3.3 (Amendment to Complaint), the Plaintiff amends the Complaint as follows:

II. FACTS​

14. Since confirmation, and as of 25 October 2025, Judge AmityBlamity has presided over and/or made rulings in eight concluded Federal Court cases:
15. As of 25 October 2025, Judge AmityBlamity currently has presides over five active Federal Court cases:
16. The Commonwealth has taken no action to remedy this violation despite the clear language of Section 5(3) that non-disclosure "shall disqualify the nominee from consideration."


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

3. Undermining Judicial Integrity​

The harm is not merely theoretical - it is extensive and ongoing. Since their illegal confirmation, Judge AmityBlamity has:
  • Presided over four and/or made rulings in eight cases that could potentially be subject to appeal on grounds of judicial illegitimacy
  • Currently presides over five active cases where parties are being denied their right to appear before a legally confirmed judge
Every one of these eleven cases is now tainted by the defect in Judge AmityBlamity's appointment. The parties in Dartanboy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 101, Nimq_ v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 92, and Vanguard & Co v. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 32 may reasonably seek to appeal their verdicts on the grounds that the presiding judge was never legally confirmed.

The parties in DeltaruneTMRW v. Culls [2025] FCR 111, Vendeka Inc. and Pepecuu v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 107, KingBOB99878 v. truffleboy123 [2025] FCR 104, Gribble19 v. The Exchange Inc [2025] FCR 102, and 12700k v jb4bass [2025] FCR 93, and Pepecuu v MattTheSavvy [2025] FCR 100 are currently litigating before a judge who should have been disqualified from consideration.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

3. Order that the five active cases currently assigned to Judge AmityBlamity be immediately reassigned to other Federal Court judges;


These amendments are made to update the previous and current list of cases that Judge AmityBlamity has presided over.
 
Last edited:

Brief


The Plaintiff respectfully requests clarification from this Honourable Court regarding the application of Court Rules and Procedures Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use) to the citation of case precedent in closing statements.

I. BACKGROUND​

Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use) states:
All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission. Material must have been included within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible and the argument can be voided by the presiding judge.
Click to expand...
Two Federal Court cases of this year have produced seemingly conflicting interpretations of this rule as it applies to the citation of case precedent in closing statements.

II. THE CONFLICT​

1. FlyingBlocks v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 1​

In FlyingBlocks v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 1, the Plaintiff objected to the Defendant's closing statement for citing case precedent:
Breach of Procedure
The plaintiff requests permission to further respond to the new precedent which the defence has used in it's closing statement and not previously mentioned throughout discovery or opening statements.

Otherwise, the plaintiff requests that it be struck.
Click to expand...
The Defendant responded:
Your honor, it is not a breach of procedure to present legal arguments including precedent. It is on the plaintiff for not having researched the case enough to find the precedent themselves and counter it — this is not new evidence, it is public record that we incorporated into our argument.
Click to expand...
The presiding judge overruled the objection, stating:
It is no fault of the Defense that the Plaintiff failed to consider case precedent available to the public.
Their closing statement will not be struck, and this trial is hereby in recess pending verdict.
Click to expand...
This ruling suggests that case precedent, being public record, may be cited in closing statements without prior disclosure.

2. Vanguard & Co v. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 32​

In Vanguard & Co v. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 32, the judge addressed a closing statement that "cited 12 unique and previously unmentioned cases to develop novel defences."

The presiding judge ruled:
Defendant's Closing Statement used facts not disclosed in Discovery and cited 12 unique and previously unmentioned cases to develop novel defenses. The facts which weren't brought up in Discovery or prior will be disregarded pursuant to Court Rules and Procedures Rule 4.2. As for the legal arguments raised, I'm granting Plaintiff 72 hours to submit a brief responding to them. If you need more time, please request an extension before the deadline.

Finally, with respect to what was mentioned in the prior paragraph, Defendant's prior counsel is warned to avoid ambushing opposing parties in the future. The arguments you present may not necessarily be faulty, but if they are, they can not be challenged if they're presented in a way that disallows the opposing party a response. The Court recognizes that this was likely a mistake and not intentional, but it will not be tolerated in the future.
Click to expand...
This ruling suggests that citing previously unmentioned case precedent in closing statements violates Rule 4.2 and requires allowing the opposing party additional time to respond.

III. REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION​

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court clarify whether, under a proper interpretation of Court Rules and Procedures Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use):
  1. May parties cite case precedent in their closing statements without having introduced those cases during the complaint, answer, or discovery phases?
  2. If case precedent may be cited without prior disclosure, are there any limitations on this practice?
  3. If case precedent cited in closing statements was not previously disclosed, must the presiding judge grant the opposing party additional time to respond?

 
ToadKing said:

Brief


The Plaintiff respectfully requests clarification from this Honourable Court regarding the application of Court Rules and Procedures Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use) to the citation of case precedent in closing statements.

I. BACKGROUND​

Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use) states:

Two Federal Court cases of this year have produced seemingly conflicting interpretations of this rule as it applies to the citation of case precedent in closing statements.

II. THE CONFLICT​

1. FlyingBlocks v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 1​

In FlyingBlocks v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 1, the Plaintiff objected to the Defendant's closing statement for citing case precedent:

The Defendant responded:

The presiding judge overruled the objection, stating:

This ruling suggests that case precedent, being public record, may be cited in closing statements without prior disclosure.

2. Vanguard & Co v. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 32​

In Vanguard & Co v. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 32, the judge addressed a closing statement that "cited 12 unique and previously unmentioned cases to develop novel defences."

The presiding judge ruled:

This ruling suggests that citing previously unmentioned case precedent in closing statements violates Rule 4.2 and requires allowing the opposing party additional time to respond.

III. REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION​

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court clarify whether, under a proper interpretation of Court Rules and Procedures Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use):
  1. May parties cite case precedent in their closing statements without having introduced those cases during the complaint, answer, or discovery phases?
  2. If case precedent may be cited without prior disclosure, are there any limitations on this practice?
  3. If case precedent cited in closing statements was not previously disclosed, must the presiding judge grant the opposing party additional time to respond?

Click to expand...
What relevancy does asking about closing statements have to the context of the trial we are currently in? This seems irrelevant, and an attempt to summon from us a dispositive ruling on an issue that is not before this court.
 
Smallfries said:
What relevancy does asking about closing statements have to the context of the trial we are currently in? This seems irrelevant, and an attempt to summon from us a dispositive ruling on an issue that is not before this court.
Click to expand...
The Plaintiff will rely on this ruling when drafting his closing statement, and seeks clarification whether to introduce case precedent directly beforehand, or if it shall be permitted in the closing statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top