Lawsuit: Pending RaiTheGuy07 v. Department of Homeland Security [2025] FCR 21

[Superwoops]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

RaiTheGuy07 (Represented by Superwoops)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Homeland Security
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:


Raitheguy07 was fired from the Department of Homeland Security on 16/02 by Secretary of DHS HellsideBurnton for “murder”. The “murders” for which he was terminated were consensual from the receiving party; therefore, they do not constitute murder. Upon realizing that he had become wanted, Rai opened a ticket with DHS, hoping to clear up this issue and have these murder charges removed from his criminal record. Having been opened on the 15th, the ticket goes unanswered and unsolved to this day. Not only did DHS fire Raitheguy07 for having killed others despite having received their express consent, they fired him without following their own protocol. These actions caused great harm to RaiTheGuy07.

I. PARTIES
1. RaiTheGuy07
2. Department of Homeland Security

II. FACTS
1. 12/02 Raitheguy receives a first offense infraction for murder. (See Infractions)
2. Raitheguy07 kills Doc upon receiving express verbal consent to do so. (P-001)
3. Raitheguy07 kills IamJeb_ upon receiving express verbal consent to do so. (P-002 and P-003)
4. Raitheguy07 is unlawfully arrested and sent to jail for two counts of murder.
5. Raitheguy07 kills Argen_Lee with his consent. (P-004 and P-005)
6. Raitheguy07 is unlawfully arrested and sent to jail for one count of murder.
7. 15/02 Raitheguy07 opens a ticket with DHS hoping to revert his criminal record for these murders.
8. 16/02 Raitheguy07 is terminated from the DHS for “murder” (See Infractions), a termination which became widespread public knowledge.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The DHS did not follow their own procedure to discipline employees. Using Ko531 v. Department of Health [2022] DCR 59 as precedent, it is clear that Departments must handle their employees' terminations according to their regulations. The Department of Homeland Security has a Code of Conduct that determines how employees are punished, which states that "Terminations automatically occur after a 3rd major offense or a 4th minor offense." Anything not constituting a 3rd major offense or a 4th minor offense or higher could warrant other disciplinary actions, but not termination. Since the killings in question do not constitute murders, they also should not count towards infractions. Furthermore, even if one assumes that the murders were illegal, (which they were not) Raitheguy07 should have received a verbal warning, a second time warning, be put under probation, then terminated, which did not happen. Therefore, under the Commercial Standards Act, this constitutes an unfair dismissal.
2. While the Plaintiff spent a total of 30 minutes in jail, he could have been doing other activities relating to his job, like arresting criminals, and/or painting frogs, a hobby through which he earns significant funds (as much as $50,000 per piece). (P-006)
3. The fact that my client has been made a criminal is, for him, angering by itself. Being arrested for those crimes is significantly more preposterous and exasperating. But, being fired for those crimes is orders of magnitude worse, and constitutes an outrageous act by DHS. Even more aggravating is the fact that my client still hasn't received a definitive answer in his DHS ticket.
4. My client's termination has become public knowledge and as a result, his reputation has been harmed (P-007). The No More Defamation Act states that my client could be entitled to an apology from the defaming party.
5. As a result of his firing, my client has begun to enjoy life in Redmont less, as his job meant a lot to him.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Raitheguy07 be found not guilty for the murders of Doc, IamJeb_, and Argen_Lee, and subsequently, his criminal record be expunged.
2. Immediate reinstatement of Raitheguy07 as Recruit in the Department of Homeland Security.
3. $1,500 in compensatory damages, as my client is entitled to $50 per minute spent in jail, according to the Standardised Criminal Code Act.
4. $5,000 in compensatory damages for missed earning capacity while in prison, as well as lost salary for arrests in the two days of playtime my client has had since his termination.
5. $35,000 in punitive damages for the Department of Homeland Security's outrageous conduct in the handling of this case. Is a reasonable person supposed to expect that you can be fired from a government job for crimes you didn't commit, all the while blatantly disregarding Department policy? My client was an outstanding member of the police force and did not deserve this treatment.
6. $10,000 in emotional damages, as this whole process, along with my client's sudden termination and the need to file a lawsuit to gain his job back and right these wrongs has caused him great anger and grief.
7. $20,000 for Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont.
8. A public apology from DHS to my client, Raitheguy07.
9. $21,450 in legal fees, corresponding to 30% of the value of this case.

