Lawsuit: Pending ToadKing v. Culls [2025] DCR 82

ToadKing · Oct 7, 2025

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

ToadKing
Plaintiff

v.

Culls
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

At around 00:10 UTC+1, on the 9th August 2025, I was peacefully lying on the floor at spawn, minding my own business. All of a sudden the defendant, Culls, deliberately came over to me and began stepping and jumping on my person. This was an unprovoked attack that caused me distress and humiliation. The defendant's own statements in chat, saying "i'm step[p]ing on toad" and "[crush] him," clearly demonstrate the intentional and malicious nature of this harassment. Given my significantly smaller stature compared to the average player, this act was particularly intimidating, humiliating, and distressing. During this harassment, I felt threatened, humiliated, and could not engage with and enjoy Redmont the way I had before Culls' actions.

I. PARTIES

1. ToadKing
2. Culls

II. FACTS

1. On or around 00:10 UTC+1, on the 9th August 2025, Plaintiff was lying on the floor at spawn.
2. Defendant deliberately approached the Plaintiff's location.
3. On or around 00:39 UTC+1, on the 9th August 2025, Defendant then intentionally stepped on and jumped on the Plaintiff's person without consent or provocation. (P-001)
4. Defendant made statements in chat, including "i'm step[p]ing on toad" and "[crush] him," (P-001)
5. Plaintiff is not the normal height of a regular player, making this conduct particularly humiliating. (P-002)
6. Defendant is of the normal player height, creating a significant size disparity. (P-003)
7. Defendant's conduct was unprovoked, intentional, and served no legitimate purpose besides harassment.
8. At the time of the incident, the Defendant held the position of State Prosecutor. (P-001)
9. At the time of the incident, the Plaintiff was a sitting member of the House of Representatives. (P-002)
10. On or around 12 October 2025, Defendant stated in global-chat to the Plaintiff: "and i want to crush your bones toad" and "im glad i stepped on you" (P-005)
11. On or around 13 October 2025, Defendant stated in global-chat to the Plaintiff: "Toad i hate you, i wish you left this server, and im glad you got stepped on" (P-006)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Deprivation of Security

The Defendant's actions violated the Plaintiff's constitutional rights. Section 32(14) of the Constitution states:

"Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

Culls' actions of physically stepping on Plaintiff, combined with the expressed verbal expression "im step[p]ing on toad," directly threatened Plaintiff's security of person. Given the Plaintiff's significantly smaller stature (P-002 and P-003), this physical intimidation was particularly threatening and deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional right to security without any legitimate justification or adherence to the principles of fundamental justice.

2. Disturbing the Peace

The Defendant's actions violated the law. The Criminal Code Act, Part V, Section 1 states:

"A person commits an offence if the person: (a) engages in disorderly behavior toward an individual or group that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress."

Culls' act of physically stepping on Plaintiff constitutes disorderly behaviour that caused alarm and distress. The size disparity between the Plaintiff and Defendant (P-002 and P-003) made this action particularly threatening and intimidating. The statement "im step[p]ing on toad" demonstrates premeditated intent to harass, distinguishing this from accidental contact and showing deliberate targeting of the Plaintiff.

Any reasonable person would deem the Defendant's combined physical and verbal actions as causing "harassment, alarm or distress." Being trampled on by a larger player while that player verbally expresses intent to "[crush] him," would clearly cause alarm and distress to any reasonable person, particularly given the Plaintiff's smaller size. This claim is supported by snow_crp v. FearlessNacktmul [2025] DCR 33, where the District Court found that verbal harassment alone constituted disturbing the peace when it caused distress to the Plaintiff. The court noted that "comments against the plaintiff are mostly being made publicly for all to see which can't be avoided" and ruled that such conduct was "outrageous behavior." Here, Culls' actions were both verbal AND physical, occurring in a public space, making the case more substantive than [2025] DCR 33. The brazenly open and public nature of the harassment (taking place at spawn) compounds the distress, as other players could have witnessed the Plaintiff being targeted and humiliated. As shown in P-001, user "urb5n" can be seen expressing sympathy towards the Plaintiff by saying "not toad ", directly after the Defendants' open acknowledgement of their egregious conduct.

The Criminal Code Act, Section 6(1) expressly permits the use of crimes in civil lawsuits: "In civil lawsuits, crimes may be used to seek damages, although damages are not presumed." Further, Section 6(1)(b) clarifies that "Conviction is not a requirement for a crime to be regarded as a fact in a civil lawsuit; the default standard of proof for civil cases shall be used." Therefore, the Plaintiff need only prove by a balance of probabilities that the Defendant committed the offense of Disturbing the Peace, without requiring a criminal conviction.

3. Humiliation

The Legal Damages Act, Section 7(1)(a)(I) defines Humiliation as:

"Situations in which a person has been disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish."

The Defendant's outrageous behaviour humiliated the Plaintiff:

Being physically stepped on in a public space where other players could witness (P-001) was inherently humiliating and made the Plaintiff look foolish and powerless.
The significant size disparity between Plaintiff and Culls (P-002 and P-003) made this act particularly degrading, as it exploited the Plaintiff's smaller stature to belittle him.
Any reasonable person would conclude that being physically stepped on and verbally mocked in public view constitutes being "disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish."

4. Loss of Enjoyment

The Legal Damages Act, Section 7(1)(a)(III) states:

"Situations in which an injured party loses, or has diminished, their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm. "

The Defendant's behaviour diminished the Plaintiff's ability to engage with Redmont:

Plaintiff feared encountering Culls in public spaces throughout Redmont, limiting his freedom of movement.
The harassment was specifically directed at Plaintiff's smaller size, creating ongoing anxiety about future encounters with larger individuals.
The public nature of the harassment has made Plaintiff hesitant to engage in public areas where he might be targeted again, directly impacting his ability to enjoy the server.
Any reasonable person would conclude that being physically stepped on and verbally mocked in public would diminish one's ability to freely navigate and enjoy Redmont without fear of being targeted again, particularly when the targeting was based on a physical characteristic.

The Plaintiff's notably small stature was well-known to numerous people throughout Redmont, making him easily recognisable and particularly vulnerable to this type of targeting. The Defendant's public harassment of the Plaintiff based on his size made the Plaintiff fearful of public appearances - a fundamental necessity of his elected position. A Representative who fears appearing in public spaces due to harassment cannot effectively serve or participate in the democratic process. The Defendant's conduct thus not only harmed the Plaintiff personally but also interfered with his ability to fulfil his constitutional duties as an elected official, further demonstrating the serious loss of enjoyment in Redmont the Plaintiff had suffered.

5. Outrageous Conduct

The Legal Damages Act, Section 5(1)(a) states:

"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..."

The Defendant's conduct meets the legal standard of "outrageous behaviour". As the Supreme Court held in Lightiago v. FuriousPaladin [2023] SCR 20, binding precedent that this Court must follow, conduct is "outrageous" when it is "completely indecent, totally atrocious, and fully intolerable in a civilized community." Here, physically stepping on another player while verbally announcing the intent to do so, exploiting their smaller size for intimidation and humiliation in a public setting, is "completely indecent, totally atrocious, and fully intolerable in a civilized community". Targeting an individual based on their smaller physical stature and using that size difference to intimidate them physically constitutes outrageous conduct.

6. Violation of DOJ Standards

While the Plaintiff does not sue the Defendant in his official capacity, the Defendant's conduct violated the standards of behaviour required of all DOJ employees, demonstrating a pattern of disregard for the principles of justice and integrity that should govern all citizens, particularly those in positions of public trust.

The Department of Justice Policy Handbook (P-004) establishes clear Guiding Principles that all employees must follow. The third Guiding Principle is 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."

The Defendant's actions in physically stepping on Plaintiff and verbally harassing him violated his constitutional rights. As a State Prosecutor, Culls should have been specifically trained and obligated to uphold the Constitution and Laws of Redmont "even when no one is watching." Yet in this incident, occurring outside of his official duties, the Defendant willfully violated another citizen's constitutional rights - the very rights he was sworn to protect.

The Defendant's position as a State Prosecutor at the time of the incident is an aggravating factor that increases the outrageousness of his conduct. Under the Legal Damages Act, Section 5(3)(a), when assessing punitive damages, "the judicial officer can properly consider the character of the defendant's act." The character of stepping on another player while serving as a prosecutor - someone who pledged to uphold the Constitution "even when no one is watching" - is particularly egregious and demonstrates a profound lack of integrity.

A State Prosecutor who violates constitutional rights in his personal conduct presents a greater threat to the community than an ordinary citizen committing the same act. The Defendant's willingness to trample upon the constitutional rights of others when he believed no professional consequences would follow reveals a fundamental disregard for the very principles he was entrusted to defend. This hypocrisy makes the conduct more outrageous and warrants enhanced punitive damages to send a clear message that those who enforce the law are not exempt from following it themselves.

The DOJ Handbook requires that employees "treat victims of a crime with compassion and respect", yet the Defendant treated the Plaintiff with contempt and cruelty.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

$10,000 in Consequential Damages for Humiliation, pursuant to Legal Damages Act, Section 7(1)(a)(I).
$10,000 in Consequential Damages for Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont, pursuant to Legal Damages Act, Section 7(1)(a)(III).
$30,000 in Punitive Damages due to the outrageous actions of the Defendant, pursuant to Legal Damages Act, Section 5.
$1 in legal fees.

EVIDENCE:

See DOJ Policy Handbook attached below

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 7th day of October 2025

Anthony_Org · Oct 7, 2025

May it pleasure the court, I'd like to file an amicus brief as someone who enjoys being stepped on.

AmityBlamity · Thursday at 1:39 PM

After conferring with my colleagues, I am remanding this case to the District Court. There are no constitutional claims here that require the Federal Court to preside.

Mask3D_WOLF · Thursday at 4:08 PM

I, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVII, Bishop of Redmont, Vicar of Tuk, Successor of the Prince of the Tukostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Tukostolic Church, Patriarch of Hamilton, Primate of Redmont, Metropolitan Archbishop of the Reveillian Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the Servants of Tuk, would like to file an amicus brief.

Muggy21 · Thursday at 7:24 PM

Writ of Summons

@Culls , is required to appear before the District Court in the case of ToadKing v. Culls [2025] DCR 82

In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for said motions shall be 48 hours.

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.

Muggy21 · Thursday at 7:42 PM

Anthony_Org said:
May it pleasure the court, I'd like to file an amicus brief as someone who enjoys being stepped on.

Certainly Rep. Anthony, I"ll hear you on your brief within 24 hours.

If the Court doesn't receive a brief, the Court will exercise its options.

Muggy21 · Thursday at 7:42 PM

Mask3D_WOLF said:
I, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVII, Bishop of Redmont, Vicar of Tuk, Successor of the Prince of the Tukostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Tukostolic Church, Patriarch of Hamilton, Primate of Redmont, Metropolitan Archbishop of the Reveillian Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the Servants of Tuk, would like to file an amicus brief.

For what purpose does the Pope want to be heard on this manner?

Culls · Thursday at 8:17 PM

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT 
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

The following that the plaintiff claims to be illegal are not as such illegal and should not be included in the case.

1. The plaintiff claims that “Emotional Damages” are illegal, these under new acts are no longer illegal
2. The plaintiff says "the Defendant's conduct violated the standards of behavior required of all DOJ employees” Which is not disallowed by the department of justice, as such the DoJ does not say anywhere in the code of conduct stepping on a player is against the code of conduct. Even if this is not allowed, this is not by any means grounds for any termination. [/CENTER]

ToadKing · Thursday at 8:21 PM

Culls said:
Objection

 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT 
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

The following that the plaintiff claims to be illegal are not as such illegal and should not be included in the case.

