Lawsuit: In Session EpicFought v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 19

[Kaiserin_]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


EpicFought (Represented by Dragon Law Firm.)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
The plaintiff was unjustly terminated from their position of a prosecutor by the Department of Justice due to an alleged violation of the code of conduct and alleged incompetence. After an argument between someone and the plaintiff over law where the plaintiff argued they knew the law because they were employed in the DOJ, the DOJ contacted the plaintiff and terminated the employment of the Plaintiff over this argument and supposed breach of the code of conduct. This minor and reasonable statement—intended to clarify the Plaintiff's legal expertise—was twisted into accusations that the Plaintiff had "mocked" the individual and leveraged their position improperly. The Plaintiff asserts that the termination was unjust, as the claims of breaching the contract were either exaggerated or baseless. The Plaintiff did not engage in any actions that would warrant such severe punishment, especially without prior notice or a chance to remedy any of the issues.


I. PARTIES
1. EpicFought (Plaintiff)
2. Department of Justice. (Defendant)
3. Mask3D_WOLF
4. Freeze_Line

II. FACTS
1. On Dec 16th 2024, RealTV filed a lawsuit against the staff team in the supreme court. In good faith, Epic contacted RealTV to explain that the staff were allowed to close his case. They then had an argument about who was correct and Epic informed RealTV that they were part of the DOJ so they ought to have knowledge of the law.
2. Mask3D_Wolf then contacted the plaintiff and claimed their behaviour was “unbecoming of a prosecutor.” Mask argued to Epic that Epic used his position as a prosecutor to mock RealTV, which is false.
3. Mask and other DOJ members then began arguing that Epic was an inexperienced worker who had used AI to conduct all his work which violates the DOJ code of conduct, which is false.
4. Mask then conducted a 3 DOJ member vote and voted to terminate Epic, Epic was then terminated.
5. Other employees of the DOJ have clearly violated the DOJ’s code of conduct, while they are allowed to retain employment.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Unfair Dismissal: The Plaintiff’s termination violates Section 13(1) of the Commercial Standards Act, which sets out that unfair dismissal is “the unjust termination of an employee.” According to Oxford, unjust means “not deserved or fair.” The termination in this case is clearly not deserved or fair, as it was based on unfounded claims of incompetence and AI usage. These accusations were not backed by concrete facts, making the dismissal unfair. A simple argument between people external to the job should not warrant as extreme a punishment of termination.
2. The Plaintiff argues that the precedent set in previous unfair dismissal cases, such as Ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 96, which asserts that only a reason for termination needs to be provided to make a dismissal fair, is unjust. The law as set out in the Commercial Standards Act defines unfair dismissal as any termination that is “unjust,” not just those situations where the vacancy is immediately filled without explanation as shown in the precedent of the aforementioned case. 13(1) of the Act says that unfair dismissal is: “Unfair dismissal - the unjust termination of an employee. (e.g. a position is made vacant without reason only to be immediately filled)”, The inclusion of the term "e.g." in the law shows that the example given is just that, an example and is not an exhaustive list, and other situations, such as baseless accusations or extreme responses to minor incidents as in this case, can also fall under unjust dismissal. The Plaintiff asserts that the current precedent unjustly limits the definition of unfair dismissal and that this should be examined by the court to allow for a more fair and just interpretation.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. The Plaintiff seeks $10,000 as compensation for emotional damage. As a result of their unfair termination, the Plaintiff has suffered stress and immense sadness.
2. The Plaintiff seeks $15,000 for loss of enjoyment. The Plaintiff has lost their ability to enjoy living in Redmont due to the unjust and unfair treatment they have faced by the DOJ.
3. The Plaintiff seeks $7,500 in legal fees to cover the costs associated with pursuing this legal action.

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

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

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

May I file an amicus brief?

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@Freeze_Line is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of epicfought v Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 18

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[ko531]

May I file an amicus brief?

May I know why you wish to file an amicus brief and what it will entail?

 

[Freeze_Line]

The Commonwealth is present

 

[ko531]

The Commonwealth is present

You have 72 hours to post your answer to complaint.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

May I know why you wish to file an amicus brief and what it will entail?

I would like to file an amicus brief to provide information on the firing process in the DOJ at that time.

