Lawsuit: Dismissed ToadKing v. RealImza [2025] DCR 88

[ToadKing]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

ToadKing
Plaintiff

v.

Sofia2750, EATB, RealImza, and RaiTheGuy07
Defendants

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendants as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

Between 14 October 2025 and 01 November 2025, I was repeatedly and deliberately stepped on by the Defendants. These incidents occurred after I had publicly filed a lawsuit on 7 October 2025 (ToadKing v. Culls [2025] DCR 82) making clear that I did not consent to being stepped on and found such conduct distressing. Despite this public notice, the Defendants deliberately engaged in a sustained campaign of harassment by repeatedly stepping on me over a period of seventeen days.

This sustained harassment over seventeen days, involving twelve separate incidents by four different individuals, constitutes Disturbing the Peace under the Criminal Code Act. Each Defendant knew or should have known that their conduct was unwanted and distressing, yet they continued anyway. Their actions have made it impossible for me to peacefully enjoy public spaces on Redmont.

I. PARTIES​

1. ToadKing
2. Sofia2750
3. EATB
4. RealImza
5. RaiTheGuy07

​

II. FACTS​

1. On or around 07 October 2025, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the District Court (ToadKing v. Culls [2025] DCR 82) alleging that he had been stepped on in August 2025, causing him distress and humiliation.
2. The filing of this lawsuit was public.
3. Through this lawsuit, the Plaintiff made clear that he did not consent to being stepped on and that such conduct caused him distress.
4. On or around 19 October 2025, instruments were introduced to Redmont, allowing players to play music.
5. Following this introduction, the Plaintiff spent considerable time at the spawn playing music to entertain other citizens. (P-057)
6. The Plaintiff is significantly smaller than the average player on Redmont, a fact established in ToadKing v. Culls [2025] DCR 82
7. On or around 14 October 2025, at approximately 18:22, Defendant Sofia2750 deliberately stepped on the Plaintiff at spawn. This incident was witnessed by at least one other player. (P-055, P-056)
8. On or around 25 October 2025, at approximately 20:52, Defendant Sofia2750 deliberately stepped on the Plaintiff at spawn. (P-001, P-002, P-003, P-004)
9. At the time of the 25 October 2025 incident at 20:52, the spawn had at least five other people present. (P-005)
10. On or around 25 October 2025, at approximately 20:54, Defendant Sofia2750 deliberately stepped on the Plaintiff at spawn. Defendant EATB was present and witnessed this incident. (P-006, P-007, P-008, P-009, P-010)
11. On or around 28 October 2025, at approximately 20:52, Defendant Sofia2750 deliberately stepped on the Plaintiff at spawn. (P-028, P-029, P-030, P-031)
12. On or around 31 October 2025, at approximately 20:56, Defendant Sofia2750 deliberately stepped on the Plaintiff at spawn. (P-037, P-038, P-039, P-040, P-041, P-042)
13. On or around 25 October 2025, at approximately 20:55, Defendant EATB deliberately stepped on the Plaintiff at spawn. (P-011, P-012, P-013, P-014)
14. On or around 25 October 2025, at approximately 20:58, Defendant EATB deliberately stepped on the Plaintiff at spawn. (P-015, P-016)
15. On or around 25 October 2025, at approximately 20:59, Defendant EATB deliberately stepped on the Plaintiff at spawn while stating "im trying to get a lawsuit." (P-017, P-018, P-019, P-020, P-021, P-022, P-023, P-024)
16. On or around 28 October 2025, at approximately 20:52, Defendant EATB deliberately stepped on the Plaintiff. (P-025, P-026, P-027)
17. On or around 31 October 2025, at approximately 17:04, the Plaintiff explicitly told Defendant EATB that he was going to be taking legal action against everyone who ever stepped on him. (P-049, P-050, P-051, P-052, P-053)
18. Immediately after the Plaintiff's statement in Fact 17, Defendant EATB deliberately stepped on the Plaintiff in the polling place. (P-054, P-055)
19. When the Plaintiff responded "why :/" and stated "I don't like being stepped on," Defendant EATB responded with "lol". (P-056)
20. On or around 01 November 2025, at approximately 20:06, Defendant RealImza stepped on the Plaintiff at spawn. (P-032, P-033, P-034, P-035, P-036)
21. While stepping on the Plaintiff, Defendant RealImza claimed to have "tripped" on the Plaintiff, stating "SORRY," "TRIPPED," and "TRIPPING SO MUCH".
22. On or around 01 November 2025, at approximately 16:48, Defendant RaiTheGuy07 deliberately stepped on the Plaintiff in the polling place. (P-043, P-044, P-045, P-046, P-047)
23. When asked by the Plaintiff why he had stepped on him, Defendant RaiTheGuy07 stated: "it was a leprechaun ritutal [sic] to find the pot of gold " (P-048)
24. Defendant RaiTheGuy07 then gave the Plaintiff 1 gold ingot, apparently believing this somehow excused or compensated for the unwanted physical contact.
25. In total, over a period of seventeen days (14 October 2025 - 01 November 2025), the Plaintiff was deliberately stepped on twelve separate times by four different Defendants.
26. All of these incidents occurred after the Plaintiff had publicly filed a lawsuit, making clear that being stepped on caused him distress and was unwanted conduct.
27. The Defendants' repeated conduct, despite knowledge that it was unwanted, constitutes sustained harassment of the Plaintiff.
28. This sustained harassment has interfered with the Plaintiff's ability to peacefully enjoy public spaces on Redmont, including his ability to play music for other citizens at spawn.
29. The District Court issued its verdict in ToadKing v. Culls [2025] DCR 82, finding that the Defendant in that case had committed Disturbing the Peace under the Criminal Code Act, Part V, Section 1. The Court awarded $5,000 in consequential damages for the violation of the Criminal Code Act

​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

The Defendants' conduct constitutes Disturbing the Peace under the Criminal Code Act, Part V, Section 1, which 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.