EVIDENCE:

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: P-007

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

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 22nd day of February, 2025.

 

[Dartanboy]

Writ of Summons

The Attorney General @Freeze_Line or another person who is legally qualified to represent the Commonwealth is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of RaiTheGuy07 v. Department of Homeland Security [2025] FCR 21.

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.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Writ of Summons

The Attorney General @Freeze_Line or another person who is legally qualified to represent the Commonwealth is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of RaiTheGuy07 v. Department of Homeland Security [2025] FCR 21.

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.

Commonwealth is present, your honor.

 

[Dartanboy]

Commonwealth is present, your honor.

The Defense has 72 hours to file an Answer to Complaint.

 

[juniperfig]

Answer to Complaint

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

RaiTheGuy07
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defence AFFIRMS that on 12/02, Raitheguy07 received a first offense infraction for murder.
2. The Defence DENIES that Raitheguy07 killed Doc upon receiving express verbal consent to do so. P-001 does not show "express verbal consent".
3. The Defence DENIES that Raitheguy07 killed IamJeb_ upon receiving express verbal consent to do so. The Defence has submitted no proof of this occurring. P-002 does not show “express verbal consent”. P-003 occurred after the murder, and there is no reason to believe IamJeb_ was speaking to RaiTheGuy07 in that conversation.
4. The Defence DENIES that Raitheguy07 was unlawfully arrested and sent to jail for two counts of murder. RaiTheGuy07 was lawfully arrested.
5. The Defence DENIES that Raitheguy07 killed Argen_Lee with his consent. P-004 does not show “consent”. P-005 shows Argen_Lee’s opinion on what constitutes murder, which is not the law.
6. The Defence DENIES that Raitheguy07 was unlawfully arrested and sent to jail for one count of murder. RaiTheGuy07 was lawfully arrested.
7. The Defence AFFIRMS that on 15/02, Raitheguy07 opened a ticket with DHS hoping to revert his criminal record for these murders.
8. The Defence AFFIRMS that on 16/02, Raitheguy07 was terminated from the DHS for murder, a termination which became widespread public knowledge.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Constitution grants Secretaries the right to appoint and dismiss employees of their respective departments. The precedent identified by the Plaintiff involved a termination that lacked a clear violation of the DOH’s code of conduct. RaiTheGuy07’s termination was based on established laws prohibiting murder and adhered to the DHS Code of Conduct, which explicitly grants the Secretary the authority to fire employees for severe offences. Unlike Ko531, where no clear misconduct was established, this case involves a well-documented violation of the law and the code of conduct. Therefore, the precedent set in Ko531 does not apply.

2. Verbal consent to murder is not consent to murder under the law. Only running the command “/police consent” allows a citizen to consent to murder (D-001).

3. The No More Defamation Act states that “Defamation is a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation”. The DHS did not make a false statement—RaiTheGuy07 did commit murder. According to the Violent Offences Act, murder is “The act of unlawfully killing another player”, which RaiTheGuy07 clearly did, as seen in P-001 and P-002.

4. The Plaintiff’s claim of reputational harm is unfounded, as public reaction demonstrates the opposite effect. Rather than suffering damage to his reputation, the Plaintiff has garnered significant public support, as evidenced by petitions advocating for his reinstatement (P-007). Far from defamation, the Plaintiff’s termination has, if anything, enhanced his public standing.