1. The plaintiff claims that “Emotional Damages” are illegal, these under new acts are no longer illegal
2. The plaintiff says "the Defendant's conduct violated the standards of behavior required of all DOJ employees” Which is not disallowed by the department of justice, as such the DoJ does not say anywhere in the code of conduct stepping on a player is against the code of conduct. Even if this is not allowed, this is not by any means grounds for any termination. [/CENTER]

Response

Erm...

Your Honour, I believe the Defendant should make these legal arguments in his answer to complaint, which he has not yet been asked for, because all he was asked to do was appear before the court, and make himself known.

Muggy21 · Thursday at 8:47 PM

Culls said:
Objection

 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT 
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

The following that the plaintiff claims to be illegal are not as such illegal and should not be included in the case.

1. The plaintiff claims that “Emotional Damages” are illegal, these under new acts are no longer illegal
2. The plaintiff says "the Defendant's conduct violated the standards of behavior required of all DOJ employees” Which is not disallowed by the department of justice, as such the DoJ does not say anywhere in the code of conduct stepping on a player is against the code of conduct. Even if this is not allowed, this is not by any means grounds for any termination. [/CENTER]

Thank you for appearing! You have 72 hours to reply. The Court will disregard this Objection, this should be in your Answer.

Muggy21 · Thursday at 8:48 PM

ToadKing said:
Response

Erm...

Your Honour, I believe the Defendant should make these legal arguments in his answer to complaint, which he has not yet been asked for, because all he was asked to do was appear before the court, and make himself known.

Sustained.

ToadKing · Thursday at 8:49 PM

Muggy21 said:
Sustained.

Your Honour, just to confirm, are you sustsaining his objection or simply agreeing my response?

ToadKing · Thursday at 8:52 PM

ToadKing said:
Your Honour, just to confirm, are you sustsaining his objection or simply agreeing my response?

Your Honour, I move to strike this
response because I failed to scroll up.

It's late, I'm tired, and I'm on my phone. Please formally warm me so I remember not to make silly mistakes like this again.

Muggy21 · Thursday at 9:00 PM

ToadKing said:
Your Honour, I move to strike this
response because I failed to scroll up.

It's late, I'm tired, and I'm on my phone. Please formally warm me so I remember not to make silly mistakes like this again.

Nah, you're good. I just did sustain a response when ideally I would've overruled the Objection. All good!

Anthony_Org · Friday at 12:15 AM

Muggy21 said:
Certainly Rep. Anthony, I"ll hear you on your brief within 24 hours.

If the Court doesn't receive a brief, the Court will exercise its options.

Your honor, I respectfully submit this brief amicus curiae as someone who enjoys being stepped on. I will note that I don't know how to indent on the forums so each paragraph is spaced out. I hope this brief pleasures both you and the courts.

The Plaintiff’s claim rests upon a fundamental mischaracterization of the Defendant’s actions as inherently tortious. The ancient and respected tradition of grape treading in vinification provides a crucial precedent. In this process, the grape is not a victim of assault or humiliation, but a participant in its own transformation into a refined product, Wine.

The art of being stepped on is not just related to the production of wine. Respected philosophers like Nietzsche has written about the noble art. I’d like to present one of the most famous quotes penned from Mr. Friedrich Nietzche himself. “He who allows himself to be stepped on has merely discovered a new form of dominance." This goes to show how being stepped on is not a form of submissiveness, rather it's a sign of dominance. Nietzsche has another relevant quote, albeit not as popular as the last. “To be trampled is not humiliation, but proof that one has achieved the dignity of being in someone’s way.”

Your honor, to finish this brief I want to bring up one last point. to be beneath a king’s foot was not to be demeaned, but to be honored. I hope this brief has pleasured the courts. I’m now going to enjoy a foot-pressed wine.

ToadKing · Friday at 4:51 AM

Anthony_Org said:
Your honor, I respectfully submit this brief amicus curiae as someone who enjoys being stepped on. I will note that I don't know how to indent on the forums so each paragraph is spaced out. I hope this brief pleasures both you and the courts.

The Plaintiff’s claim rests upon a fundamental mischaracterisation of the Defendant’s actions as inherently tortious. The ancient and respected tradition of grape treading in vinification provides a crucial precedent. In this process, the grape is not a victim of assault or humiliation, but a participant in its own transformation into a refined product, Wine.

The art of being stepped on is not just related to the production of wine. Respected philosophers like Nietzsche has written about the noble art. I’d like to present one of the most famous quotes penned from Mr. Friedrich Nietzche himself. “He who allows himself to be stepped on has merely discovered a new form of dominance." This goes to show how being stepped on is not a form of submissiveness, rather it's a sign of dominance. Nietzsche has another relevant quote, albeit not as popular as the last. “To be trampled is not humiliation, but proof that one has achieved the dignity of being in someone’s way.”

Your honor, to finish this brief I want to bring up one last point. to be beneath a king’s foot was not to be demeaned, but to be honored. I hope this brief has pleasured the courts. I’m now going to enjoy a foot-pressed wine.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE, PERJURY

The Plaintiff respectfully objects to this amicus brief for the following reasons:

1. The amicus brief rests on a fundamentally flawed premise, that the Plaintiff is a grape being transformed into wine. The Plaintiff is not a grape. The Plaintiff is a living person with thoughts, feelings, and the capacity to be harmed - rights which are protected under Section 32(14) of the Constitution. The brief's attempt to analogise the Defendant's actions to "grape treading in vinification" is not only legally irrelevant but borders on a mockery of these proceedings. Taking this claim at face value - that the Defendant was attempting to "transform the Plaintiff into wine" - would necessarily mean the Defendant was attempting to murder the Plaintiff, which would only strengthen the Plaintiff's case rather than undermine it. The brief provides no serious legal argument and serves only to distract from the genuine harm suffered by the Plaintiff.

2. The amicus brief cites two purported quotes from philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche: "He who allows himself to be stepped on has merely discovered a new form of dominance" and "To be trampled is not humiliation, but proof that one has achieved the dignity of being in someone's way." These quotes are fabrications. They do not exist in Nietzsche's published works. The closest authentic quote from Nietzsche on this subject matter is: "When stepped on, the worm curls up. That is a clever thing to do. Thus it reduces its chances of being stepped on again. In the language of morality: humility." (Source). Notably, this authentic quote supports the Plaintiff's position, not the amicus's argument - it describes being stepped on as something to be avoided and associates it with humility born from harm, not "dominance" or "dignity."
This Constitutes Perjury and Contempt of Court. The Criminal Code Act, Part III, Section 1 defines Perjury as "knowingly provid[ing] false testimony in a court of law." By submitting fabricated quotes as if they were authentic philosophical authority, the amicus has knowingly provided false information to this Court in an attempt to influence the outcome of these proceedings. Additionally, under Part III, Section 2, Contempt of Court includes "conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice." Submitting a brief filled with false evidence and absurd analogies obstructs this Court's ability to fairly adjudicate the serious claims before it. The amicus's statement that they hope this brief "pleasures" the Court demonstrates a lack of respect for the gravity of these proceedings.

3. For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court strike the entire amicus brief from the record, sanction the amicus for perjury and contempt of court as appropriate, and disregard any arguments contained therein. The Plaintiff further requests that the Court remind all parties that these proceedings address serious harm to the Plaintiff, and that submissions must be made in good faith with accurate evidence and legal argument.

Muggy21 · Friday at 2:53 PM

ToadKing said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE, PERJURY

The Plaintiff respectfully objects to this amicus brief for the following reasons:

1. The amicus brief rests on a fundamentally flawed premise, that the Plaintiff is a grape being transformed into wine. The Plaintiff is not a grape. The Plaintiff is a living person with thoughts, feelings, and the capacity to be harmed - rights which are protected under Section 32(14) of the Constitution. The brief's attempt to analogise the Defendant's actions to "grape treading in vinification" is not only legally irrelevant but borders on a mockery of these proceedings. Taking this claim at face value - that the Defendant was attempting to "transform the Plaintiff into wine" - would necessarily mean the Defendant was attempting to murder the Plaintiff, which would only strengthen the Plaintiff's case rather than undermine it. The brief provides no serious legal argument and serves only to distract from the genuine harm suffered by the Plaintiff.

2. The amicus brief cites two purported quotes from philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche: "He who allows himself to be stepped on has merely discovered a new form of dominance" and "To be trampled is not humiliation, but proof that one has achieved the dignity of being in someone's way." These quotes are fabrications. They do not exist in Nietzsche's published works. The closest authentic quote from Nietzsche on this subject matter is: "When stepped on, the worm curls up. That is a clever thing to do. Thus it reduces its chances of being stepped on again. In the language of morality: humility." (Source). Notably, this authentic quote supports the Plaintiff's position, not the amicus's argument - it describes being stepped on as something to be avoided and associates it with humility born from harm, not "dominance" or "dignity."
This Constitutes Perjury and Contempt of Court. The Criminal Code Act, Part III, Section 1 defines Perjury as "knowingly provid[ing] false testimony in a court of law." By submitting fabricated quotes as if they were authentic philosophical authority, the amicus has knowingly provided false information to this Court in an attempt to influence the outcome of these proceedings. Additionally, under Part III, Section 2, Contempt of Court includes "conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice." Submitting a brief filled with false evidence and absurd analogies obstructs this Court's ability to fairly adjudicate the serious claims before it. The amicus's statement that they hope this brief "pleasures" the Court demonstrates a lack of respect for the gravity of these proceedings.

3. For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court strike the entire amicus brief from the record, sanction the amicus for perjury and contempt of court as appropriate, and disregard any arguments contained therein. The Plaintiff further requests that the Court remind all parties that these proceedings address serious harm to the Plaintiff, and that submissions must be made in good faith with accurate evidence and legal argument.

Sustained. No part of the brief will be considered by the Court.

Furthermore, considering the abuse of an brief and the waste of judicial resources, and the resources of the Plaintiff, the Court finds the following.

1) Anthony_Org is held in Contempt of Court. He shall be fined $5,000.00 and held in jail for 10 minutes.
2) The brief shall be struck in its entirety.
3) Anthony_Org shall be referred to the DoJ on the charge of Perjury.

The Court accepted the brief with the expectation that the author would remain on point and discuss points that the Court may not be able to reach on its own. Instead, the Court received perjurious and obstructive material that doesn't help the Court in any regard. An amicus brief is designed to help the Court, instead the author decided to waste this Court's time and the Plaintiff's efforts.

Mask3D_WOLF · Friday at 6:22 PM

Muggy21 said:
For what purpose does the Pope want to be heard on this manner?

I would like to speak to the ethical implications of situations such as these in Redmont, in order to better equip the court in its understanding of interpreting where damages should lie for such an act.

Muggy21 · Friday at 6:47 PM

Mask3D_WOLF said:
I would like to speak to the ethical implications of situations such as these in Redmont, in order to better equip the court in its understanding of interpreting where damages should lie for such an act.

Denied.

Culls · Friday at 7:14 PM

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

This evidence is not relevant to the issue at hand because it does not pertain to the facts of the case.
1. P-002

Muggy21 · Friday at 7:25 PM

Culls said:
Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

This evidence is not relevant to the issue at hand because it does not pertain to the facts of the case.
1. P-002

I need an Answer to the Complaint. If you object to the Complaint again at this stage, I'll hold you in Contempt.

