Lawsuit: Adjourned Bubbarc v. President krix [2021] FCR 25

[bubbarc]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Bubbarc
Plaintiff

v.

President Krix
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: I have been unconstitutionally fired from the job of sergeant by the defendant, as evidenced below krix had me removed from the position in order to talk with dusty which later unwittingly rehired and no more than a few hours later affirmed krix's original firing, however constitutionally they can only remove the follow, A: a secretary. B: a principal officer, or C: a general advisor, nowhere does it say they can fire a sergeant, in fact it actually states they cannot remove a government employee, which he removed me from the position of sergeant, even if the courts do not rule that I was removed unconstitutionally by that clause I was removed unconstitutionally under the effect that he had removed me from a position that he did not have power to do so, and precedent exists through the subpoena on December thirtieth, 2020, where president westray had been called into congress over president westray removing deputy secretary nacho, later no action was taken due to the fact that he had been fired over exigent circumstances, but the president still exists

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I. PARTIES
1. Bubbarc (Plaintiff)
2. President Krix (Defendant)
3. Secretary Dusty
4. Secretary _Zab_ (Witness)

II. FACTS
1. I had been fired from sergeant by President Krix
2. This firing had been done without the constitutional power to do so
3. Dusty had later affirmed it only after having hired me to the position again
4. Krix had had no issue with vanquish_ap (notice, just bringing up precedent, she is not involved in the case) having been rehired directly as a sergeant
5. Sergeant counts as a separate job due to being paid $5 more than constables

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. As stated above, the president does not have the constitutional right to do what he did
2. While dusty had later affirmed it, this was only after having rehired me
3. The precedent exists for matters such as this from former president westray's subpoena back in december as stated above

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Removal of president krix from office and/or a formal request from the court to have congress investigate krix's actions further
2. For President Krix to issue a formal apology to me for his actions
3. Due to the blatant involvement in dusty's firing of me I would ask the courts request he reconsider it, however I will not request the courts force him to give me the position back due to the fact that dusty himself later affirmed the firing as stated above

Spoiler: Evidence

Proof of appointment and the aforementioned affirming of my firing

Proof of bonus Timing

Proof of timing after bonuses have went out

Zab's statement

Krix's Statement

Clause of the constitution

proof of general timing and the logs not being modified (notice, modified also counts as the system modifying it, it doesn't have to be the end user, if you use winrar you can confirm this yourself if you wish)

proof that they are considered two entirely separate jobs

proof that even the owners themselves, who made this chart, count it as a separate job

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 seventh day of March 2021

 

[Matt]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUMMONS
The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case BubbaRC v The President of the Commonwealth fo Redmont. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.
​

 

[Matthew100x]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Bubblearc
Plaintiff

v.

President Krix
Defendant

Case no: [Case No. 03-2021-07-01]

I ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The executive branch denies that Bubblearc's constitutional rights were broken.
2. The executive branch asserts that the President has the right to demote someone.
3. This incident happened by accident because the President assumed that Dusty had the repromotion back to sergeant in error. The plaintiff confirms this in his evidence that he acknowledges that it is possible that Dusty may have made an error in promoting the plaintiff back to the sergeant.

II DEFENCES
1. The President holds the ability to demote a department employee because of the wording of the constitution and that Bubba's rights were not broken.

First, the statement that the plaintiff is relying on to tie their conclusion together is this "The President may NOT remove any department employee" does not prove that the President cannot demote someone. It does not prove that the President cannot reassign someone to a lower role. Taking a textualist pathology on this definition, the statute in the constitution prevents the President from removing a department employee. The plaintiff insists that the government acknowledges Sergeant as a separate job from being a Constable. However, the executive branch insists that the government sees that no matter if one is a Trainee Officer, a Constable, a Corporal, or a Sergeant, that a player is still a police officer. Krix did not remove Bubba from being a police officer, he Bubba demoted from the rank of sergeant. This comparison is simple, if you were a worker, got promoted to a manager, and then demoted to a worker, were you fired from being a manager? No, there is a difference between removal and demotion. Removal involves separation from the government agency, loss of all pay, loss of all responsibilities, and loss of all privileges. The president demoted Bubba, Bubba is still a Police Officer, he still gets paid, he still has responsibilities, he still has the commands needed to catch criminals. The President did not remove Bubba as a department employee, he simply reassigned him.