In ToadKing v. Culls [2025] DCR 82, this Court found that Disturbing the Peace occurred based on two key factors: (1) the August 2025 stepping incident itself, and (2) the October 2025 statements that demonstrated the harassment was sustained and intentional rather than accidental or playful.

The Court ruled:

The October behaviours were not accidental, incidental, or playful; it was directed at the Plaintiff as an act of harassment. A reasonable person in the Plaintiff’s position would experience harassment, as the conduct involved both unwanted physical contact and verbal fixation.

While the present case lacks the verbal harassment element present in [2025] DCR 82, it far exceeds [2025] DCR 82 in other critical respects that demonstrate sustained harassment:

First, the public lawsuit served the same function as the October statements in [2025] DCR 82. Just as the October statements in [2025] DCR 82 proved the August conduct was intentional harassment, the public filing of [2025] DCR 82 on 07 October 2025 put the entire community on notice that stepping on the Plaintiff was unwanted, distressing, and legally actionable. Every incident after 07 October 2025 occurred with knowledge that such conduct, in the eyes of the Plaintiff, constituted harassment.

Second, the frequency and sustained nature far exceed [2025] DCR 82. The case involved a single stepping incident in August with later verbal references. This case involves twelve separate stepping incidents over seventeen days by four different perpetrators - all occurring after the public lawsuit made clear such conduct was unwanted. This is sustained harassment, not a momentary interaction.

Defendant RealImza repeatedly stepped on the Plaintiff while claiming to have "tripped," stating "SORRY," "TRIPPED," and "TRIPPING SO MUCH." The repetitive nature of the stepping - captured across multiple pieces of evidence (P-032 through P-036) - proves this was not accidental. RealImza's need to fabricate an excuse demonstrates he knew the conduct was wrongful and attempted to disguise deliberate harassment as an accident. People do not repeatedly apologise for and explain accidental contact unless they know their conduct appears intentional and improper.

The Court in [2025] DCR 82 found that "a reasonable person in the Plaintiff's position would experience harassment, as the conduct involved both unwanted physical contact and verbal fixation" Here, the unwanted physical contact was repeated twelve times over seventeen days, despite public notice that it was unwanted. Any reasonable person would experience harassment, alarm, and distress under these repeated circumstances.

If a single incident with later verbal references constitutes Disturbing the Peace under [2025] DCR 82, then twelve deliberate stepping incidents by four individuals over seventeen days, occurring after a public lawsuit made clear such conduct was unwanted, clearly constitutes Disturbing the Peace.

​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

In [2025] DCR 82, the District Court awarded $5,000 in consequential damages for a violation of the Criminal Code Act's prohibition on Disturbing the Peace. The Plaintiff seeks damages calculated based on that precedent, multiplied by the number of times each Defendant stepped on him:

1. Sofia2750: 5 incidents x $5,000 = $25,000 in Consequential Damages for violation of the Criminal Code Act

2. EATB: 6 incidents x $5,000 = $30,000 in Consequential Damages for violation of the Criminal Code Act

3. RealImza: 1 incident $5,000 in Consequential Damages for violation of the Criminal Code Act

4. RaiTheGuy07: 1 incident $5,000 in Consequential Damages for violation of the Criminal Code Act

5. 30% of the total case value in legal fees

EVIDENCE:​

Spoiler: Cannot attach more than 30 images

ToadKing v. Sofia2750, EATB, RealImza, and RaiTheGuy07

Evidence P-001 P-002 P-003 P-004 P-005 P-006 P-007 P-008 P-009 P-010 P-011 P-012 P-013 P-014 P-015 P-016 P-017 P-018 P-019 P-020 P-021 P-022 P-023 P-024 P-025 P-026 P-027 P-028 P-029 P-030 P-031 P-032 P-033 P-034 ...

docs.google.com

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 1st day of November 2025

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Sua Sponte Dismissal

For the purpose of the Order, the Court accepts all Plaintiff's arguments and facts on a prima facia basis (assume its all true on its face).


With respect to @Sofia2750, the Court dismisses the Complaint insofar as damages against this defendant for Failure to State a Claim. This District Court found that merely stepping on a player is not harassment, "verbal fixation" was required. The facts of the Complaint don't support that this Defendant said anything to Plaintiff (see Verdict II. (3) of [2025] DCR 82).


With respect to all other un-named defendants, this case is dismissed without prejudice. The Court sees no nexus between parties that would justify their inclusion in a single action. Absent a conspiracy, the Court will not entertain a reverse class-action. (see [2025] FCR 21 )


So ordered,
Magistrate Mug

 

[ameslap]

Court Order

Per the Appeal to the FCR, this case is being sent back to the DCR with instructions.