ToadKing · Friday at 7:33 PM

Culls said:
Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

This evidence is not relevant to the issue at hand because it does not pertain to the facts of the case
1. P-002

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your Honour,

P-002 pertains to the size of the Plaintiff, as well as his role at the time of the act.
It is directly referenced in Facts 5 & 9:

5. Plaintiff is not the normal height of a regular player, making this conduct particularly humiliating. (P-002)
9. At the time of the incident, the Plaintiff was a sitting member of the House of Representatives. (P-002)

P-002 clearly shows the Plaintiff (on the right), next to a regular-sized player (on the left).
It further shows the Plaintiffs' tag of "Rep" - highlighting their role (Representative) at the time.

The Defendant, by stating so brazenly with confidence, that "This evidence is not relevant to the issue at hand because it does not pertain to the facts of the case", is undoubtedly lying to this court in an attempt to throw out relevant evidence. Such action is most abhorrent to the fair adjudication of this case that it warrants sanctions.

I ask Your Honour to strike the objection from the record and hold the Defendant in contempt of court, as well as refer the matter to the DoJ for a charge of Perjury (if the court deems it worthwhile).

ElysiaCrynn · Friday at 8:42 PM

Your Honour,

The Defendant has asked me to represent them in this case, I shall be acting as the Defendant's counsel for this matter.

Mask3D_WOLF · Friday at 10:06 PM

It looks like there was a bit of confusion as to whether I am a lawyer.

I confirm I am. I therefore refile my request for Amicus Brief in my full qualifications as an attorney.

Muggy21 · Friday at 10:22 PM

Mask3D_WOLF said:
It looks like there was a bit of confusion as to whether I am a lawyer.

I confirm I am. I therefore refile my request for Amicus Brief in my full qualifications as an attorney.

Denied.

If you wished to be heard you should've expressed to the Court the reason for the brief, rather than having the Court need to ask you.

ToadKing · Saturday at 9:01 PM

Muggy21 said:
Thank you for appearing! You have 72 hours to reply. The Court will disregard this Objection, this should be in your Answer.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honour,

I raise this objection as I believe you have been incorrectly granting more time than should be permitted under Court Rules and Procedures, in a standard case such as this.
Rule 6.6 (Response Times) states:

Response times are designed to give a standard feel to the 'flow' of a case. They are provided as a standard for the courts and the parties to follow to ensure cases are progressing and not stagnating. Bellow will be a standard set of response times for each 'stage' of a case.

Answer to Complaint & Plea (within Criminal Court): 48 hours

Opening & Closing Statements: 72 hours

Witness Testimony, Cross Examination & Objections: 24 hours

Extensions: 24 hours minimum

Emergency Injunction: DCR | 24, FCR | 48, SCR | 72

The standard timeframe for an Answer to Complaint is 48 hours. Looking at all prior cases you have presided over, it appears you have routinely granted more time than should be afforded under normal circumstances.

In the following cases, you have provided 72 hours instead of the standard 48 hours for a Defendant's Answer/Plea:

Your Honour's granting of 72 hours is not in keeping with the time granted by other Judicial Officers in this court:

Judicial Officers in the FCR:

Judicial Officers in the SCR:

I respectfully request Your Honour:

Cease granting 72 hours for Answers, as it is not aligned with Rule 6.6 (Response Times)
Find the Defendant in contempt of court for lack of any advancement towards providing an Answer, and failing to provide an Answer within 48 hours.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

The Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to grant default judgment against the Defendant pursuant to Rule 3.6 of the Court Rules and Procedures.

Rule 3.6 explicitly states:

Defendants must amend any answer to have affirmations or denials on all facts in addition to having defenses under the law or fact prior to the end of discovery. Failure to include the necessary information is grounds for plaintiffs to request the presiding judge to grant default judgment against the defendant.

The Defendant has failed to file any Answer to Complaint whatsoever. Despite being afforded more than sufficient time to respond, the Defendant has not provided affirmations or denials on any of the facts alleged in the Complaint, nor has the Defendant submitted any defences under law or fact. This complete absence of any Answer constitutes a clear failure to include the necessary information required under Rule 3.6.

The Plaintiff's objection regarding the improper granting of 72 hours rather than the standard 48 hours under Rule 6.6 demonstrates that the Defendant has been afforded more than sufficient time to respond. Even with this excessive accommodation, the Defendant has failed to fulfil the most basic procedural requirement of responding to the Complaint.

This case is not complex and does not require extensive time for the Defendant to formulate a response. The Complaint contains only nine facts and relies on three substantive pieces of evidence (P-001, P-002, and P-003), all of which are straightforward screenshots. There are no intricate legal issues that would justify delay - the facts are simple and the law is clear. Moreover, the harm occurred over 70 days ago, and the Plaintiff has waited patiently for the Defendant to engage with these proceedings. The Defendant has had ample time to review this case and prepare even the most basic response. The failure to do so after such an extended period, in a case of such simplicity, leaves no reasonable explanation other than the Defendant's unwillingness to defend against the allegations.

The Defendant's failure to engage with these proceedings is particularly troubling given the representations he made in his application to the DOJ. In his application dated 03 August, 2025 (accepted 07 August, 2025), the Defendant represented himself as someone who "take[/s] things seriously" and promised "if you employ me i will get any court case that i am available to do, done." He further stated, "I get things done... I am serious i get things done," and assured the DOJ that "I think that government jobs and law should always be took seriously."

The Defendant explicitly represented that he is "a good person to work in a team" and committed to completing "every case presented to me."

Yet here, after over 70 days since the incident and despite being granted excessive time to respond, the Defendant has completely failed to participate in these proceedings properly. Instead of filing the required Answer to Complaint, the Defendant has filed two irrelevant objections that demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of court procedure.

His first objection attempted to make substantive legal arguments that belong in an Answer to Complaint, which this Court correctly disregarded.
His second objection was so procedurally deficient that this Court warned him:

I need an Answer to the Complaint. If you object to the Complaint again at this stage, I'll hold you in Contempt.

Most tellingly, both objections were headed "IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT" despite these proceedings taking place in the District Court - an error that no "professional Attorney that knows what they are doing" would make.

These basic mistakes reveal a fundamental lack of experience and skill that the Defendant claimed to possess in his DOJ application. This stark inconsistency between the Defendant's professional representations and his actual conduct raises serious questions about whether the Defendant intentionally misrepresented his qualifications, character, and commitment to the legal process in his DOJ application.

The Criminal Code Act, Part III, Section 11 prohibits "intentionally misrepresent[ing] their legal credentials, qualifications, or rank" and carries penalties of up to 300 penalty units and 4 months disbarment. Additionally, the Criminal Code Act, Part VII, Section 7 defines Fraud as "knowingly or recklessly misrepresent[ing] or omit[ting] a material fact to another, causing the other party to rely on that misrepresentation, resulting in actual, quantifiable harm."

The Defendant's application to the DOJ contained material representations about his competence ("a professional Attorney that knows what they are doing"), his work ethic ("I get things done... I am serious"), his commitment to law ("government jobs and law should always be took seriously"), and his qualifications to serve as a State Prosecutor. The DOJ relied on these representations when accepting his application and granting him the position of State Prosecutor - a position of significant public trust and responsibility. The Defendant's conduct in these proceedings directly contradicts every material representation he made in his application. This has resulted in quantifiable harm - the DOJ employs an individual who demonstrably lacks the competence and professionalism he claimed, potentially compromising cases and bringing disrepute to the administration of justice.

While this case does not directly concern the Defendant's DOJ application, the Court may wish to recommend that the DOJ investigate whether the Defendant's conduct in these proceedings constitutes evidence of Legal Qualification Fraud and Fraud, as his actions directly contradict the core qualifications and character traits he represented to obtain his position as State Prosecutor.

Your Honour,

For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant default judgment in favour of the Plaintiff on all claims for relief and prayers for relief as stated in the Complaint.

Muggy21 · Saturday at 9:12 PM

ToadKing said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honour,

I raise this objection as I believe you have been incorrectly granting more time than should be permitted under Court Rules and Procedures, in a standard case such as this.
Rule 6.6 (Response Times) states:

The standard timeframe for an Answer to Complaint is 48 hours. Looking at all prior cases you have presided over, it appears you have routinely granted more time than should be afforded under normal circumstances.

In the following cases, you have provided 72 hours instead of the standard 48 hours for a Defendant's Answer/Plea:

DeltaruneTMRW v. Trentrick_Lamar [2025] DCR 81

Inalite v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 72

Plura72 v. The Department of Construction and Transportation [2025] DCR 80

The Redmondt Gazette v Plura72 [2025] DCR 73

Plura72 v. The Redmont Beach Party et al. [2025] DCR 71

Your Honour's granting of 72 hours is not in keeping with the time granted by other Judicial Officers in this court:

CastoloGR v. Raz0Baz0 [2025] DCR 83

PetitRenard_ v. Department of Construction & Transportation [2025] DCR 78

Sir_Dogeington v. Lolerdabest69 [2025] DCR 77

Commonwealth of Redmont v. Destiny2Guru [2025] DCR 76

RealImza v. Culls [2025] DCR 75

FireMatt_N v. CatBoi27 [2025] DCR 66

louq v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 68

Anthony_org v. Culls [2025] DCR 67

Commonwealth of Redmont v. Inknet [2025] DCR 59

pricelessAgrari v. MysticPhunky [2025] DCR 48

Anthony_Org v. Elderdoor696528 [2025] DCR 54

Judicial Officers in the FCR:

Pepecuu v MattTheSavvy [2025] FCR 100

lucaaasserole v. Department of Public Affairs [2025] FCR 85

lawanoesepr v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 68

Lex Titanum v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 72

Dearev & jb4bass v. Plura72 [2025] FCR 67

Judicial Officers in the SCR:

zLost v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 10

Plura72 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 15

AnimeInc & KattoC324 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 5

I respectfully request Your Honour:

Cease granting 72 hours for Answers, as it is not aligned with Rule 6.6 (Response Times)

Find the Defendant in contempt of court for lack of any advancement towards providing an Answer, and failing to provide an Answer within 48 hours.

On review of the Court Rules, I agree, I've been routinely mis-appropriating the amount of time given for an Answer. Nonetheless, your objection proves a consistency for parties before this Court in front of this Magistrate. In future, I will require 48 hours instead of 72 hours, to be in line with the rest of the Court.

With that being said, Overruled. Plaintiff is not harmed by the Court's misapprehension of the Rule 6.6. The Court afforded the Defendant 72 hours to respond, they have ~23 hours remaining.

Muggy21 · Saturday at 9:16 PM

ToadKing said:
Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

The Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to grant default judgment against the Defendant pursuant to Rule 3.6 of the Court Rules and Procedures.

Rule 3.6 explicitly states:

The Defendant has failed to file any Answer to Complaint whatsoever. Despite being afforded more than sufficient time to respond, the Defendant has not provided affirmations or denials on any of the facts alleged in the Complaint, nor has the Defendant submitted any defences under law or fact. This complete absence of any Answer constitutes a clear failure to include the necessary information required under Rule 3.6.

The Plaintiff's objection regarding the improper granting of 72 hours rather than the standard 48 hours under Rule 6.6 demonstrates that the Defendant has been afforded more than sufficient time to respond. Even with this excessive accommodation, the Defendant has failed to fulfil the most basic procedural requirement of responding to the Complaint.