 

[ko531]

I would like to file an amicus brief to provide information on the firing process in the DOJ at that time.

you have 48 hours to provide your amicus brief

 

[SumoMC]

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

EpicFought
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1.) The Commonwealth affirms that EpicFought contacted RealTV, They then had an argument about who was correct and EpicFought informed RealTV that they were part of the DOJ so they ought to have knowledge of the law. However we neither affirm or deny that it was done in good faith.

2.) The Commonwealth affirms that Mask3D_Wolf then contacted the plaintiff and claimed their behavior was “unbecoming of a prosecutor” and that Mask3d_Wolf said they used their position as a prosecutor to mock RealTV.

3.) The Commonwealth affirms that Mask3d_Wolf and other members of the Department of Justice said EpicFought was inexperienced and that he used AI in his work.

4.) The Commonwealth affirms that former Solicitor General Mask3d_Wolf conducted a 3 Member vote on the matter of termination for EpicFought, we also affirm that the outcome of the vote led to EpicFought being terminated from his position at the Department of Justice.

5.) The Commonwealth can neither affirm or deny that other employees broke the code of conduct and are still employed with the Department of Justice.


II. DEFENCES
1.) On December 16th, 2024 EpicFought engaged in conduct unbecoming of a prosecutor with a member of the public. Mr. EpicFought attempted to use his position within the Department of Justice as a Prosecutor to assert a sort of superiority over another lawyer in terms of knowledge of the law.

2.) In the Commercial Standards Act it defines Unjust dismissal as “(1) Unfair dismissal - the unjust termination of an employee. (e.g. a position is made vacant without reason only to be immediately filled).” With this being said, we can look at how he was terminated, it was put to a vote by 3 people in the upper leadership of the Department, he was counseled with and he was given a reason for his termination from the department.

3.) In the case of The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Aveke [2024] FCR 126, EpicFought was assigned as the prosecutor to this case, he was caught using ChatGPT to aid him in the creation of the case. Not only did this cause doubt in his ability to do the job but in his integrity. According to the Code of Conduct it states “All work must be your own. While using external sources is acceptable, outsourcing the majority of your work is not. You are also prohibited from using AI to write your work.”. Epic admitted to using AI to assist him in his work only after being caught by the Attorney General Freeze, this in itself is grounds for termination and is one of the reasons such action had taken place.

4.) On December 16th, 2024 after multiple cited offenses and being counseled with, the plaintiff was terminated from the department by the Attorney General in which EpicFought replied “ I deeply apologise and accept the termination. Thank you. Kindly explain me the mistakes I made so that I can learn from it.” The AG then went on to tell him how to improve. The plaintiff accepted his mistakes and knew his termination was justified.


III. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: D-001 Termination

Spoiler: D-002 Employment Policy

Spoiler: D-003 Code of Conduct No AI in your Work

Spoiler: D-004 Admitting he used AI/ChatGPT

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 5th day of March 2025

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

you have 48 hours to provide your amicus brief

I apologize, but I am currently very busy. Could I have a 24 hour extension?

 

[ko531]

I apologize, but I am currently very busy. Could I have a 24 hour extension?

Granted

 

[ko531]

We will now enter discovery, Discovery will last 72 hours starting now

 

[Superwoops]

Objection

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

Spoiler: D-003 Code of Conduct No AI in your Work

Upon reviewing the full document from where D-003 was extracted, it is evident that the document was edited on December 25th, 2024. This date is after my client’s termination, and thus any mention of AI use could have been added in post-termination, meaning it does not reflect the rules in effect at the time.

 

[Superwoops]

Motion

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

Your honor, since opposing counsel has not provided a relevant document detailing the DoJ's employee policy, we would like to request that the DoJ release their employee policy handbook for the time my client was employed there.
This document will serve to establish whether my client's termination is consistent with the Department of Justice's employment policy at the time of his termination.

 

[SumoMC]

Objection

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

Upon reviewing the full document from where D-003 was extracted, it is evident that the document was edited on December 25th, 2024. This date is after my client’s termination, and thus any mention of AI use could have been added in post-termination, meaning it does not reflect the rules in effect at the time.

Your honor, may i respond?

 

[SumoMC]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure

Your honor, this person is not the original attorney on record and they have not brought it up to the court.