Spoiler: D-001

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 27th day of February 2025

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

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

1. Lack of Claim (Rule 5.5)
The Plaintiff alleges wrongful termination, reputational harm, and financial loss but fails to demonstrate any legal basis that would entitle him to relief.

The Constitution of Redmont grants the Secretary of DHS the authority to hire and fire employees, and the DHS Code of Conduct explicitly states that the Secretary may fire employees for severe offences. The Plaintiff murdered three citizens who did not legally consent to the murders. Murder is a severe crime, and outrageous behaviour from an agent of the law. The Secretary, and agents acting on behalf of the Secretary, were well within their rights to fire the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff claims defamation, but DHS made no false or misleading statements about the Plaintiff—his termination for “murder” was based on fact. The Plaintiff claims reputational harm but provides evidence of public support for his reinstatement, demonstrating that his reputation has not suffered.

The Plaintiff claims damages for time spent in jail; however, he was lawfully arrested and sentenced for committing murder. Compensation for lost time is not available to individuals who were lawfully incarcerated as a consequence of their actions. Since the Plaintiff’s imprisonment was not wrongful, he has no legal basis to claim monetary relief for time spent serving his valid sentence.

2. Immunity Protection (Rule 5.11)
The Constitution of Redmont grants the Secretary of DHS the authority to fire and hire employees, meaning this termination was conducted under Constitutional authority, and not subject to legal challenge. The courts have historically upheld the doctrine of immunity in cases where government officials act within their Constitutional authority (Lawsuit: Dismissed - Commonwealth of Redmont v. Deadwax [2022] SCR 24, Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. xLayzur [2024] SCR 1, Lawsuit: Adjourned - Mask3D_WOLF v. Judiciary of Redmont [2024] SCR 13). Since the termination was lawful and followed departmental procedure, this case must be dismissed under Rule 5.11.

 

[Dartanboy]

Answer to Complaint

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

RaiTheGuy07
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defence AFFIRMS that on 12/02, Raitheguy07 received a first offense infraction for murder.
2. The Defence DENIES that Raitheguy07 killed Doc upon receiving express verbal consent to do so. P-001 does not show "express verbal consent".
3. The Defence DENIES that Raitheguy07 killed IamJeb_ upon receiving express verbal consent to do so. The Defence has submitted no proof of this occurring. P-002 does not show “express verbal consent”. P-003 occurred after the murder, and there is no reason to believe IamJeb_ was speaking to RaiTheGuy07 in that conversation.
4. The Defence DENIES that Raitheguy07 was unlawfully arrested and sent to jail for two counts of murder. RaiTheGuy07 was lawfully arrested.
5. The Defence DENIES that Raitheguy07 killed Argen_Lee with his consent. P-004 does not show “consent”. P-005 shows Argen_Lee’s opinion on what constitutes murder, which is not the law.
6. The Defence DENIES that Raitheguy07 was unlawfully arrested and sent to jail for one count of murder. RaiTheGuy07 was lawfully arrested.
7. The Defence DENIES that on 15/02, Raitheguy07 opened a ticket with DHS hoping to revert his criminal record for these murders. The Plaintiff has submitted no proof of this occurring, and the Defence has been unable to confirm the contents this ticket independently.
8. The Defence AFFIRMS that on 16/02, Raitheguy07 was terminated from the DHS for murder, a termination which became widespread public knowledge.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Constitution grants Secretaries the right to appoint and dismiss employees of their respective departments. The precedent identified by the Plaintiff involved a termination that lacked a clear violation of the DOH’s code of conduct. RaiTheGuy07’s termination was based on established laws prohibiting murder and adhered to the DHS Code of Conduct, which explicitly grants the Secretary the authority to fire employees for severe offences. Unlike Ko531, where no clear misconduct was established, this case involves a well-documented violation of the law and the code of conduct. Therefore, the precedent set in Ko531 does not apply.