This case is not complex and does not require extensive time for the Defendant to formulate a response. The Complaint contains only nine facts and relies on three substantive pieces of evidence (P-001, P-002, and P-003), all of which are straightforward screenshots. There are no intricate legal issues that would justify delay - the facts are simple and the law is clear. Moreover, the harm occurred over 70 days ago, and the Plaintiff has waited patiently for the Defendant to engage with these proceedings. The Defendant has had ample time to review this case and prepare even the most basic response. The failure to do so after such an extended period, in a case of such simplicity, leaves no reasonable explanation other than the Defendant's unwillingness to defend against the allegations.

The Defendant's failure to engage with these proceedings is particularly troubling given the representations he made in his application to the DOJ. In his application dated 03 August, 2025 (accepted 07 August, 2025), the Defendant represented himself as someone who "take[/s] things seriously" and promised "if you employ me i will get any court case that i am available to do, done." He further stated, "I get things done... I am serious i get things done," and assured the DOJ that "I think that government jobs and law should always be took seriously."

The Defendant explicitly represented that he is "a good person to work in a team" and committed to completing "every case presented to me."

Yet here, after over 70 days since the incident and despite being granted excessive time to respond, the Defendant has completely failed to participate in these proceedings properly. Instead of filing the required Answer to Complaint, the Defendant has filed two irrelevant objections that demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of court procedure.

His first objection attempted to make substantive legal arguments that belong in an Answer to Complaint, which this Court correctly disregarded.
His second objection was so procedurally deficient that this Court warned him:

Most tellingly, both objections were headed "IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT" despite these proceedings taking place in the District Court - an error that no "professional Attorney that knows what they are doing" would make.

These basic mistakes reveal a fundamental lack of experience and skill that the Defendant claimed to possess in his DOJ application. This stark inconsistency between the Defendant's professional representations and his actual conduct raises serious questions about whether the Defendant intentionally misrepresented his qualifications, character, and commitment to the legal process in his DOJ application.

The Criminal Code Act, Part III, Section 11 prohibits "intentionally misrepresent[ing] their legal credentials, qualifications, or rank" and carries penalties of up to 300 penalty units and 4 months disbarment. Additionally, the Criminal Code Act, Part VII, Section 7 defines Fraud as "knowingly or recklessly misrepresent[ing] or omit[ting] a material fact to another, causing the other party to rely on that misrepresentation, resulting in actual, quantifiable harm."

The Defendant's application to the DOJ contained material representations about his competence ("a professional Attorney that knows what they are doing"), his work ethic ("I get things done... I am serious"), his commitment to law ("government jobs and law should always be took seriously"), and his qualifications to serve as a State Prosecutor. The DOJ relied on these representations when accepting his application and granting him the position of State Prosecutor - a position of significant public trust and responsibility. The Defendant's conduct in these proceedings directly contradicts every material representation he made in his application. This has resulted in quantifiable harm - the DOJ employs an individual who demonstrably lacks the competence and professionalism he claimed, potentially compromising cases and bringing disrepute to the administration of justice.

While this case does not directly concern the Defendant's DOJ application, the Court may wish to recommend that the DOJ investigate whether the Defendant's conduct in these proceedings constitutes evidence of Legal Qualification Fraud and Fraud, as his actions directly contradict the core qualifications and character traits he represented to obtain his position as State Prosecutor.

Your Honour,

For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant default judgment in favour of the Plaintiff on all claims for relief and prayers for relief as stated in the Complaint.

@ElysiaCrynn You shall have 48 hours to respond.

ElysiaCrynn · Sunday at 12:20 AM

Response

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

The Defence respectfully requests that this Court deny the Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment.

1. The Defendant acknowledges the delay in filing a formal Answer to the Complaint. This delay was a direct result of the Defendant seeking and retaining legal counsel to ensure a proper and respectful defence in these proceedings and being informed by the Court that the Defence had 72 hours to submit an answer, which the Court has now re-affirmed.

2. The Defendant fully intends to contest the allegations made by the Plaintiff and believes he has appreciable defences to the claims asserted. A formal Answer to the Complaint is being filed concurrently with this response to demonstrate the Defendant's commitment to litigating this matter on its merits.

3. It is a well-established principle that the law favours the resolution of cases on their merits rather than through procedural defaults. Granting a default judgment at this early stage would unjustly prevent the Defendant from presenting his case.

4. The Plaintiff will suffer no prejudice if this motion is denied and the case proceeds. The Defendant is now represented by counsel and is prepared to adhere strictly to all court rules and deadlines moving forward.

For the reasons above, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment be denied and that the Defendant's Answer to Complaint be accepted.

Answer to Complaint

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

ToadKing
Plaintiff

v.

Culls (represented by ElysiaCrynn)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. AFFIRM
2. AFFIRM
3. AFFIRM that the Defendant’s player model interacted with the Plaintiff’s player model. DENY that this interaction was without provocation in the social context of spawn, or that it constituted a legally significant "unconsented" act.
4. AFFIRM that the statements were made. DENY the Plaintiff's characterization of their intent, as they were made in a jesting and non-malicious manner.
5. AFFIRM that The Plaintiff's player model is of a non-standard height. DENY that this fact automatically makes any interaction humiliating.
6. AFFIRM
7. DENY - The Defendant's conduct was not intended as harassment and was part of a brief, jesting interaction. It was not unprovoked in the context of typical player interactions at spawn and had no malicious purpose.
8. AFFIRM
9. AFFIRM

II. DEFENCES

1. Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted.
The Plaintiff's complaint is founded upon an exaggerated interpretation of a trivial in-game interaction. The alleged actions, a momentary contact between player models at the public spawn, do not rise to the legal standards of "Disturbing the Peace," legally actionable "Humiliation," "Loss of Enjoyment," or "Outrageous Conduct" as defined by the law. There was no loss of health, property, or money. This interaction is a trifle, far below the threshold of what should command the court's valuable time and resources.

2. Lack of Requisite Intent for Disturbing the Peace
The Defendant’s actions and words were not intended to cause genuine harassment, alarm, or distress. The context of the interaction was one of casual, non-serious banter at a public spawn point. The words "[crush] him" were hyperbolic and not a credible threat of harm, akin to playful taunting. The Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the Defendant acted with the malicious intent required to elevate this interaction from a simple joke to a criminal offense.

3. Failure to State a Claim for Disturbing the Peace
The Plaintiff fails to establish that the Defendant's conduct rises to the level of criminal "Disturbing the Peace." The interaction was a brief jest, not "disorderly behavior" intended to cause genuine "harassment, alarm, or distress." A reasonable person would not perceive this momentary horseplay as a genuine threat or a cause for significant distress.

4. Failure to State a Claim for Outrageous Conduct
The Defendant's conduct does not meet the threshold for "outrageous conduct" required for punitive damages, defined as "completely indecent, totally atrocious, and fully intolerable in a civilized community" (Lightiago v. FuriousPaladin [2023] SCR 20). A playful, if clumsy, interaction between player models is in no way comparable to this standard.

5. No Grounds for Consequential Damages
As the underlying actions were not legally wrongful or harmful, there is no basis for the claims of "Humiliation" or "Loss of Enjoyment." The Plaintiff has provided no evidence that they have suffered any lasting or tangible harm, and the assertion that they fear public spaces is unsubstantiated and exaggerated.

6. The Plaintiff's Claims for Damages are Speculative and Exaggerated
The Plaintiff has suffered no actual, quantifiable damages. The claims for "Humiliation" and "Loss of Enjoyment" are entirely subjective, speculative, and fail to meet the standard for consequential damages arising from a harmless in-game action. The Defendant's actions did not result in any loss of health, property, or money for the Plaintiff. The amounts sought are grossly disproportionate to the alleged act.

(a) Humiliation: While the Defendant's actions may have been perceived as rude, they do not rise to a level that warrants legal remedy. Nor has any evidence of this humiliation or its effect on them been provided.
(b) Loss of Enjoyment: The Plaintiff’s claim that this brief incident has diminished their ability to enjoy Redmont and instilled a fear of public spaces is not credible. They have continued to play on the server unaffected since what occurred. This is an exaggerated claim designed to inflate the perceived harm of a trivial event.

The prayer for relief of over $50,000 is absurdly disproportionate to the alleged act and suggests the lawsuit is punitive and filed in bad faith rather than for genuine compensatory purposes.

7. Dismissal of Constitutional Claims
The Plaintiff's first Claim for Relief ("Deprivation of Security") is a constitutional claim. This very claim was reviewed by the Federal Court and found to be without merit, leading to this case being remanded to the District Court precisely because it lacks a valid constitutional dimension. This claim has already been adjudicated as non-viable and must be dismissed.

8. Irrelevance of Defendant's Professional Role
The Plaintiff repeatedly references the Defendant’s former role as a State Prosecutor as an aggravating factor. The Defendant was not acting in his official capacity during this incident. This was a private interaction between two citizens. The Plaintiff's repeated invocation of the Defendant's job title is an improper attempt to prejudice the court and is irrelevant to the civil claims at hand.

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 19th day of October 2025

ElysiaCrynn · Sunday at 12:24 AM

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

The Defence, respectfully moves this Court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety pursuant to Court Rule 5.5 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

ARGUMENT

Even if this Court accepts all of the Plaintiff's factual allegations as true, the Complaint fails to establish a legally cognizable claim for relief. The Plaintiff's entire case rests on a single momentary, non-damaging interaction between two player models, an event so trivial that it should not be worth the Court's consideration.

1. The Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim for Disturbing the Peace
Even taking all of the Plaintiff's allegations as true, the conduct described does not meet the definition of "Disturbing the Peace." A brief, physical interaction at the public spawn, accompanied by two lines of text in chat, does not constitute "disorderly behaviour" that would cause "harassment, alarm, or distress" to a reasonable person within the context of the DemocracyCraft server. The precedent cited, snow_crp v. FearlessNacktmul [2025] DCR 33, involved sustained verbal harassment, which is fundamentally different from the fleeting physical interaction alleged here.

2.The Claims for Damages are Speculative and Unfounded
The Plaintiff’s claims for "Humiliation" and "Loss of Enjoyment" are entirely speculative and unproven. The Plaintiff has not demonstrated any tangible way in which his ability to play the game or his enjoyment of it has been diminished. ~~He continues to participate in government and be active on the server.~~

3. The Conduct is Not Outrageous
The Plaintiff's demand for punitive damages requires "outrageous conduct." As established in precedent, this is reserved for acts that are "totally atrocious." Stepping on a player is not atrocious. It is, at worst, impolite. It is not comparable to acts of theft, assault, or genuine, sustained campaigns of harassment that might warrant such a label.

4. The Constitutional Claim Has Already Been Judicially Rejected
The central pillar of the Plaintiff's argument for the severity of this incident was his constitutional claim of "Deprivation of Security." As this Court is aware, the Federal Court has already reviewed this matter and explicitly determined, "There are no constitutional claims here." That decision is binding.

5. The Claims for Damages Must Fail as a Matter of Law
Because the underlying causes of action (Disturbing the Peace and the barred constitutional claim) are legally insufficient, the Plaintiff's derivative claims for Consequential and Punitive Damages must also be dismissed. There can be no damages awarded where there is no legally recognized harm. The claim for punitive damages is particularly baseless, as the conduct alleged is a far cry from the "atrocious" and "intolerable" standard required by law.

CONCLUSION

The Plaintiff is attempting to use the judicial system to litigate a perceived minor social slight. The alleged actions, even when taken as true, do not constitute a violation of the Constitution, the Criminal Code, or the standards for civil damages. The case lacks legal merit and constitutes a waste of judicial resources.

For these reasons, the Defence respectfully requests that the Court dismiss this case with prejudice.