 

[Muggy21]

Writ of Summons

@Sofia2750 @EATB @Imza @RaiTheGuy are required to appear before the District Court in the case of ToadKing v. Sofia2750, EATB, RealImza, and RaiTheGuy07 [2025] DCR 87

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.

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.

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.

 

[Imza]

Writ of Summons

@Sofia2750 @EATB @Imza @RaiTheGuy are required to appear before the District Court in the case of ToadKing v. Sofia2750, EATB, RealImza, and RaiTheGuy07 [2025] DCR 87

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.

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.

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.

Thy Honour:
I, RealImza, do humbly and of mine own counsel present myself before this most worthy Court, to make known mine presence herein, and to stand duly accounted for, as is meet and right, in all matters now laid solemnly and with due reverence before thy judgment

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
Order

With regard to the appeal filed by Plaintiff against this Court's sua sponte dismissal, this Court performs the following:


1) The Court's dismissal order with regard to @Sofia2750 is void. The offending section shall be struck; The Court retains the right to review on re-examination of the facts and merits.

2) Parties may coordinate to be represented by one counselor. You need not do so, please advise the Court if you wish to engage your own counsel separate from other named Defendants.


So ordered,
Magistrate Mug

 

[Imza]

2) Parties may coordinate to be represented by one counselor. You need not do so, please advise the Court if you wish to engage your own counsel separate from other named Defendants.

Thy Honour:
Touching on what was erst declar'd, I have humbly made known my presence, of mine own counsel, to this most worthy Court. I stand here duly accounted for mine own self, in all matters laid before this Honourable Court alone, and separate in all other things from these others here assembled.

 

[ToadKing]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI

Your Honour, this motion is made only in regard to Defendant EATB.
Plaintiff and Defendant EATB have reached an out-of-court agreement, and would therefore like to dismiss the claims made against them only.

The Plaintiff still brings the claims against the remaining three Defendants.
The case filing will be updated in Discovery to reflect this motion.

 

[ToadKing]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI

Your Honour, this motion is made only in regard to Defendant RaiTheGuy07.
Plaintiff and Defendant RaiTheGuy07 have reached an out-of-court agreement, and would therefore like to dismiss the claims made against them only.

The Plaintiff still brings the claims against the remaining two Defendants.
The case filing will be updated in Discovery to reflect this motion.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor:

I am present as legal representative for Sofia2750. The MZLD represents Sofia2750 alone as it pertains to the facts of this case; we do not represent RealImza.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS
On behalf of co-defendant Sofia2750

Your Honor,

Consistent with [2025] DCR 87 - Appeal and prior precedent in [2025] FCR 21, Sofia2750 seeks to have separate representation from the remainder of the class. For this reason, we seek dismissal against Sofia2570 under Rule 5.11.

Under Rule 5.11, a motion to dismiss may be submitted when a “defendant is statutorily or constitutionally immune from being sued”. We believe that Court precedent establishes a qualified immunity to reverse class-action suits when such suits would force parties to adopt the same counsel, and that such precedent proceeds reasonably from the constitution itself. As such, we ask this Court to recognize the qualified immunity in line with court precedent, and dismiss this case so as to require a separate filing.

1. The Constitution guarantees a right to fair trial and the assistance of legal counsel​

First the obvious: Under the Ninth Charter right, “Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial… and to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence.” In this case, Sofia2750 has chosen to allow the Mezimori Legal Department to represent her—here, she is attempting to execute her basic constitutional right to legal counsel. As for why she is able to choose legal counsel—it would undermine fundamental fairness for the Commonwealth to force an individual to obtain a particular legal representative against their conscious and declared will for another to represent them.

2. Federal Court precedent requires dismissal.​

In short, the Federal Court has issued precedent that defendants cannot be made to have the same counsel, there are multiple different counsels for defendants in this case, and this precedent binds the District Court.

2a. Federal Court precedent urges dismissal when counsels are different.​

In [2025] DCR 87 - Appeal, the Federal Court rule that “[t]he same entity must represent the Class. Anyone who does not have the same representation must be filed separately. The court will not force representation for the whole.”

Similarly, in [2025] FCR 21, the Federal Court dismissed a case sua ponte on the basis that “we cannot require all Defendants to retain the same counsel”.

The rules that the Federal Court have put down are clear: in a reverse class-action suit, a case may only proceed if the co-defendants freely agree to be represented by the same counsel. Otherwise, dismissal is required, so that the defendants may have their counsel control their own defense. This generates a sort of immunity—one that is not without qualification, but is nonetheless present. Therefore, Federal Court precedent has read a sort of qualified immunity here to reverse class action suits of this sort when co-defendants have different counsels.

2b. Sofia2750 and at least one other co-defendant have different legal representation in this case.​

Sofia2750 has chosen to retain the services of the MZLD for defense in this lawsuit. To the best of my knowledge, the MZLD will not be defending certain co-defendants here. Most obviously, this applies to RealImza (a lawyer who has already responded here in his own right). For this reason, we believe that RealImza has clearly shown to the Court that RealImza will be defending himself:

Thy Honour:
Touching on what was erst declar'd, I have humbly made known my presence, of mine own counsel, to this most worthy Court. I stand here duly accounted for mine own self, in all matters laid before this Honourable Court alone, and separate in all other things from these others here assembled.