2. Verbal consent to murder is not consent to murder under the law. Only running the command “/police consent” allows a citizen to consent to murder (D-001).

3. The No More Defamation Act states that “Defamation is a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation”. The DHS did not make a false statement—RaiTheGuy07 did commit murder. According to the Violent Offences Act, murder is “The act of unlawfully killing another player”, which RaiTheGuy07 clearly did, as seen in P-001 and P-002.

4. The Plaintiff’s claim of reputational harm is unfounded, as public reaction demonstrates the opposite effect. Rather than suffering damage to his reputation, the Plaintiff has garnered significant public support, as evidenced by petitions advocating for his reinstatement (P-007). Far from defamation, the Plaintiff’s termination has, if anything, enhanced his public standing.

Spoiler: D-001

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 27th day of February 2025

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

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

1. Lack of Claim (Rule 5.5)
The Plaintiff alleges wrongful termination, reputational harm, and financial loss but fails to demonstrate any legal basis that would entitle him to relief.

The Constitution of Redmont grants the Secretary of DHS the authority to hire and fire employees, and the DHS Code of Conduct explicitly states that the Secretary may fire employees for severe offences. The Plaintiff murdered three citizens who did not legally consent to the murders. Murder is a severe crime, and outrageous behaviour from an agent of the law. The Secretary, and agents acting on behalf of the Secretary, were well within their rights to fire the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff claims defamation, but DHS made no false or misleading statements about the Plaintiff—his termination for “murder” was based on fact. The Plaintiff claims reputational harm but provides evidence of public support for his reinstatement, demonstrating that his reputation has not suffered.

The Plaintiff claims damages for time spent in jail; however, he was lawfully arrested and sentenced for committing murder. Compensation for lost time is not available to individuals who were lawfully incarcerated as a consequence of their actions. Since the Plaintiff’s imprisonment was not wrongful, he has no legal basis to claim monetary relief for time spent serving his valid sentence.

2. Immunity Protection (Rule 5.11)
The Constitution of Redmont grants the Secretary of DHS the authority to fire and hire employees, meaning this termination was conducted under Constitutional authority, and not subject to legal challenge. The courts have historically upheld the doctrine of immunity in cases where government officials act within their Constitutional authority (Lawsuit: Dismissed - Commonwealth of Redmont v. Deadwax [2022] SCR 24, Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. xLayzur [2024] SCR 1, Lawsuit: Adjourned - Mask3D_WOLF v. Judiciary of Redmont [2024] SCR 13). Since the termination was lawful and followed departmental procedure, this case must be dismissed under Rule 5.11.

Overruled.

On Lack of Claim, this motion alleges insufficient evidence for damages, which could still be shown in Discovery. Furthermore, regardless of whether the Plaintiff has yet demonstrated a legal basis for his claims, his filing may be amended during Discovery, and also Opening Statements tend to be where the bulk of the legal analysis appears.

On Immunity Protection, the Constitution expressly gives the power to "appoint and dismiss employees" in their departments, however, unlike the President's power to fire Secretaries, their tenure is not "at the pleasure" of their superior, and may be subject to further regulation outside the Constitution. Thus, I'm not satisfied that there is definitely immunity in this case.

 

[Dartanboy]

Discovery will now begin. It will last 72 hours unless otherwise modified.

 

[Superwoops]

Your honor, we wish to add the following pieces of evidence:

P-008:



P-009:

https://imgur.com/LWES8QA

P-010:

 

[juniperfig]

I respectfully request to amend the Answer to Complaint as follows:

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
...
7. The Defence DENIES AFFIRMS that on 15/02, Raitheguy07 opened a ticket with DHS hoping to revert his criminal record for these murders. The Plaintiff has submitted no proof of this occurring, and the Defence has been unable to confirm the contents this ticket independently.