ToadKing · Sunday at 10:52 AM

ElysiaCrynn said:
Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

The Defence, respectfully moves this Court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety pursuant to Court Rule 5.5 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

ARGUMENT

Even if this Court accepts all of the Plaintiff's factual allegations as true, the Complaint fails to establish a legally cognizable claim for relief. The Plaintiff's entire case rests on a single momentary, non-damaging interaction between two player models, an event so trivial that it should not be worth the Court's consideration.

1. The Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim for Disturbing the Peace
Even taking all of the Plaintiff's allegations as true, the conduct described does not meet the definition of "Disturbing the Peace." A brief, physical interaction at the public spawn, accompanied by two lines of text in chat, does not constitute "disorderly behaviour" that would cause "harassment, alarm, or distress" to a reasonable person within the context of the DemocracyCraft server. The precedent cited, snow_crp v. FearlessNacktmul [2025] DCR 33, involved sustained verbal harassment, which is fundamentally different from the fleeting physical interaction alleged here.

2.The Claims for Damages are Speculative and Unfounded
The Plaintiff’s claims for "Humiliation" and "Loss of Enjoyment" are entirely speculative and unproven. The Plaintiff has not demonstrated any tangible way in which his ability to play the game or his enjoyment of it has been diminished. He continues to participate in government and be active on the server.

3. The Conduct is Not Outrageous
The Plaintiff's demand for punitive damages requires "outrageous conduct." As established in precedent, this is reserved for acts that are "totally atrocious." Stepping on a player is not atrocious. It is, at worst, impolite. It is not comparable to acts of theft, assault, or genuine, sustained campaigns of harassment that might warrant such a label.

4. The Constitutional Claim Has Already Been Judicially Rejected
The central pillar of the Plaintiff's argument for the severity of this incident was his constitutional claim of "Deprivation of Security." As this Court is aware, the Federal Court has already reviewed this matter and explicitly determined, "There are no constitutional claims here." That decision is binding.

5. The Claims for Damages Must Fail as a Matter of Law
Because the underlying causes of action (Disturbing the Peace and the barred constitutional claim) are legally insufficient, the Plaintiff's derivative claims for Consequential and Punitive Damages must also be dismissed. There can be no damages awarded where there is no legally recognized harm. The claim for punitive damages is particularly baseless, as the conduct alleged is a far cry from the "atrocious" and "intolerable" standard required by law.

CONCLUSION

The Plaintiff is attempting to use the judicial system to litigate a perceived minor social slight. The alleged actions, even when taken as true, do not constitute a violation of the Constitution, the Criminal Code, or the standards for civil damages. The case lacks legal merit and constitutes a waste of judicial resources.

For these reasons, the Defence respectfully requests that the Court dismiss this case with prejudice.

Response

The Plaintiff respectfully opposes the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and requests that this Court deny the motion in its entirety.

The Defendant's motion fundamentally mischaracterises the law, misstates the procedural posture of this case, and improperly asks this Court to weigh evidence and make credibility determinations at this early stage.

I. LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTIONS TO DISMISS

A Motion to Dismiss under Rule 5.5 may only be granted if, accepting all factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favour of the Plaintiff, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that no set of facts could possibly support the Plaintiff's claims. The Defendant has failed to meet this burden.

II. THE PLAINTIFF HAS STATED A CLAIM FOR DISTURBING THE PEACE

The Defendant argues that the conduct does not meet the definition of Disturbing the Peace, claiming the interaction was "fleeting" and "fundamentally different" from snow_crp v. FearlessNacktmul [2025] DCR 33. This argument fails for several reasons.

1. The Defendant mischaracterises the Complaint. The alleged conduct was not merely "a brief, physical interaction" but rather a combination of verbal harassment ("step on toad"), premeditated intent, physical interaction (stepping on the Plaintiff), and exploitation of the Plaintiff's notably smaller size in a public setting. The Criminal Code Act, Part V, Section 1 states:

A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) engages in disorderly behavior toward an individual or group that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress.

The Complaint alleges exactly this.

2. The Defendant incorrectly distinguishes [2025] DCR 33 on the grounds that it involved "sustained verbal harassment", while this case involves physical interaction. This distinction actually strengthens the Plaintiff's case, not weakens it. If verbal harassment alone can constitute Disturbing the Peace (as [2025] DCR 33 held), then verbal harassment combined with physical interaction certainly meets the threshold. The Defendant's argument would create the absurd result that adding a physical component to harassment somehow makes it less actionable.

3. The Defendant's argument that this was merely "two lines of text in chat" ignores the physical component entirely and minimises the public humiliation aspect that the District Court in [2025] DCR 33 found particularly significant. The court in [2025] DCR 33 emphasised that "the comments themselves along with the public nature of them is what leads the court to rule this as outrageous behavior." Here, the conduct was equally public and involved both verbal and physical elements.

4. The Plaintiff specifically reserves the right to introduce additional evidence during discovery that will further demonstrate the sustained nature of this harassment and its impact. Discovery has not yet occurred, and dismissing the case at this stage would improperly prevent the Plaintiff from presenting this evidence. A Motion to Dismiss is not the appropriate vehicle for the Defendant to contest the sufficiency of evidence - that is a matter for trial.

III. THE CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES ARE NOT SPECULATIVE

The Defendant argues that the claims for Humiliation and Loss of Enjoyment are "speculative and unproven." This argument fundamentally misunderstands the procedural posture of a Motion to Dismiss.

At this stage, the Plaintiff is not required to prove his damages - he is only required to plausibly allege them. The Legal Damages Act, Section 7(1)(a)(I) and (III) define Humiliation and Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont and explicitly state that such damages "may be proven by witness testimony and reasonable person tests, or any other mechanism the presiding judicial officer considers persuasive." The Plaintiff has alleged that he suffered both forms of damage. Whether the evidence ultimately supports these claims is a question for trial, not for a Motion to Dismiss.

Moreover, the Defendant's assertion that "He continues to participate in government and be active on the server" is factually false and constitutes perjury (see objection filed below). The Plaintiff does not currently hold any government position. The Defendant is attempting to use false statements to dismiss legitimate claims of harm.

IV. WHETHER CONDUCT IS "OUTRAGEOUS" IS A QUESTION FOR THIS COURT

The Defendant argues that the conduct does not meet the threshold for "outrageous conduct" required for punitive damages. This argument asks this Court to make factual and contextual determinations that are inappropriate at this stage.

Whether conduct is "completely indecent, totally atrocious, and fully intolerable in a civilized community" (Lightiago v. FuriousPaladin [2023] SCR 20) is inherently a fact-intensive inquiry that depends on context, intent, and the totality of circumstances. The Plaintiff has alleged:

Physical harassment exploiting a significant size disparity between the Plaintiff and Defendant
Verbal harassment with premeditated intent
Public humiliation
Targeting based on an unchangeable physical characteristic
Conduct by a State Prosecutor who was sworn to uphold constitutional rights

Whether these facts, taken together and in context, constitute "outrageous conduct" is a question this Court must decide after hearing all evidence and argument at trial, not on a Motion to Dismiss. In [2023] SCR 20, the Supreme Court awarded punitive damages for killing another player's camel. In [2025] DCR 33, the District Court awarded punitive damages for verbal harassment alone. The Plaintiff's allegations here are at least as serious, if not more so, given the combination of physical and verbal elements and the Defendant's position of public trust.

V. THE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM HAS NOT BEEN JUDICIALLY REJECTED

The Defendant's most egregious misrepresentation concerns the constitutional claim. The Defendant argues that "the Federal Court has already reviewed this matter and explicitly determined, 'There are no constitutional claims here.' That decision is binding."

This is a deliberate mischaracterisation of the Federal Court's remand order. The FCR stated:

"After conferring with my colleagues, I am remanding this case to the District Court. There are no constitutional claims here that require the Federal Court to preside."

This statement means only that the constitutional claims do not require FCR jurisdiction under the Constitution, Section 18(1)(a) ("Questions of constitutionality"). It does not mean the constitutional claims have no merit or have been dismissed. The FCR was making a jurisdictional determination about which court should hear the case, not a merits determination about the viability of the claims.

This Court retains full authority to adjudicate constitutional claims that fall within its jurisdiction.

Moreover, this Court has made no order striking the constitutional claim from the Complaint. The claim remains properly before this Court and should be adjudicated on its merits after a full hearing, not dismissed on a mischaracterisation of the FCR's jurisdictional ruling.

VI. THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT

The Defendant's characterisation of this case as "a perceived minor social slight" and "a waste of judicial resources" is offensive and incorrect. The Plaintiff has alleged:

A violation of constitutional rights under Section 32(14)
Criminal conduct under the Criminal Code Act
Multiple forms of legally cognizable damages
Conduct by a government official that violated the standards of his office

These are serious allegations supported by evidence. The fact that the Defendant disagrees with the Plaintiff's characterisation of the events does not make the lawsuit frivolous - it makes it a genuine dispute appropriate for judicial resolution.

VII. CONCLUSION

The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss should be denied in its entirety. The Complaint states legally cognizable claims for relief, and the Defendant's arguments either mischaracterise the law, misstate the facts, or ask this Court to make evidentiary determinations inappropriate at this current stage of the case. The Plaintiff is entitled to present his evidence at trial and have his claims adjudicated on their merits.

For these reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

Deny the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss;
Provide a ruling on the outstanding Motion for Default Judgment; and/or
Allow this case to proceed to discovery

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following statement from the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss:

"He continues to participate in government and be active on the server."

The statement constitutes perjury under the Criminal Code Act, Part III, Section 1, which prohibits "knowingly provid[ing] false testimony in a court of law."

The statement that the Plaintiff "continues to participate in government" is factually false. The Plaintiff has continued to hold no government positions as of 19 August 2025 - merely 10 days after the incident occurred on 09 August 2025. The Defence has made this false statement knowing it to be untrue, or with reckless disregard for its truth.

The Defendant is relying on this demonstrably false statement to undermine the Plaintiff's claim for Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont, arguing that because the Plaintiff allegedly "continues to participate in government," he has suffered no harm. This is a material falsehood intended to influence the Court's decision on the merits of the Plaintiff's damages claims.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

Strike the false statement from the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Find the Defendant in contempt of court for knowingly providing false information to the Court
Refer this matter to the DOJ for potential prosecution for perjury under the Criminal Code Act

The Plaintiff further notes that this is not the first instance of procedural misconduct by the Defendant in these proceedings. This demonstrates a pattern of disregard for the judicial process that warrants this Court's serious attention.

Muggy21 · Sunday at 5:15 PM

ToadKing said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following statement from the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss:

The statement constitutes perjury under the Criminal Code Act, Part III, Section 1, which prohibits "knowingly provid[ing] false testimony in a court of law."

The statement that the Plaintiff "continues to participate in government" is factually false. The Plaintiff has continued to hold no government positions as of 19 August 2025 - merely 10 days after the incident occurred on 09 August 2025. The Defence has made this false statement knowing it to be untrue, or with reckless disregard for its truth.

The Defendant is relying on this demonstrably false statement to undermine the Plaintiff's claim for Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont, arguing that because the Plaintiff allegedly "continues to participate in government," he has suffered no harm. This is a material falsehood intended to influence the Court's decision on the merits of the Plaintiff's damages claims.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

Strike the false statement from the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

Find the Defendant in contempt of court for knowingly providing false information to the Court

Refer this matter to the DOJ for potential prosecution for perjury under the Criminal Code Act

The Plaintiff further notes that this is not the first instance of procedural misconduct by the Defendant in these proceedings. This demonstrates a pattern of disregard for the judicial process that warrants this Court's serious attention.