 

[SumoMC]

Motion

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

Motion

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

Your honor, since opposing counsel has not provided a relevant document detailing the DoJ's employee policy, we would like to request that the DoJ release their employee policy handbook for the time my client was employed there.
This document will serve to establish whether my client's termination is consistent with the Department of Justice's employment policy at the time of his termination.

Objection

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

Upon reviewing the full document from where D-003 was extracted, it is evident that the document was edited on December 25th, 2024. This date is after my client’s termination, and thus any mention of AI use could have been added in post-termination, meaning it does not reflect the rules in effect at the time.

Superwoops is not the attorney on record and has not provided that they are taking over the case or that they are even employeed with the Dragon Law Firm. For this we ask that both the Objection and the Motion to Comple be struck from the record.

Edit: Responded to the wrong message

 

[Superwoops]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure

Your honor, this person is not the original attorney on record and they have not brought it up to the court.

Opposing counsel could have checked my bio before objecting, which points out that I am employed in Dragon Law.
I have also been assigned to handle this case.

 

[SumoMC]

Motion

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

Your honor this is a clear breach of procedure, no response was requested by the presiding officer. Furthermore the bio is not proof that this person works for the firm nor has the consent to work on this case. We request that the original attorney of record indicate that the case has been handed over to Superwoops.

 

[Kaiserin_]

I trust that the court will forgive my speaking out of turn, but my input has been specifically requested by the defence, and this seems the easiest way to clear any controversy. Superwoops is employed at Dragon Law Firm, and he has been assigned this case, under my supervision. The firm has had no issues in the past with different lawyers contributing to the same case. My client is represented by Dragon Law Firm as a whole, not by any specific person, as plainly stated in the initial complaint.

 

[SumoMC]

Witness List:

1.) EpicFought
2.) Mask3D_Wolf
3.) Freeze_Line

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

I retract my amicus brief request, seeing as I am now implicated in the lawsuit as a witness.

 

[ko531]

Your honor, may i respond?

You may in the next 24 hours.

Motion

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





Superwoops is not the attorney on record and has not provided that they are taking over the case or that they are even employeed with the Dragon Law Firm. For this we ask that both the Objection and the Motion to Comple be struck from the record.

Edit: Responded to the wrong message

The objection is Overruled, and this motion is Denied as it has now been confirmed that superwoops does work for dragon law.

 

[Superwoops]

We submit the following evidence:

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

 

[Superwoops]

Motion

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

p

Apologies, your honor. The message above was a mistype.

 

[ko531]

Motion

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


Apologies, your honor. The message above was a mistype.

Sustained, I'm going to delete the message as it's just the letter P and has no value in the case or in the court record.

 

[Superwoops]

INTERROGATORY:

1. Does the Department of Justice only terminate employees if they break the current code of conduct?

2. Is it fair to assume that a prosecutor employed in the Department of Justice is more qualified in the law than a regular citizen?

3. Does the Department of Justice, to the best of its ability, follow its departmental policies in all matters, without exception?

4. Are all employees subject to the same standards of accountability in the Department of Justice?

 

[SumoMC]

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth will be entering the following into the record as defense evidence:

Spoiler: D-005

Spoiler: D-006

Spoiler: D-007

Spoiler: D-008

Spoiler: D-009

 

[SumoMC]

INTERROGATORY:

1. Does the Department of Justice only terminate employees if they break the current code of conduct?

2. Is it fair to assume that a prosecutor employed in the Department of Justice is more qualified in the law than a regular citizen?

3. Does the Department of Justice, to the best of its ability, follow its departmental policies in all matters, without exception?

4. Are all employees subject to the same standards of accountability in the Department of Justice?

1.) The Department of Justitce reviews all subject matter and a multitude of diffrent things when it comes to the termination of an employee

2.) This is a borad statement that the DOJ does not agree with, there are a ton of legal professionals that are not employeed with the DOJ, so no.

3.) Yes, thats why the policys are there.

4.) Yes.

 

[Superwoops]

We would like to submit the following evidence:

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

 

[ko531]

Motion

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

Your honor, since opposing counsel has not provided a relevant document detailing the DoJ's employee policy, we would like to request that the DoJ release their employee policy handbook for the time my client was employed there.
This document will serve to establish whether my client's termination is consistent with the Department of Justice's employment policy at the time of his termination.