Sofia2750 does not wish for RealImza to be her legal representative here, having retained the MZLD for that purpose. As such, we’ve got a conscious choice by two co-defendants to have different legal counsels.

2c. Federal Court precedent is binding upon the District Court.​

Under both the Constitution and the Judicial Standards Act, the‌ ‌Federal ‌Court‌ ‌of‌ ‌Redmont‌ is granted ‌appellate jurisdiction over‌ the District Court. Its appeals, therefore, obviously do bind the district court.

As for trial decisions in superior courts: the penumbral meaning of the constitution and JSA, and the general practice of the courts, is that court rulings of superior courts (the Federal Court over the District Court, and the Supreme Court over both) do bind inferior courts more generally.

2d. Binding Federal Court precedent requires dismissal at this juncture.​

As established above, [2025] DCR 87 - Appeal is an appellate decision by the Federal Court and thus clearly binds the District Court. And the general principles of [2025] FCR 21 (that a case may be dismissed for joining defendants who have different legal representation) continues to bind here inasmuch as has not been subsequently overridden or clarified in the aforementioned appeal. There multiple co-defendants in this case, and not all of them have chosen the same legal counsel—Sofia2750 has, for example, chosen differently than RealImza.

As such, Federal Court precedent, even after the appeal, requires dismissal here. If this case may be filed, it must be filed against the various individuals in their own rights—not seek to bind multiple individuals together when defendants choose to make a separate defense.

3. Conclusion: Both the constitution and FCR precedents make it clear—this case must be dismissed at this time.​

For both reasons arising from a plain reading of the Constitution and clear Federal Court precedent, this case must be dismissed. The co-defendant urges this Court to recognize the qualified immunity established through the rulings of the Federal Court, and to not abridge the fundamental rights to fair trial and legal representation that are guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

[ToadKing]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS
On behalf of co-defendant Sofia2750

Your Honor,

Consistent with [2025] DCR 87 - Appeal and prior precedent in [2025] FCR 21, Sofia2750 seeks to have separate representation from the remainder of the class. For this reason, we seek dismissal against Sofia2570 under Rule 5.11.

Under Rule 5.11, a motion to dismiss may be submitted when a “defendant is statutorily or constitutionally immune from being sued”. We believe that Court precedent establishes a qualified immunity to reverse class-action suits when such suits would force parties to adopt the same counsel, and that such precedent proceeds reasonably from the constitution itself. As such, we ask this Court to recognize the qualified immunity in line with court precedent, and dismiss this case so as to require a separate filing.

1. The Constitution guarantees a right to fair trial and the assistance of legal counsel​

First the obvious: Under the Ninth Charter right, “Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial… and to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence.” In this case, Sofia2750 has chosen to allow the Mezimori Legal Department to represent her—here, she is attempting to execute her basic constitutional right to legal counsel. As for why she is able to choose legal counsel—it would undermine fundamental fairness for the Commonwealth to force an individual to obtain a particular legal representative against their conscious and declared will for another to represent them.

2. Federal Court precedent requires dismissal.​

In short, the Federal Court has issued precedent that defendants cannot be made to have the same counsel, there are multiple different counsels for defendants in this case, and this precedent binds the District Court.

2a. Federal Court precedent urges dismissal when counsels are different.​

In [2025] DCR 87 - Appeal, the Federal Court rule that “[t]he same entity must represent the Class. Anyone who does not have the same representation must be filed separately. The court will not force representation for the whole.”

Similarly, in [2025] FCR 21, the Federal Court dismissed a case sua ponte on the basis that “we cannot require all Defendants to retain the same counsel”.

The rules that the Federal Court have put down are clear: in a reverse class-action suit, a case may only proceed if the co-defendants freely agree to be represented by the same counsel. Otherwise, dismissal is required, so that the defendants may have their counsel control their own defense. This generates a sort of immunity—one that is not without qualification, but is nonetheless present. Therefore, Federal Court precedent has read a sort of qualified immunity here to reverse class action suits of this sort when co-defendants have different counsels.

2b. Sofia2750 and at least one other co-defendant have different legal representation in this case.​

Sofia2750 has chosen to retain the services of the MZLD for defense in this lawsuit. To the best of my knowledge, the MZLD will not be defending certain co-defendants here. Most obviously, this applies to RealImza (a lawyer who has already responded here in his own right). For this reason, we believe that RealImza has clearly shown to the Court that RealImza will be defending himself:



Sofia2750 does not wish for RealImza to be her legal representative here, having retained the MZLD for that purpose. As such, we’ve got a conscious choice by two co-defendants to have different legal counsels.

2c. Federal Court precedent is binding upon the District Court.​

Under both the Constitution and the Judicial Standards Act, the‌ ‌Federal ‌Court‌ ‌of‌ ‌Redmont‌ is granted ‌appellate jurisdiction over‌ the District Court. Its appeals, therefore, obviously do bind the district court.

As for trial decisions in superior courts: the penumbral meaning of the constitution and JSA, and the general practice of the courts, is that court rulings of superior courts (the Federal Court over the District Court, and the Supreme Court over both) do bind inferior courts more generally.