Sustained.
1) Statement is struck, Toad is absolutely not within Government.
2) The statement was not malicious enough to prejudice the Court against Plaintiff, no additional actions will be taken. Defendant's counsel is admonished and advised to be more careful.

Muggy21 · Sunday at 6:07 PM

ToadKing said:
Response

The Plaintiff respectfully opposes the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and requests that this Court deny the motion in its entirety.

The Defendant's motion fundamentally mischaracterises the law, misstates the procedural posture of this case, and improperly asks this Court to weigh evidence and make credibility determinations at this early stage.

I. LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTIONS TO DISMISS
A Motion to Dismiss under Rule 5.5 may only be granted if, accepting all factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favour of the Plaintiff, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that no set of facts could possibly support the Plaintiff's claims. The Defendant has failed to meet this burden.

II. THE PLAINTIFF HAS STATED A CLAIM FOR DISTURBING THE PEACE
The Defendant argues that the conduct does not meet the definition of Disturbing the Peace, claiming the interaction was "fleeting" and "fundamentally different" from snow_crp v. FearlessNacktmul [2025] DCR 33. This argument fails for several reasons.

1. The Defendant mischaracterises the Complaint. The alleged conduct was not merely "a brief, physical interaction" but rather a combination of verbal harassment ("step on toad"), premeditated intent, physical interaction (stepping on the Plaintiff), and exploitation of the Plaintiff's notably smaller size in a public setting. The Criminal Code Act, Part V, Section 1 states:

The Complaint alleges exactly this.

2. The Defendant incorrectly distinguishes [2025] DCR 33 on the grounds that it involved "sustained verbal harassment", while this case involves physical interaction. This distinction actually strengthens the Plaintiff's case, not weakens it. If verbal harassment alone can constitute Disturbing the Peace (as [2025] DCR 33 held), then verbal harassment combined with physical interaction certainly meets the threshold. The Defendant's argument would create the absurd result that adding a physical component to harassment somehow makes it less actionable.

3. The Defendant's argument that this was merely "two lines of text in chat" ignores the physical component entirely and minimises the public humiliation aspect that the District Court in [2025] DCR 33 found particularly significant. The court in [2025] DCR 33 emphasised that "the comments themselves along with the public nature of them is what leads the court to rule this as outrageous behavior." Here, the conduct was equally public and involved both verbal and physical elements.

4. The Plaintiff specifically reserves the right to introduce additional evidence during discovery that will further demonstrate the sustained nature of this harassment and its impact. Discovery has not yet occurred, and dismissing the case at this stage would improperly prevent the Plaintiff from presenting this evidence. A Motion to Dismiss is not the appropriate vehicle for the Defendant to contest the sufficiency of evidence - that is a matter for trial.

III. THE CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES ARE NOT SPECULATIVE
The Defendant argues that the claims for Humiliation and Loss of Enjoyment are "speculative and unproven." This argument fundamentally misunderstands the procedural posture of a Motion to Dismiss.

At this stage, the Plaintiff is not required to prove his damages - he is only required to plausibly allege them. The Legal Damages Act, Section 7(1)(a)(I) and (III) define Humiliation and Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont and explicitly state that such damages "may be proven by witness testimony and reasonable person tests, or any other mechanism the presiding judicial officer considers persuasive." The Plaintiff has alleged that he suffered both forms of damage. Whether the evidence ultimately supports these claims is a question for trial, not for a Motion to Dismiss.

Moreover, the Defendant's assertion that "He continues to participate in government and be active on the server" is factually false and constitutes perjury (see objection filed below). The Plaintiff does not currently hold any government position. The Defendant is attempting to use false statements to dismiss legitimate claims of harm.

IV. WHETHER CONDUCT IS "OUTRAGEOUS" IS A QUESTION FOR THIS COURT
The Defendant argues that the conduct does not meet the threshold for "outrageous conduct" required for punitive damages. This argument asks this Court to make factual and contextual determinations that are inappropriate at this stage.

Whether conduct is "completely indecent, totally atrocious, and fully intolerable in a civilized community" (Lightiago v. FuriousPaladin [2023] SCR 20) is inherently a fact-intensive inquiry that depends on context, intent, and the totality of circumstances. The Plaintiff has alleged:

Physical harassment exploiting a significant size disparity between the Plaintiff and Defendant

Verbal harassment with premeditated intent

Public humiliation

Targeting based on an unchangeable physical characteristic

Conduct by a State Prosecutor who was sworn to uphold constitutional rights

Whether these facts, taken together and in context, constitute "outrageous conduct" is a question this Court must decide after hearing all evidence and argument at trial, not on a Motion to Dismiss. In [2023] SCR 20, the Supreme Court awarded punitive damages for killing another player's camel. In [2025] DCR 33, the District Court awarded punitive damages for verbal harassment alone. The Plaintiff's allegations here are at least as serious, if not more so, given the combination of physical and verbal elements and the Defendant's position of public trust.

V. THE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM HAS NOT BEEN JUDICIALLY REJECTED
The Defendant's most egregious misrepresentation concerns the constitutional claim. The Defendant argues that "the Federal Court has already reviewed this matter and explicitly determined, 'There are no constitutional claims here.' That decision is binding."

This is a deliberate mischaracterisation of the Federal Court's remand order. The FCR stated:

This statement means only that the constitutional claims do not require FCR jurisdiction under the Constitution, Section 18(1)(a) ("Questions of constitutionality"). It does not mean the constitutional claims have no merit or have been dismissed. The FCR was making a jurisdictional determination about which court should hear the case, not a merits determination about the viability of the claims.

This Court retains full authority to adjudicate constitutional claims that fall within its jurisdiction.

Moreover, this Court has made no order striking the constitutional claim from the Complaint. The claim remains properly before this Court and should be adjudicated on its merits after a full hearing, not dismissed on a mischaracterisation of the FCR's jurisdictional ruling.

VI. THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT
The Defendant's characterisation of this case as "a perceived minor social slight" and "a waste of judicial resources" is offensive and incorrect. The Plaintiff has alleged:

A violation of constitutional rights under Section 32(14)

Criminal conduct under the Criminal Code Act

Multiple forms of legally cognizable damages

Conduct by a government official that violated the standards of his office

These are serious allegations supported by evidence. The fact that the Defendant disagrees with the Plaintiff's characterisation of the events does not make the lawsuit frivolous - it makes it a genuine dispute appropriate for judicial resolution.

VII. CONCLUSION
The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss should be denied in its entirety. The Complaint states legally cognizable claims for relief, and the Defendant's arguments either mischaracterise the law, misstate the facts, or ask this Court to make evidentiary determinations inappropriate at this current stage of the case. The Plaintiff is entitled to present his evidence at trial and have his claims adjudicated on their merits.

For these reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

Deny the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss;

Provide a ruling on the outstanding Motion for Default Judgment; and/or

Allow this case to proceed to discovery

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

Movant prays for dismissal on several grounds and Non-movant responds in opposition on several grounds. The Court performs its analysis relying on both parties' submissions.
On Defendant's points, the Court will respond individually for clarity.

1) The qualities of the interactions alleged in the Complaint are not so easily dismissed; Disturbing the Peace is a broadly defined offense under the Criminal Code Act, the Court must act cautiously in its interpretation.

2) Plaintiff has an opportunity to be heard on the Humiliation and Loss of Enjoyment arguments risen during Discovery; To dismiss the case as this venture would be premature. The Court will keep this argument in mind.

3) (See #2 rationale)

4) The Court made no such ruling. The FCR's remand to the DCR does not confer on this Court any obligation nor inference as to its reasons.

5) This is a question that must be answered after a fact-finding exercise, not with a dispositive motion.

Motion denied in its entirety.

~So ordered,
Magistrate Mug.

Muggy21 · Sunday at 6:09 PM

ToadKing said:
Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

The Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to grant default judgment against the Defendant pursuant to Rule 3.6 of the Court Rules and Procedures.

Rule 3.6 explicitly states:

The Defendant has failed to file any Answer to Complaint whatsoever. Despite being afforded more than sufficient time to respond, the Defendant has not provided affirmations or denials on any of the facts alleged in the Complaint, nor has the Defendant submitted any defences under law or fact. This complete absence of any Answer constitutes a clear failure to include the necessary information required under Rule 3.6.

The Plaintiff's objection regarding the improper granting of 72 hours rather than the standard 48 hours under Rule 6.6 demonstrates that the Defendant has been afforded more than sufficient time to respond. Even with this excessive accommodation, the Defendant has failed to fulfil the most basic procedural requirement of responding to the Complaint.

This case is not complex and does not require extensive time for the Defendant to formulate a response. The Complaint contains only nine facts and relies on three substantive pieces of evidence (P-001, P-002, and P-003), all of which are straightforward screenshots. There are no intricate legal issues that would justify delay - the facts are simple and the law is clear. Moreover, the harm occurred over 70 days ago, and the Plaintiff has waited patiently for the Defendant to engage with these proceedings. The Defendant has had ample time to review this case and prepare even the most basic response. The failure to do so after such an extended period, in a case of such simplicity, leaves no reasonable explanation other than the Defendant's unwillingness to defend against the allegations.

The Defendant's failure to engage with these proceedings is particularly troubling given the representations he made in his application to the DOJ. In his application dated 03 August, 2025 (accepted 07 August, 2025), the Defendant represented himself as someone who "take[/s] things seriously" and promised "if you employ me i will get any court case that i am available to do, done." He further stated, "I get things done... I am serious i get things done," and assured the DOJ that "I think that government jobs and law should always be took seriously."

The Defendant explicitly represented that he is "a good person to work in a team" and committed to completing "every case presented to me."

Yet here, after over 70 days since the incident and despite being granted excessive time to respond, the Defendant has completely failed to participate in these proceedings properly. Instead of filing the required Answer to Complaint, the Defendant has filed two irrelevant objections that demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of court procedure.

His first objection attempted to make substantive legal arguments that belong in an Answer to Complaint, which this Court correctly disregarded.
His second objection was so procedurally deficient that this Court warned him:

Most tellingly, both objections were headed "IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT" despite these proceedings taking place in the District Court - an error that no "professional Attorney that knows what they are doing" would make.

These basic mistakes reveal a fundamental lack of experience and skill that the Defendant claimed to possess in his DOJ application. This stark inconsistency between the Defendant's professional representations and his actual conduct raises serious questions about whether the Defendant intentionally misrepresented his qualifications, character, and commitment to the legal process in his DOJ application.

The Criminal Code Act, Part III, Section 11 prohibits "intentionally misrepresent[ing] their legal credentials, qualifications, or rank" and carries penalties of up to 300 penalty units and 4 months disbarment. Additionally, the Criminal Code Act, Part VII, Section 7 defines Fraud as "knowingly or recklessly misrepresent[ing] or omit[ting] a material fact to another, causing the other party to rely on that misrepresentation, resulting in actual, quantifiable harm."

The Defendant's application to the DOJ contained material representations about his competence ("a professional Attorney that knows what they are doing"), his work ethic ("I get things done... I am serious"), his commitment to law ("government jobs and law should always be took seriously"), and his qualifications to serve as a State Prosecutor. The DOJ relied on these representations when accepting his application and granting him the position of State Prosecutor - a position of significant public trust and responsibility. The Defendant's conduct in these proceedings directly contradicts every material representation he made in his application. This has resulted in quantifiable harm - the DOJ employs an individual who demonstrably lacks the competence and professionalism he claimed, potentially compromising cases and bringing disrepute to the administration of justice.