I am granting this motion to compel.

The DOJ is required, to the best of their ability, to provide either the employee policy from the time Epicfought was fired or provide evidence showing what exactly was edited between then and now.

 

[SumoMC]

I am granting this motion to compel.

The DOJ is required, to the best of their ability, to provide either the employee policy from the time Epicfought was fired or provide evidence showing what exactly was edited between then and now.

Your Honor,

The Department of Justice is unable to access the edit log of the code of conduct, there is no way on our end to prove that wasn’t there when EpicFought was terminated. The Code of Conduct that is publicly accessible now is the one we have, there is no other one.

 

[Superwoops]

Objection

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

Your honor, in addition to not complying with our motion to compel, the DoJ is knowingly making a false statement, as we are certain there is a Department of Justice policy handbook which was valid at the time of my client’s termination. Since it is their own document, it is only fair to assume they had to know of its existence, meaning there is, in fact, another document detailing their code of conduct. Said handbook is found attached to this objection to comply with court rules of procedure.

 

[SumoMC]

Objection

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

Your honor, in addition to not complying with our motion to compel, the DoJ is knowingly making a false statement, as we are certain there is a Department of Justice policy handbook which was valid at the time of my client’s termination. Since it is their own document, it is only fair to assume they had to know of its existence, meaning there is, in fact, another document detailing their code of conduct. Said handbook is found attached to this objection to comply with court rules of procedure.

Motion

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

Your honor,

The Commonwealth of Redmont hereby request that the evidence provided in this objection is stricken from the record under rule 4.2 Submission Required for Use, this evidence is inadmissable due to it not being filed previously in the correct manner.

 

[SumoMC]

Objection

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

Your honor, in addition to not complying with our motion to compel, the DoJ is knowingly making a false statement, as we are certain there is a Department of Justice policy handbook which was valid at the time of my client’s termination. Since it is their own document, it is only fair to assume they had to know of its existence, meaning there is, in fact, another document detailing their code of conduct. Said handbook is found attached to this objection to comply with court rules of procedure.

Your Honor,

This objection is reaching at best, we provided a detailed explanation on why we could not get the requested documentation. The Code of Conduct is publicy accessable to the public, furthermore i was unaware of the existance of that document.the employee Code of Conduct is employee policy in regards to the Department of Justice, if something else was wanted it should have been asked for.

 

[Superwoops]

Motion

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

Your honor,

The Commonwealth of Redmont hereby request that the evidence provided in this objection is stricken from the record under rule 4.2 Submission Required for Use, this evidence is inadmissable due to it not being filed previously in the correct manner.

Your honor, may I respond?

 

[ko531]

Your honor, may I respond?

you may

 

[Superwoops]

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE

Your honour, the document attached serves only as evidence for the perjury objection. Perjury, to be considered, must show proof that the opposing party is aware that what they have said is false. (See Boomsides and Pepecuu v. Lucaa7377 [2025] FCR 10)
The Employee Handbook shows that there is another document, apart from the aforementioned Code of Conduct, that outlines DoJ employee policy.
In any case, that same evidence must be formally submitted by the Defense to comply with our motion to compel.

 

[ko531]

Objection

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

Your honor, in addition to not complying with our motion to compel, the DoJ is knowingly making a false statement, as we are certain there is a Department of Justice policy handbook which was valid at the time of my client’s termination. Since it is their own document, it is only fair to assume they had to know of its existence, meaning there is, in fact, another document detailing their code of conduct. Said handbook is found attached to this objection to comply with court rules of procedure.

Overruled I do not see enough of an intent to lie, You asked for the employee policy while just before providing a screenshot from their code of conduct. They could not find the edit log for the Code of Conduct which is exactly what they said.

Motion

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

Your honor,

The Commonwealth of Redmont hereby request that the evidence provided in this objection is stricken from the record under rule 4.2 Submission Required for Use, this evidence is inadmissable due to it not being filed previously in the correct manner.

Sustained. The DOJ Policy Handbook will be struck.