2d. Binding Federal Court precedent requires dismissal at this juncture.​

As established above, [2025] DCR 87 - Appeal is an appellate decision by the Federal Court and thus clearly binds the District Court. And the general principles of [2025] FCR 21 (that a case may be dismissed for joining defendants who have different legal representation) continues to bind here inasmuch as has not been subsequently overridden or clarified in the aforementioned appeal. There multiple co-defendants in this case, and not all of them have chosen the same legal counsel—Sofia2750 has, for example, chosen differently than RealImza.

As such, Federal Court precedent, even after the appeal, requires dismissal here. If this case may be filed, it must be filed against the various individuals in their own rights—not seek to bind multiple individuals together when defendants choose to make a separate defense.

3. Conclusion: Both the constitution and FCR precedents make it clear—this case must be dismissed at this time.​

For both reasons arising from a plain reading of the Constitution and clear Federal Court precedent, this case must be dismissed. The co-defendant urges this Court to recognize the qualified immunity established through the rulings of the Federal Court, and to not abridge the fundamental rights to fair trial and legal representation that are guaranteed by the Constitution.

Objection

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

Your Honour,

Under the Court Rules and Procedures, Rule 5.6 (Appeal Exception) states: "A Motion to Dismiss cannot be filed against any case that is being appealed."

This case was appealed to the Federal Court as [2025] DCR 87 - Appeal. The Federal Court accepted the appeal, ruled on the joinder issue, and remanded the case back to this Court with specific instructions. The Motion to Dismiss is barred under Rule 5.6.

The Plaintiff requests that you deny this Motion and strike it as procedurally improper.

 

[Franciscus]

Objection

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

Your Honour,

Under the Court Rules and Procedures, Rule 5.6 (Appeal Exception) states: "A Motion to Dismiss cannot be filed against any case that is being appealed."
…
The Motion to Dismiss is barred under Rule 5.6.

Response

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff misreads the Court rule, or alternatively misapplies it here.

Let’s be clear: the operative phrase prohibits dismissal “against any case that is being appealed”. This does not restrict dismissal against cases that “have been” appealed, nor cases that “were” appealed, nor cases that “will be” appealed.

The Plaintiff stated:

This case was appealed to the Federal Court as [2025] DCR 87 - Appeal. The Federal Court accepted the appeal, ruled on the joinder issue, and remanded the case back to this Court with specific instructions.

We agree. This case was appealed, and that appeal has been completed, moved to the case archive forum, and locked. None of this establishes that the case is being appealed; the present tense in the rule is different than the past tense in the facts.

As such, we urge the Court to rule that no breach of procedure occurred under Rule 5.6, and to overrule this objection.

 

[Muggy21]

Objection

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

Your Honour,

Under the Court Rules and Procedures, Rule 5.6 (Appeal Exception) states: "A Motion to Dismiss cannot be filed against any case that is being appealed."

This case was appealed to the Federal Court as [2025] DCR 87 - Appeal. The Federal Court accepted the appeal, ruled on the joinder issue, and remanded the case back to this Court with specific instructions. The Motion to Dismiss is barred under Rule 5.6.

The Plaintiff requests that you deny this Motion and strike it as procedurally improper.

Overruled. Rule 5.6 no longer applies, the appeal aforementioned in your objection is adjourned in the Federal Court. I do not see an appeal to the Supreme Court from the decision of the Federal Court pending.

 

[ToadKing]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI

The Plaintiff wishes to drop all claims made only in regard to Defendant RealImza.

The Plaintiff will be resuming this case against the sole Defendant, Sofia2750

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI

Your Honour, this motion is made only in regard to Defendant RaiTheGuy07.
Plaintiff and Defendant RaiTheGuy07 have reached an out-of-court agreement, and would therefore like to dismiss the claims made against them only.

The Plaintiff still brings the claims against the remaining two Defendants.
The case filing will be updated in Discovery to reflect this motion.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI

Your Honour, this motion is made only in regard to Defendant EATB.
Plaintiff and Defendant EATB have reached an out-of-court agreement, and would therefore like to dismiss the claims made against them only.

The Plaintiff still brings the claims against the remaining three Defendants.
The case filing will be updated in Discovery to reflect this motion.

Granted, cases against EATB and RaiTheGuy07 are dismissed with prejudice.

 

[Imza]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


ImzaKRD
Counterplaintiff

v.

ToadKing
Counterdefendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Counterdefendant ToadKing has filed a frivolous case. Counterplaintiff requests legal fees to remedy this.

I. PARTIES
1. ImzaKRD (Counterplaintiff)
2. ToadKing (Counterdefendant)

II. FACTS
1. ToadKing filed this case on Saturday, 9:58 PM GMT+03.
2. This case was frivolous in nature as it lacked a reasonable basis in law and was filed to embarrass the Counterplaintiff.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Section 9 of the Legal Damages Act entitles the Counterplaintiff to 30% of the total value of the original case, or $2,000 in Legal Fees.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
30% of the total value of the original case, or $2,000 in Legal Fees.

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 fourth day of November, twenty-twenty-five

 

[ToadKing]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


ImzaKRD
Counterplaintiff

v.