 

[Dartanboy]

I respectfully request to amend the Answer to Complaint as follows:

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
...
7. The Defence DENIES AFFIRMS that on 15/02, Raitheguy07 opened a ticket with DHS hoping to revert his criminal record for these murders. The Plaintiff has submitted no proof of this occurring, and the Defence has been unable to confirm the contents this ticket independently.

You may make this change.

 

[Superwoops]

We would like to amend our filing as follows:


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Raitheguy07 be found not guilty for the murders of Doc, IamJeb_, and Argen_Lee from Raitheguy07's, and subsequently, his criminal record be expunged.
2. Immediate reinstatement of Raitheguy07 as Recruit in the Department of Homeland Security.
3. $1,500 in compensatory damages, as my client is entitled to $50 per minute spent in jail, according to the Standardised Criminal Code Act.
4. $5,000 in compensatory damages for missed earning capacity while in prison, as well as lost salary for arrests in the two days of playtime my client has had since his termination.
5. $35,000 in punitive damages for the Department of Homeland Security's outrageous conduct in the handling of this case. Is a reasonable person supposed to expect that you can be fired from a government job for crimes you didn't commit, all the while blatantly disregarding Department policy? My client was an outstanding member of the police force and did not deserve this treatment.
6. $10,000 in emotional damages, as this whole process, along with my client's sudden termination and the need to file a lawsuit to gain his job back and right these wrongs has caused him great anger and grief.
7. $20,000 for Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont.
8. $10,000 for reputational loss (through defamation) by stating that my client committed murder.
9. 8. A public apology from DHS to my client, Raitheguy07.
10. 9. $24,450 $21,450 in legal fees, corresponding to 30% of the value of this case.

 

[Superwoops]

We submit this additional piece of evidence:

P-011:

 

[Superwoops]

We would like to submit the following witness list:

1: Doc
2: IamJeb_
3: Argen_Lee
4: RaiTheGuy07

 

[Dartanboy]

We would like to amend our filing as follows:


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Raitheguy07 be found not guilty for the murders of Doc, IamJeb_, and Argen_Lee from Raitheguy07's, and subsequently, his criminal record be expunged.
2. Immediate reinstatement of Raitheguy07 as Recruit in the Department of Homeland Security.
3. $1,500 in compensatory damages, as my client is entitled to $50 per minute spent in jail, according to the Standardised Criminal Code Act.
4. $5,000 in compensatory damages for missed earning capacity while in prison, as well as lost salary for arrests in the two days of playtime my client has had since his termination.
5. $35,000 in punitive damages for the Department of Homeland Security's outrageous conduct in the handling of this case. Is a reasonable person supposed to expect that you can be fired from a government job for crimes you didn't commit, all the while blatantly disregarding Department policy? My client was an outstanding member of the police force and did not deserve this treatment.
6. $10,000 in emotional damages, as this whole process, along with my client's sudden termination and the need to file a lawsuit to gain his job back and right these wrongs has caused him great anger and grief.
7. $20,000 for Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont.
8. $10,000 for reputational loss (through defamation) by stating that my client committed murder.
9. 8. A public apology from DHS to my client, Raitheguy07.
10. 9. $24,450 $21,450 in legal fees, corresponding to 30% of the value of this case.

You may make this change.

 

[Superwoops]

We would like to add the following piece of evidence:

P-012:

 

[Superwoops]

Your honor, we request a 48-hour extension of Discovery as we have requested information from DHS and are awaiting their response.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, we request a 48-hour extension of Discovery as we have requested information from DHS and are awaiting their response.

Granted

 

[juniperfig]

The Defence submits the following into evidence:

Spoiler: D-002

 

[Superwoops]

Your honor, we request an additional 48 hour extension so we can get our client’s requested information privately from the Department of Homeland Security.

 

[juniperfig]

Your honor, we request an additional 48 hour extension so we can get our client’s requested information privately from the Department of Homeland Security.

Your honour, this more than double the time allotted for discovery. The Plaintiff could have acquired this information prior to filing their lawsuit.