 

[ko531]

The Plaintiff now has 72 hours to provide their opening statements

 

[Superwoops]

Overruled I do not see enough of an intent to lie, You asked for the employee policy while just before providing a screenshot from their code of conduct. They could not find the edit log for the Code of Conduct which is exactly what they said.

Sustained. The DOJ Policy Handbook will be struck.

Your honour, just to clarify, is the DoJ's previous response being allowed as the response to the motion to compel?
Since the original court order was for the DoJ to "provide either the employee policy from the time Epicfought was fired or provide evidence showing what exactly was edited between then and now."

 

[ko531]

Your honour, just to clarify, is the DoJ's previous response being allowed as the response to the motion to compel?
Since the original court order was for the DoJ to "provide either the employee policy from the time Epicfought was fired or provide evidence showing what exactly was edited between then and now."

Yes as they clearly expressed that they cant comply as they do not have access to it.

 

[Superwoops]

Your honour, I am requesting to please have a 24-hour extension due to unforeseen circumstances.

 

[Superwoops]

Motion

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

Yes as they clearly expressed that they cant comply as they do not have access to it.

Your honour, what I ask here is simple. The Employee Policy publicly posted has been altered and is improper evidence for this case. We have provided evidence to prove that there is another document (the Employee Handbook) that details how DoJ employees must act. These are two completely separate documents. We ask for the court to have the DoJ provide the only reliable document.

You asked the Department of Justice "to provide either the employee policy from the time Epicfought was fired or provide evidence showing what exactly was edited between then and now." Since they have stated they cannot provide evidence showing what was edited, (part two of the order) they have no option but to submit the Employee Handbook, which is the only reliable bit of evidence that outlines employee policy at the time my client was fired from the DoJ (part one of the order). The Department of Justice knows about and has access to this document, because current Attorney General Freeze_Line personally revised it, as is stated on the first page of the Handbook.

 

[Superwoops]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO SUBMIT LATE EVIDENCE

Your honour, we were under the impression that the Defense would comply and post the Handbook. Since that may not be the case anymore, I respectfully ask that we are allowed to post it instead.
This piece of evidence is crucial to determine the regulations and guidelines that my client had to follow up until the time of his termination while he was employed at the Department of Justice.

While this is not a standard motion, it was allowed in GnomeWhisperer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 11 for evidence of great importance to the case. The Defense also fully knows about the existence of this evidence.

 

[SumoMC]

Your honor this is has been answered by you already, the defense has time to post motions but not their opening statements? We ask that you deny the request to extend the deadline and deny these motions

 

[Superwoops]

Yes, as I am dealing with some IRL things right now. I ask to please have just 24 extra hours

 

[SumoMC]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO SUBMIT LATE EVIDENCE

Your honour, we were under the impression that the Defense would comply and post the Handbook. Since that may not be the case anymore, I respectfully ask that we are allowed to post it instead.
This piece of evidence is crucial to determine the regulations and guidelines that my client had to follow up until the time of his termination while he was employed at the Department of Justice.

While this is not a standard motion, it was allowed in GnomeWhisperer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 11 for evidence of great importance to the case. The Defense also fully knows about the existence of this evidence.

Objection your honor, the precedent they citied in this motion did not allow for the evidence to be submitted.

 

[Superwoops]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your honour, today I will argue that my client’s termination was unjust and arbitrary. To do this, we will go through the interrogatory answers, and then a thorough analysis of every reasoning for the grounds of termination.

To begin, I’d like to point out some troubling discrepancies in the answers provided by the DoJ in Discovery interrogatories. On one hand, when asked about the criteria for termination and if they only terminate in case the Code of Conduct is breached, they answered with an array of words that can be simply translated into a “no”, since they answered that they take into account many different factors. But, on the other hand, when asked if they follow their departmental policies in all matters, without exception, they answered with a yes, as that’s the reason the policies exist.
If the DoJ would truly, to the best of its ability, adhere to its own policy for termination, why leave room for ambiguity? Why would they also take into consideration “other factors”? This inconsistency serves to show how the DoJ is free to terminate employees how they see fit, disregarding the need for a Code of Conduct in the first place, which puts in place the exact criteria for termination: nothing more, nothing less.
But could this also open up the door for something even more disconcerting? When asked if all employees are subject to the same standards of accountability in the Department of Justice, the Defense responded with a yes. So, if everyone is treated the same, and the DoJ always follows its departmental policy, then why (for example) does Nacholebraa serve both as a Prosecutor and a Public Defender at the same time? The Employee Code of Conduct clearly states that you can “Not be a Public Defender or Court Clerk” in order to be employed by the DoJ.
So it appears that there does, in fact, exist preferential treatment. When a rookie prosecutor isn’t doing exactly what the higher-ups expect, they can apply and twist their policy’s words to their liking. But, when a more seasoned prosecutor holds those two jobs, something explicitly forbidden, they can choose to look past it and allow him to retain employment to this day. In a way the DoJ would put it, this behaviour is unbecoming of a government body.