ToadKing
Counterdefendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:


I. PARTIES
1. ImzaKRD (Counterplaintiff)
2. ToadKing (Counterdefendant)

II. FACTS
1. ToadKing filed this case on Saturday, 9:58 PM GMT+03.
2. This case was frivolous in nature as it lacked a reasonable basis in law and was filed to embarrass the Counterplaintiff.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Section 9 of the Legal Damages Act entitles the Counterplaintiff to 30% of the total value of the original case, or $2,000 in Legal Fees.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
30% of the total value of the original case, or $2,000 in Legal Fees.

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 fourth day of November, twenty-twenty-five

Objection

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

Your Honour,
The Plaintiff moves to strike ImzaKRD's Counterclaim as procedurally improper.

ImzaKRD is no longer a party to this case. The Plaintiff dropped all claims against ImzaKRD. Once a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses all claims against a defendant, that defendant is no longer a party to the case and cannot file a counterclaim.

A counterclaim is a claim filed by a Defendant against a Plaintiff in the same case. ImzaKRD is not a defendant in this case anymore because there are no claims against them.

If ImzaKRD wishes to pursue a frivolous case claim, they must file a separate lawsuit in their own right as a plaintiff.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor,

Absent dismissal of my client on this case, I respectfully request a sidebar on the Judiciary Discord to discuss the logistics of the claims, counterclaims, and other related items.

 

[ToadKing]

The Plaintiff cannot be present in a sidebar on the Judiciary Discord.

 

[Muggy21]

@Imza @Franciscus @ToadKing The Court has started a DM with parties on the Forums.

 

[Imza]

Objection

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

Your Honour,
The Plaintiff moves to strike ImzaKRD's Counterclaim as procedurally improper.

ImzaKRD is no longer a party to this case. The Plaintiff dropped all claims against ImzaKRD. Once a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses all claims against a defendant, that defendant is no longer a party to the case and cannot file a counterclaim.

A counterclaim is a claim filed by a Defendant against a Plaintiff in the same case. ImzaKRD is not a defendant in this case anymore because there are no claims against them.

If ImzaKRD wishes to pursue a frivolous case claim, they must file a separate lawsuit in their own right as a plaintiff.

Response

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE

Your Honour,
As far as the Defence is aware, you did not, in fact, accept the Plaintiff's Motion to Nolle Prosequi. As you did not accept the aforementioned Motion to Nolle Prosequi, the Plaintiff's case against me was not dismissed and is still ongoing.

This argument is supported by numerous cases within the Federal Court.
A few examples of this include:
Alta Group Corporation V. Aesyr_
ToadKing v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 109
malka v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 87
.mgchamp2339 v absinf [2025] FCR 60

Due to the above arguments, the Defence respectfully requests this Honourable Court to deny this Breach of Procedure Objection and allow us to continue with the Counterclaim.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI

The Plaintiff wishes to drop all claims made only in regard to Defendant RealImza.

The Plaintiff will be resuming this case against the sole Defendant, Sofia2750

Granted. Complaint against Imza is dismissed without prejudice.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS
On behalf of co-defendant Sofia2750

Your Honor,

Consistent with [2025] DCR 87 - Appeal and prior precedent in [2025] FCR 21, Sofia2750 seeks to have separate representation from the remainder of the class. For this reason, we seek dismissal against Sofia2570 under Rule 5.11.

Under Rule 5.11, a motion to dismiss may be submitted when a “defendant is statutorily or constitutionally immune from being sued”. We believe that Court precedent establishes a qualified immunity to reverse class-action suits when such suits would force parties to adopt the same counsel, and that such precedent proceeds reasonably from the constitution itself. As such, we ask this Court to recognize the qualified immunity in line with court precedent, and dismiss this case so as to require a separate filing.

1. The Constitution guarantees a right to fair trial and the assistance of legal counsel​

First the obvious: Under the Ninth Charter right, “Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial… and to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence.” In this case, Sofia2750 has chosen to allow the Mezimori Legal Department to represent her—here, she is attempting to execute her basic constitutional right to legal counsel. As for why she is able to choose legal counsel—it would undermine fundamental fairness for the Commonwealth to force an individual to obtain a particular legal representative against their conscious and declared will for another to represent them.

2. Federal Court precedent requires dismissal.​

In short, the Federal Court has issued precedent that defendants cannot be made to have the same counsel, there are multiple different counsels for defendants in this case, and this precedent binds the District Court.

2a. Federal Court precedent urges dismissal when counsels are different.​

In [2025] DCR 87 - Appeal, the Federal Court rule that “[t]he same entity must represent the Class. Anyone who does not have the same representation must be filed separately. The court will not force representation for the whole.”

Similarly, in [2025] FCR 21, the Federal Court dismissed a case sua ponte on the basis that “we cannot require all Defendants to retain the same counsel”.

The rules that the Federal Court have put down are clear: in a reverse class-action suit, a case may only proceed if the co-defendants freely agree to be represented by the same counsel. Otherwise, dismissal is required, so that the defendants may have their counsel control their own defense. This generates a sort of immunity—one that is not without qualification, but is nonetheless present. Therefore, Federal Court precedent has read a sort of qualified immunity here to reverse class action suits of this sort when co-defendants have different counsels.

