Lawsuit: Pending ToadKing v. Culls

[ToadKing]

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)

​

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:​

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

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]

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