While this case does not directly concern the Defendant's DOJ application, the Court may wish to recommend that the DOJ investigate whether the Defendant's conduct in these proceedings constitutes evidence of Legal Qualification Fraud and Fraud, as his actions directly contradict the core qualifications and character traits he represented to obtain his position as State Prosecutor.

Your Honour,

For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant default judgment in favour of the Plaintiff on all claims for relief and prayers for relief as stated in the Complaint.

Denied, insofar only as the Defendant's submission was not untimely. (This Court granted 72 hours)

The other arguments raised in this motion are acknowledged and the Court reserves its opinion on them.

ToadKing · Sunday at 6:15 PM

ToadKing said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your Honour,

P-002 pertains to the size of the Plaintiff, as well as his role at the time of the act.
It is directly referenced in Facts 5 & 9:

P-002 clearly shows the Plaintiff (on the right), next to a regular-sized player (on the left).
It further shows the Plaintiffs' tag of "Rep" - highlighting their role (Representative) at the time.

The Defendant, by stating so brazenly with confidence, that "This evidence is not relevant to the issue at hand because it does not pertain to the facts of the case", is undoubtedly lying to this court in an attempt to throw out relevant evidence. Such action is most abhorrent to the fair adjudication of this case that it warrants sanctions.

I ask Your Honour to strike the objection from the record and hold the Defendant in contempt of court, as well as refer the matter to the DoJ for a charge of Perjury (if the court deems it worthwhile).

Your Honour,
I believe this objection is still outstanding and requires a ruling.

Muggy21 · Sunday at 6:40 PM

ToadKing said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your Honour,

P-002 pertains to the size of the Plaintiff, as well as his role at the time of the act.
It is directly referenced in Facts 5 & 9:

P-002 clearly shows the Plaintiff (on the right), next to a regular-sized player (on the left).
It further shows the Plaintiffs' tag of "Rep" - highlighting their role (Representative) at the time.

The Defendant, by stating so brazenly with confidence, that "This evidence is not relevant to the issue at hand because it does not pertain to the facts of the case", is undoubtedly lying to this court in an attempt to throw out relevant evidence. Such action is most abhorrent to the fair adjudication of this case that it warrants sanctions.

I ask Your Honour to strike the objection from the record and hold the Defendant in contempt of court, as well as refer the matter to the DoJ for a charge of Perjury (if the court deems it worthwhile).

Sustained.
The Court will not refer Culls to the DoJ for Perjury, it doesn't rise to that level.
With that being said, the Court holds Culls in Contempt of Court.
In review of the post history for the objection made by Culls, the Court takes note that the original submission by Culls was actually an Answer heavily edited down into an Objection.

If a post is ever made in error, a party should promptly advise the Court of the error. Attempting to edit away a post like this is HIGHLY improper.

The Court will fine Culls $1,000 and order him to jail for 10 minutes.

Muggy21 · Sunday at 6:42 PM

@ToadKing @ElysiaCrynn

Discovery is now open, this period shall last 5 days

Ending on October 24th, 2025 @ 6:30PM EST.

If Parties wish to close Discovery early, please advise the Court. If witnesses are requested, please briefly explain the reason for their inclusion.

Furthermore, in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings may be held in Contempt of Court.

ToadKing · Sunday at 7:01 PM

Evidence

Pursuant to Rule 4.6 (Submission of Discovery, Voluntarily), the Plaintiff submits the following into evidence:

ToadKing · Sunday at 7:03 PM

Pursuant to Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Plaintiff requests the Defendant to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

1. All DOJ training materials, handbooks, or policy documents provided to you upon your appointment as State Prosecutor in August 2025.

ToadKing · Sunday at 7:12 PM

Pursuant to Rule 3.3 (Amendment to Complaint), the Plaintiff amends the Facts section of the Complaint as follows:

II. FACTS

1. On or around 00:10 UTC+1, on the 9th August 2025, Plaintiff was lying on the floor at spawn.
2. Defendant deliberately approached the Plaintiff's location.
3. On or around 00:39 UTC+1, on the 9th August 2025, Defendant then intentionally stepped on and jumped on the Plaintiff's person without consent or provocation. (P-001)
4. Defendant made statements in chat, including "i'm step[p]ing on toad" and "[crush] him," (P-001)
5. Plaintiff is not the normal height of a regular player, making this conduct particularly humiliating. (P-002)
6. Defendant is of the normal player height, creating a significant size disparity. (P-003)
7. Defendant's conduct was unprovoked, intentional, and served no legitimate purpose besides harassment.
8. At the time of the incident, the Defendant held the position of State Prosecutor. (P-001)
9. At the time of the incident, the Plaintiff was a sitting member of the House of Representatives. (P-002)
10. On or around 12 October 2025, Defendant stated in global-chat to the Plaintiff: "and i want to crush your bones toad" and "im glad i stepped on you" (P-005)
11. On or around 13 October 2025, Defendant stated in global-chat to the Plaintiff: "Toad i hate you, i wish you left this server, and im glad you got stepped on" (P-006)

These amendments are made to include the two new pieces of evidence submitted here.

ToadKing · Sunday at 7:15 PM

Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Plaintiff submits the following interrogatories, which the Defendant must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability:

1. On or around 00:39 UTC+1, on the 9th August 2025, you affirmed that you "caused your player model to physically interact with the Plaintiff's player model" by stepping on him. Explain in detail why you took this action, including what you intended to accomplish from this action.

2. In your Answer to Complaint, you characterise your actions as "playful taunting," "jesting," "casual, non-serious banter," and "A playful, if clumsy, interaction between player models." Between 12-13 October, 2025, you stated to the Plaintiff: "Toad i hate you, i wish you left this server, and im glad you got stepped on" and "i want to crush your bones toad" and "im glad i stepped on you" (P-005, P-006). Explain how these statements on 12-13 October, 2025, are consistent with your characterisation of your August 2025 actions as "playful" and "jesting."

3. You were employed as a State Prosecutor at the time you stepped on the Plaintiff. In your DOJ application, you stated "I think that government jobs and law should always be took seriously" and committed to upholding integrity. Explain how stepping on another citizen, which you now characterise as "playful taunting," is consistent with the integrity and seriousness you promised to bring to your position as a State Prosecutor.

4. You state in your Answer that your actions were "not unprovoked in the context of typical player interactions at spawn." Describe in detail what provocation, if any, the Plaintiff provided that justified you stepping on him.

ElysiaCrynn · 2025-10-21T17:06:27-0400

ToadKing said:
Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Plaintiff submits the following interrogatories, which the Defendant must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability:

1. On or around 00:39 UTC+1, on the 9th August 2025, you affirmed that you "caused your player model to physically interact with the Plaintiff's player model" by stepping on him. Explain in detail why you took this action, including what you intended to accomplish from this action.

2. In your Answer to Complaint, you characterise your actions as "playful taunting," "jesting," "casual, non-serious banter," and "A playful, if clumsy, interaction between player models." Between 12-13 October, 2025, you stated to the Plaintiff: "Toad i hate you, i wish you left this server, and im glad you got stepped on" and "i want to crush your bones toad" and "im glad i stepped on you" (P-005, P-006). Explain how these statements on 12-13 October, 2025, are consistent with your characterisation of your August 2025 actions as "playful" and "jesting."

3. You were employed as a State Prosecutor at the time you stepped on the Plaintiff. In your DOJ application, you stated "I think that government jobs and law should always be took seriously" and committed to upholding integrity. Explain how stepping on another citizen, which you now characterise as "playful taunting," is consistent with the integrity and seriousness you promised to bring to your position as a State Prosecutor.

4. You state in your Answer that your actions were "not unprovoked in the context of typical player interactions at spawn." Describe in detail what provocation, if any, the Plaintiff provided that justified you stepping on him.

The Defendant provides the following answers:

~~1. "I was intending to walk around, then I realised I stepped on him, said those words as a joke, then got off of him."~~

2. "He was ruining my reputation by creating a webpage that was known as Image and making me look like a horrible person. I however used staff to take this down."

3. "This was an accident as mentioned above, I did say those words like "im stepping on toad" but, I got off him right after sending the message. This is never mentioned in the laws or the doj policys."

~~4. "He was messing with me, so I did what everyone else did that day, stepping on him."~~

ElysiaCrynn · 2025-10-21T17:07:17-0400

ToadKing said:
Pursuant to Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Plaintiff requests the Defendant to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

1. All DOJ training materials, handbooks, or policy documents provided to you upon your appointment as State Prosecutor in August 2025.

In regards to the DOJ training materials the Defendant answers:
"I was only offered basic doj policys, training from senior prosecutors."

The Defendant claims to no longer have access to this material due to his removal from this role.

ToadKing · 2025-10-21T19:24:11-0400

ElysiaCrynn said:
The Defendant provides the following answers:

1. "I was intending to walk around, then I realised I stepped on him, said those words as a joke, then got off of him."

2. "He was ruining my reputation by creating a webpage that was known as Image and making me look like a horrible person. I however used staff to take this down."

3. "This was an accident as mentioned above, I did say those words like "im stepping on toad" but, I got off him right after sending the message. This is never mentioned in the laws or the doj policys."

4. "He was messing with me, so I did what everyone else did that day, stepping on him."

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the Defendant's Answer to Interrogatory No. 1, specifically the statement:

"I was intending to walk around, then I realised I stepped on him"

This statement constitutes perjury under the Criminal Code Act, Part III, Section 1, which prohibits "knowingly provid[ing] false testimony in a court of law."

The Defendant's statement directly contradicts his own sworn Answer to Complaint. In his Answer to Complaint, Section I, Fact 2, the Defendant affirmed:

2. Defendant deliberately approached the Plaintiff's location.

The Defendant cannot simultaneously have "deliberately approached the Plaintiff's location" and also claim he was merely "intending to walk around" and only "realised I stepped on him" after the fact. These statements are mutually exclusive. A person who "deliberately approaches" a location is not someone who accidentally walks there without intention.

This material contradiction demonstrates that the Defendant has knowingly provided false testimony to this Court. The Defendant affirmed a deliberate approach in his Answer to Complaint to avoid admitting premeditation, but now claims it was accidental in his Interrogatory Answer to minimise culpability. He cannot have it both ways.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

Strike the Defendant's Answer to Interrogatory No. 1
Find the Defendant in contempt of court for knowingly providing contradictory sworn testimony
Draw an adverse inference that the Defendant's actions were deliberate and premeditated, as he originally affirmed
Refer this matter to the DOJ for potential prosecution for perjury under the Criminal Code Act

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE, IMPROPER EVIDENCE

The Plaintiff objects to the Defendant's Answer to Interrogatory No. 2 because it is non-responsive and constitutes improper evidence.

Interrogatory No. 2 asked the Defendant to:

"Explain how these statements on 12-13 October, 2025, are consistent with your characterisation of your August 2025 actions as 'playful' and 'jesting.'"

The Defendant's answer was:

"He was ruining my reputation by creating a webpage that was known as Image and making me look like a horrible person. I however used staff to take this down."

This answer does not address the question asked. The question did not ask why the Defendant made hostile statements in October 2025. The question asked the Defendant to explain how statements expressing hatred toward the Plaintiff ("I hate you, i wish you left this server") and desires for violence ("i want to crush your bones toad") are consistent with his characterization of the August 2025 incident as "playful," "jesting," and "casual, non-serious banter."