2b. Sofia2750 and at least one other co-defendant have different legal representation in this case.​

Sofia2750 has chosen to retain the services of the MZLD for defense in this lawsuit. To the best of my knowledge, the MZLD will not be defending certain co-defendants here. Most obviously, this applies to RealImza (a lawyer who has already responded here in his own right). For this reason, we believe that RealImza has clearly shown to the Court that RealImza will be defending himself:



Sofia2750 does not wish for RealImza to be her legal representative here, having retained the MZLD for that purpose. As such, we’ve got a conscious choice by two co-defendants to have different legal counsels.

2c. Federal Court precedent is binding upon the District Court.​

Under both the Constitution and the Judicial Standards Act, the‌ ‌Federal ‌Court‌ ‌of‌ ‌Redmont‌ is granted ‌appellate jurisdiction over‌ the District Court. Its appeals, therefore, obviously do bind the district court.

As for trial decisions in superior courts: the penumbral meaning of the constitution and JSA, and the general practice of the courts, is that court rulings of superior courts (the Federal Court over the District Court, and the Supreme Court over both) do bind inferior courts more generally.

2d. Binding Federal Court precedent requires dismissal at this juncture.​

As established above, [2025] DCR 87 - Appeal is an appellate decision by the Federal Court and thus clearly binds the District Court. And the general principles of [2025] FCR 21 (that a case may be dismissed for joining defendants who have different legal representation) continues to bind here inasmuch as has not been subsequently overridden or clarified in the aforementioned appeal. There multiple co-defendants in this case, and not all of them have chosen the same legal counsel—Sofia2750 has, for example, chosen differently than RealImza.

As such, Federal Court precedent, even after the appeal, requires dismissal here. If this case may be filed, it must be filed against the various individuals in their own rights—not seek to bind multiple individuals together when defendants choose to make a separate defense.

3. Conclusion: Both the constitution and FCR precedents make it clear—this case must be dismissed at this time.​

For both reasons arising from a plain reading of the Constitution and clear Federal Court precedent, this case must be dismissed. The co-defendant urges this Court to recognize the qualified immunity established through the rulings of the Federal Court, and to not abridge the fundamental rights to fair trial and legal representation that are guaranteed by the Constitution.

Granted. The Court explictly wishes to advise that calling this situation akin to "qualified immunity" is a stretch.

Case against @Sofia2750 is dismissed without prejudice, on condition.

@ToadKing You have 48 Hours to file a Complaint anew against Sofia2750. If you wish to nolle prosequi (prior to thread creation), please advise the Court on THIS thread.

 

[Muggy21]

Response

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE

Your Honour,
As far as the Defence is aware, you did not, in fact, accept the Plaintiff's Motion to Nolle Prosequi. As you did not accept the aforementioned Motion to Nolle Prosequi, the Plaintiff's case against me was not dismissed and is still ongoing.

This argument is supported by numerous cases within the Federal Court.
A few examples of this include:
Alta Group Corporation V. Aesyr_
ToadKing v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 109
malka v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 87
.mgchamp2339 v absinf [2025] FCR 60

Due to the above arguments, the Defence respectfully requests this Honourable Court to deny this Breach of Procedure Objection and allow us to continue with the Counterclaim.

Overruled.

This case shall now be ToadKing v. Imza [2025] DCR 88.

 

[Muggy21]

@ToadKing @Imza

@ToadKing You have 72 Hours to re-present your Complaint to the Court. If you wish to lodge an Answer to Imza's Counterclaim, you shall until 11/7/2025 @ 1PM EST.

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order


From Plaintiff's statement in the Sidebar on Forums:

@ToadKing If there is FCR/SCR precedent (not dicta) that would permit a counterclaim to be ignored because Plaintiff NP'd, I'll hear it.


Do you have any objection to the Sofia case being removed into a new thread?

In zLost v. Aladeen22 [2024] FCR 121, the Defendant filed a counterclaim. The Plaintiff then proceeded to drop the case. The Defendant argued the counterclaim should continue, but the judge stated:

Case dismissed. Aladeen, you may refile if you wish to proceed with your countersuit.

The Plaintiff stipulates that Imza must still file his own separate claim in court.

On review of zLost v. Aladeen22 [2024] FCR 12, the Defendant, Aladeen22, awaited a ruling on his counter-claim after settling the original Complaint. Given this settlement, its difficult for the Court to treat this precedent as binding on this Court for all circumstances not similar to that case. Since there is no settlement, and Defendant Imza clearly wishes for the Court to be heard on his Counterclaim, the Court will proceed.

 

[ToadKing]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order


From Plaintiff's statement in the Sidebar on Forums:



On review of zLost v. Aladeen22 [2024] FCR 12, the Defendant, Aladeen22, awaited a ruling on his counter-claim after settling the original Complaint. Given this settlement, its difficult for the Court to treat this precedent as binding on this Court for all circumstances not similar to that case. Since there is no settlement, and Defendant Imza clearly wishes for the Court to be heard on his Counterclaim, the Court will proceed.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The Plaintiff moves to dismiss Imza's counterclaim and close this case entirely.