Now I will get into the grounds of my client’s termination. The DoJ states that my client was terminated for: “his incompetence, lack of experience, misuse of chatgpt to write his case, and arrogance in using the department’s name to mock another person.” Let’s go over these one by one.

On incompetence and lack of experience
The very nature of these grounds raises an important question. Isn’t the fundamental duty of an employer to train its rookie employees, ensuring they stay on the right track to improve? Being a prosecutor is one of the best ways one can gain important experience in the legal field. This is, of course, apart from the fact that the Defense has not provided evidence to suggest my client is incompetent. After all, if he really was incompetent, would the DoJ, a department known for its scrutiny when onboarding employees, really hire someone incompetent? No, they wouldn’t.

On ChatGPT
The DoJ states that EpicFought (in the Defense’s words), used “ChatGPT to aid him” We agree. AI has become a powerful tool not for writing whole legal arguments, but to aid the person writing that argument. P-003 and P-004 show just how little text in my client’s work was actually generated by AI, staying well below 50% (even below 20%). As I have previously argued, the DoJ’s employee policy page was edited after the date of my client’s termination, which makes it an incredibly unreliable source. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to think that, after my client’s use of AI tools, the DoJ realised it didn’t want its employees to use it at all, and decided to edit their employee policy to prohibit its use.

On arrogance
It’s important to note here that my client didn’t initially mock RealTV. Rather, he used his role in hopes to clear up any confusion on RealTV’s side (albeit rather assertively.) Being a prosecutor in the DoJ is a legitimate assertion to prove someone’s understanding of law. Even afterwards, he attempted to clear up any confusion by explaining that the Courts only deal with IC (In Character) things.
P-006 makes it clear that the DoJ only began to have a problem with all of this when EpicFought mentioned the Department of Justice, as shown by the (then) Solicitor General Mask3D_WOLF: “[...] you made it a DOJ affair when you used your position in that argument.” This means that the so-called “arrogance” was really just a reactionary label for mentioning his employment in the Department. In other words, the DoJ would not have punished EpicFought had he not mentioned the DoJ’s name, because he wasn’t doing anything wrong. Again, an inconsistent, arbitrary application of the rules that leaves my client in a helpless position.

Your honour, we ask you to please uphold the true value of fairness that has been violated by the Department of Justice. Unfair precedent has been set in the courts, as seen in Ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 96. We ask you to amend this in order to protect workers’ rights.​

 

[ko531]

Your honour, I am requesting to please have a 24-hour extension due to unforeseen circumstances.

Sorry for the late response, even though opening statements already was posted this would have been granted anyways

Motion

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



Your honour, what I ask here is simple. The Employee Policy publicly posted has been altered and is improper evidence for this case. We have provided evidence to prove that there is another document (the Employee Handbook) that details how DoJ employees must act. These are two completely separate documents. We ask for the court to have the DoJ provide the only reliable document.

You asked the Department of Justice "to provide either the employee policy from the time Epicfought was fired or provide evidence showing what exactly was edited between then and now." Since they have stated they cannot provide evidence showing what was edited, (part two of the order) they have no option but to submit the Employee Handbook, which is the only reliable bit of evidence that outlines employee policy at the time my client was fired from the DoJ (part one of the order). The Department of Justice knows about and has access to this document, because current Attorney General Freeze_Line personally revised it, as is stated on the first page of the Handbook.

This motion and the motion to submit late evidence is denied. For one it was submitted after discover and late but also this policy doesnt serve mainly as a employee policy but as a department policy. It is policy for to guide department decisions not for employee conduct.