The Defendant has provided a supposed justification for his anger toward the Plaintiff in October 2025, but has completely failed to reconcile that anger with his claim that the original incident in August 2025 was non-malicious. If the Defendant harbours such intense hostility toward the Plaintiff that he wishes the Plaintiff would "leave this server" and wants to "crush [his] bones," this directly contradicts the assertion that stepping on the Plaintiff in August was merely "playful taunting."

Furthermore, the Defendant references "a webpage" and claims this was the reason for his October statements. However, the Defendant has not submitted any evidence of this alleged webpage during discovery.

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.

The Defendant's Answer to Complaint made no mention of any webpage. The Defendant has not properly submitted the alleged webpage as evidence during discovery. The Defendant is now attempting to introduce new factual claims through interrogatory answers without a proper evidentiary foundation, in violation of Court Rules. Moreover, even if this webpage existed, it does not answer the question of how the October statements are consistent with characterising the August incident as "a playful, if clumsy, interaction"

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

Find the Defendant's Answer to Interrogatory No. 2 non-responsive and strike it for constituting improper evidence
Compel the Defendant to provide a proper answer to Interrogatory No. 2

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, IMPROPER EVIDENCE, SPECULATION

The Plaintiff objects to the Defendant's Answer to Interrogatory No. 4 because it assumes facts not in evidence, constitutes improper evidence, and contains speculation.

The Defendant's answer states:

"He was messing with me, so I did what everyone else did that day, stepping on him."

The Defendant makes two unsupported factual assertions:

1. The Defendant claims "everyone else [was doing] that day, stepping on him." The Defendant has provided no evidence whatsoever that any other player stepped on the Plaintiff on 9 August 2025. The photographic evidence (P-001) shows only the Defendant stepping on the Plaintiff. No evidence has been submitted showing that "everyone else" engaged in this conduct. This appears to be a fabricated fact designed to minimise the Defendant's culpability by falsely suggesting his conduct was merely a response to what others were doing.

2. The Defendant claims the Plaintiff was "messing with" him on August 9, 2025, but provides no details about what this alleged conduct consisted of or when it occurred. Based on the Defendant's Answer to Interrogatory No. 2, the only incident the Defendant can point to is a website created in October 2025 - two months after the 9 August 2025 incident. The Defendant cannot claim that the October 2025 events provoked his August 2025 conduct. The temporal impossibility of this claim reveals it as a fabrication.

The Defendant's Answer to Complaint made no mention of the Plaintiff "messing with" the Defendant on 9 August 2025, or of "everyone else" stepping on the Plaintiff. The Defendant has not submitted any evidence during discovery to support these assertions. The Defendant is now attempting to introduce new factual claims through interrogatory answers without a proper evidentiary foundation, in violation of Court Rules.

The Defendant's claim that he "did what everyone else did that day" is pure speculation without any evidentiary basis. The Defendant has not identified who these other individuals were, has not provided timestamps or evidence of their actions, and has not explained how he knew what "everyone else" was allegedly doing. This speculative assertion is an improper attempt to excuse his conduct by inventing a social context that did not exist.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

Strike the Defendant's Answer to Interrogatory No. 4 in its entirety for assuming facts not in evidence, constituting improper evidence, and containing speculation
Compel the Defendant to provide a proper answer to Interrogatory No. 4

Muggy21 · 2025-10-22T14:33:22-0400

ToadKing said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the Defendant's Answer to Interrogatory No. 1, specifically the statement:

This statement constitutes perjury under the Criminal Code Act, Part III, Section 1, which prohibits "knowingly provid[ing] false testimony in a court of law."

The Defendant's statement directly contradicts his own sworn Answer to Complaint. In his Answer to Complaint, Section I, Fact 2, the Defendant affirmed:

The Defendant cannot simultaneously have "deliberately approached the Plaintiff's location" and also claim he was merely "intending to walk around" and only "realised I stepped on him" after the fact. These statements are mutually exclusive. A person who "deliberately approaches" a location is not someone who accidentally walks there without intention.

This material contradiction demonstrates that the Defendant has knowingly provided false testimony to this Court. The Defendant affirmed a deliberate approach in his Answer to Complaint to avoid admitting premeditation, but now claims it was accidental in his Interrogatory Answer to minimise culpability. He cannot have it both ways.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

Strike the Defendant's Answer to Interrogatory No. 1

Find the Defendant in contempt of court for knowingly providing contradictory sworn testimony

Draw an adverse inference that the Defendant's actions were deliberate and premeditated, as he originally affirmed

Refer this matter to the DOJ for potential prosecution for perjury under the Criminal Code Act

Sustained.

Defendant's Answer to Interrogatory Q1 is struck. The Court will draw an adverse inference from the Defendant's contradiction.

All other requests declined.

Muggy21 · 2025-10-22T14:41:45-0400

ToadKing said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE, IMPROPER EVIDENCE

The Plaintiff objects to the Defendant's Answer to Interrogatory No. 2 because it is non-responsive and constitutes improper evidence.

Interrogatory No. 2 asked the Defendant to:

The Defendant's answer was:

This answer does not address the question asked. The question did not ask why the Defendant made hostile statements in October 2025. The question asked the Defendant to explain how statements expressing hatred toward the Plaintiff ("I hate you, i wish you left this server") and desires for violence ("i want to crush your bones toad") are consistent with his characterization of the August 2025 incident as "playful," "jesting," and "casual, non-serious banter."

The Defendant has provided a supposed justification for his anger toward the Plaintiff in October 2025, but has completely failed to reconcile that anger with his claim that the original incident in August 2025 was non-malicious. If the Defendant harbours such intense hostility toward the Plaintiff that he wishes the Plaintiff would "leave this server" and wants to "crush [his] bones," this directly contradicts the assertion that stepping on the Plaintiff in August was merely "playful taunting."

Furthermore, the Defendant references "a webpage" and claims this was the reason for his October statements. However, the Defendant has not submitted any evidence of this alleged webpage during discovery.

Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use) states:

The Defendant's Answer to Complaint made no mention of any webpage. The Defendant has not properly submitted the alleged webpage as evidence during discovery. The Defendant is now attempting to introduce new factual claims through interrogatory answers without a proper evidentiary foundation, in violation of Court Rules. Moreover, even if this webpage existed, it does not answer the question of how the October statements are consistent with characterising the August incident as "a playful, if clumsy, interaction"

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

Find the Defendant's Answer to Interrogatory No. 2 non-responsive and strike it for constituting improper evidence

Compel the Defendant to provide a proper answer to Interrogatory No. 2

Overruled.

The Court will not consider the referenced website or its contents absent a proper entry through discovery. Notwithstanding this, the Court finds the Plaintiff’s inquiry unclear. The incidents alleged, the controversy in August and the speech in October, are capable of being characterized as separate and independent occurrences. The Plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated a direct correlation between the two, and the Court declines to conflate them without a clearer evidentiary basis.

ToadKing said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, IMPROPER EVIDENCE, SPECULATION

The Plaintiff objects to the Defendant's Answer to Interrogatory No. 4 because it assumes facts not in evidence, constitutes improper evidence, and contains speculation.

The Defendant's answer states:

The Defendant makes two unsupported factual assertions:

1. The Defendant claims "everyone else [was doing] that day, stepping on him." The Defendant has provided no evidence whatsoever that any other player stepped on the Plaintiff on 9 August 2025. The photographic evidence (P-001) shows only the Defendant stepping on the Plaintiff. No evidence has been submitted showing that "everyone else" engaged in this conduct. This appears to be a fabricated fact designed to minimise the Defendant's culpability by falsely suggesting his conduct was merely a response to what others were doing.

2. The Defendant claims the Plaintiff was "messing with" him on August 9, 2025, but provides no details about what this alleged conduct consisted of or when it occurred. Based on the Defendant's Answer to Interrogatory No. 2, the only incident the Defendant can point to is a website created in October 2025 - two months after the 9 August 2025 incident. The Defendant cannot claim that the October 2025 events provoked his August 2025 conduct. The temporal impossibility of this claim reveals it as a fabrication.

The Defendant's Answer to Complaint made no mention of the Plaintiff "messing with" the Defendant on 9 August 2025, or of "everyone else" stepping on the Plaintiff. The Defendant has not submitted any evidence during discovery to support these assertions. The Defendant is now attempting to introduce new factual claims through interrogatory answers without a proper evidentiary foundation, in violation of Court Rules.

The Defendant's claim that he "did what everyone else did that day" is pure speculation without any evidentiary basis. The Defendant has not identified who these other individuals were, has not provided timestamps or evidence of their actions, and has not explained how he knew what "everyone else" was allegedly doing. This speculative assertion is an improper attempt to excuse his conduct by inventing a social context that did not exist.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

Strike the Defendant's Answer to Interrogatory No. 4 in its entirety for assuming facts not in evidence, constituting improper evidence, and containing speculation

Compel the Defendant to provide a proper answer to Interrogatory No. 4

Sustained. The Answer to Q4 is struck.

@ElysiaCrynn Your original answer to Interrogatory Q4 is struck. You are ordered by this Court to produce an answer by the end of Discovery.

Lawsuit: Pending ToadKing v. Culls [2025] DCR 82

Illegal Lawyer

Case Filing

I. PARTIES​

II. FACTS​

​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. Deprivation of Security​

​

2. Disturbing the Peace​

​

3. Humiliation​

​

4. Loss of Enjoyment​

​

5. Outrageous Conduct​

​

6. Violation of DOJ Standards​

​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

​

EVIDENCE:​

Attachments

Head Clown

Citizen

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVII

Citizen

Writ of Summons

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Objection

Illegal Lawyer

Objection

Response

Citizen

Objection

Citizen

Response

Illegal Lawyer

Illegal Lawyer

Citizen

Head Clown

Illegal Lawyer

Objection

Citizen

Objection

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVII

Citizen

Citizen

Objection

Citizen

Objection

Illegal Lawyer

Objection

Objection

Citizen

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVII

Citizen

Illegal Lawyer

Objection

Motion

Citizen

Objection

Citizen

Motion

Citizen

Response

Answer to Complaint

Citizen

Motion

Illegal Lawyer

Motion

Response

I. LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTIONS TO DISMISS​

II. THE PLAINTIFF HAS STATED A CLAIM FOR DISTURBING THE PEACE​

III. THE CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES ARE NOT SPECULATIVE​

IV. WHETHER CONDUCT IS "OUTRAGEOUS" IS A QUESTION FOR THIS COURT​

V. THE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM HAS NOT BEEN JUDICIALLY REJECTED​

VI. THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT​

I. PARTIES

II. FACTS

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Deprivation of Security

2. Disturbing the Peace

3. Humiliation

4. Loss of Enjoyment

5. Outrageous Conduct

6. Violation of DOJ Standards

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

EVIDENCE:

I. LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTIONS TO DISMISS

II. THE PLAINTIFF HAS STATED A CLAIM FOR DISTURBING THE PEACE

III. THE CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES ARE NOT SPECULATIVE

IV. WHETHER CONDUCT IS "OUTRAGEOUS" IS A QUESTION FOR THIS COURT

V. THE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM HAS NOT BEEN JUDICIALLY REJECTED

VI. THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT

VII. CONCLUSION

I. LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTIONS TO DISMISS

II. THE PLAINTIFF HAS STATED A CLAIM FOR DISTURBING THE PEACE

III. THE CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES ARE NOT SPECULATIVE

IV. WHETHER CONDUCT IS "OUTRAGEOUS" IS A QUESTION FOR THIS COURT

V. THE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM HAS NOT BEEN JUDICIALLY REJECTED

VI. THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT

VII. CONCLUSION

II. FACTS