I. ALL CLAIMS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED - THIS CASE IS MOOT​

The Court has granted dismissal of claims against all defendants:

• EATB & RaiTheGuy07: dismissed with prejudice
• Sofia2750: dismissed without prejudice
• Imza: dismissed without prejudice

There is no underlying case. A counterclaim cannot exist in a vacuum - it must be attached to an active underlying lawsuit. Once all claims are dismissed, there is nothing for a counterclaim to be "counter" to.

​

II. A COUNTERCLAIM REQUIRES AN ACTIVE CASE​

By definition, a counterclaim is a claim filed by a defendant against a plaintiff in the same case. The Legal Damages Act, Section 9(2)(e) recognises this:

"Countersuits shall not warrant legal fees unless both the countersuit and original filing receive award."

This provision assumes the counterclaim exists within a case where the original filing also proceeds. Once the original filing is dismissed against a defendant, that defendant is no longer a party to the case and cannot maintain a counterclaim.

​

III. PRECEDENT REQUIRES SEPARATE FILING​

In [2024] FCR 12, the plaintiff dropped their case after the defendant filed a counterclaim. The judge ruled:

"Case dismissed. Aladeen, you may refile if you wish to proceed with your countersuit."

The Court ordered a separate filing, not a continuation of the counterclaim in the dismissed case. The judge in that case understood that a counterclaim cannot survive dismissal of all underlying claims.

This Court has now seemingly distinguished [2024] FCR 12 on the basis that the case involved a settlement. But the principle is the same: once all claims against a defendant are dismissed, the counterclaim must be filed separately.

​

IV. THE COURT CANNOT HOLD PLAINTIFF HOSTAGE​

This Court ordered: "You have 72 Hours to re-present your Complaint to the Court."

This forces the Plaintiff to litigate a case he has no intention of pursuing. The Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims. The Court granted those dismissals. The Plaintiff should not be compelled to "re-present" a complaint he has abandoned.

The Constitution, Section 32(9) guarantees "the right to a speedy and fair trial." Forcing a plaintiff to remain in a dismissed case to defend against a counterclaim violates this principle. The proper remedy is for Imza to file a separate lawsuit for a frivolous case.

​

V. IMZA CAN FILE A SEPARATE LAWSUIT​

Imza is not without remedy. He can file a separate lawsuit for a Frivolous Court Case under the Criminal Code Act, Part III, Section 4

This is the proper procedure. The Court in [2024] FCR 12 recognised this: "you may refile if you wish to proceed."

​

VI. CONCLUSION​

All claims against all defendants have been dismissed. There is no underlying lawsuit for a counterclaim to attach to.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Dismiss Imza's counterclaim as procedurally improper
2. Close this case entirely - all claims have been dismissed
3. Instruct Imza that if he wishes to pursue a frivolous case claim, he must file a separate lawsuit in his own right

The Court cannot force the Plaintiff to remain in a case he has voluntarily dismissed.

 

[Muggy21]

The Court strikes its order for the Plaintiff to re-file its Complaint. I got confused with the Sofia order I gave in relation to the Complaint in that case, a ruling on the rest of the motion is coming shortly.

 

[ToadKing]

@ToadKing You have 48 Hours to file a Complaint anew against Sofia2750. If you wish to nolle prosequi (prior to thread creation), please advise the Court on THIS thread.

With regards to the case against Sofia2750, I will be dismissing those claims and not filing a new case.
This has turned into an unnecessary mess that the Plaintiff does not have the time or capacity to deal with.

 

[Muggy21]

Court is in recess pending a dismissal order.

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order of Dismissal


The Constitution of this Commonwealth enshrines the principle that its Courts are actively engaged in the protection and advancement of justice. The Courts serve as the primary forum in which citizens may bring legal disputes to be heard by a fair and impartial tribunal. The rights guaranteed under the Charter, those conferred by statute, and those established through the common law all fall within the jurisdiction and duty of this Court to interpret and uphold. Using the Court system inappropriately or without just cause is an interference with that mission.

In this action, Plaintiff filed a reverse class action. The District Court dismissed this action and was instructed by the Federal Court on appeal as to the correct procedure for this claim. After the remand from the Federal Court, the Plaintiff made settlements with two defendants and nolle prosequi’d against the 3rd defendant, thus leaving a sole defendant to which to prosecute the original complaint; In the Plaintiff’s own words, “[t]his has turned into an unnecessary mess.” A mess of the Plaintiff’s own design and machination.

The Court admonishes ToadKing for the abuse of the judicial process in the strongest possible terms. The Court made all efforts to hear you fairly, yet your conduct has demonstrated a clear lack of genuine intent to pursue lawful relief. Litigation is not a tool for retaliation, dramatization, or public posturing. Your voluntary abandonment of the action once challenged strongly suggests that the case was initiated without meaningful legal purpose, resulting in unnecessary strain upon the Court and upon the Defendants who were compelled to answer your allegations.


The Court finds ToadKing in direct criminal Contempt of Court for interfering with the administration of justice for the bad faith dealing in this litigation. He shall be fined $1,000 and be imprisoned for 10 minutes.

The Counterclaim filed by @Imza is dismissed without prejudice. To proceed, please file anew. Otherwise, the Complaint against EATB, RaiTheGuy is dismissed with prejudice. The Complaint against RealImza and Sofia2750 is dismissed without prejudice. Any motion not yet answered is denied as moot.

So ordered,
Magistrate Mug