Second, the reason why the President has the ability to demote someone is not simply because the constitution does not prevent the president from doing so, but because the constitution grants the president "executive authority" to do so. In the 'The Role of The President' section of the constitution, the president is stated to be "responsible for the execution and enforcement of the law". This means that the President is charged with the constitutional authority to make sure that the executive branch is able to execute and enforce the law. I would believe that this would entail keeping an eye on problematic members of the executive branch when the secretary is unable to deal with the situation. The president would be able to take any action needed barring removing them from their department until they can have a discussion with the secretary to fire the government employee. The President does have the power to demote or reassign department employees under this theory because the president is responsible for their (the department employees) execution and enforcement of the law.


2. The plaintiff that Dusty could have made a mistake. It was very late when Dusty promoted Bubbarc to sergeant. In the time log evidence in the middle and near the bottom, Krix messages Bubba "You only joined the department back and Dusty gave you the role at like 5 am for him so I'm going to have a sit-down conversation with him about it we will get back to you in your channel." and Bubba responds with "alright, he Dm'd me about it but if it was 5 am for him I understand lmao". I find it odd that the plaintiff admits that Dusty could've made this mistake and that it was alright for Krix to temporarily demote him while they figured it out and then sues the President for something that the plaintiff agreed to. The plaintiff is assuming that they have the right to resume holding the rank of sergeant within the police force after resigning during its time of need. The Executive Branch does not agree with the plaintiff's assumption. The secretary made an error because they were too tired in promoting Bubba back to sergeant immediately upon rehiring him as a police officer and Krix asked that this be corrected.

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 9th day of March 2021.

 

[bubbarc]

Objections your honor

 

[Matt]

I will now ask both parties to present any further arguments. I would kindly ask the plaintiff to respond first, with a subsequent response from the defendant. If possible, could responses be made within 72 hours.

Objections your honor

If it is possible to include your objections in your upcoming statement, please do so. If not, I will hear your objections first.

 

[bubbarc]

Objections

Objection one: even if the court rules sergeant to not be it's own job, there is still the fact that while there is nothing expressly forbidding it, there also is nothing giving the president any power over a department other than the power that is given by the secretary if any, which in this case he had used power of a secretary without their consent

Objection two: the statement the defendant made on the duty of the president would be a good argument, if it was an exigent circumstance, but as it currently stands this event happened due to my inactivity a month prior which he didn't even bother to talk to me about before firing me from sergeant

Objection three: while I concede that I said everything in part two of the defendant's argument I was assuming that it was a temporary move in order to ensure he actually meant what he did, while he didn't have the power either way I also wouldn't have gone this far precisely due to the fact that it would have lasted for a short amount of time


Statement
Furthermore the attorney general uses the argument that the president has executive authority, however as stated in objection one, there is nothing giving this, a statement of the duty of the president does not give him any power, plus there is the fact that the defendant denies that the executive sees sergeant as a separate job, however for this reason in my original evidence there was a diagram from the staff showing sergeant to be thought of as it's own job, separate from constable or trainee

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 11th day of March 2021.

 

[Matthew100x]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

BubbaRC
Plaintiff

v.

President Krix
Defendant

Case no: 03-2021-07-01

I RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
1. " Objection one: even if the court rules sergeant to not be it's own job, there is still the fact that while there is nothing expressly forbidding it, there also is nothing giving the president any power over a department other than the power that is given by the secretary if any, which in this case he had used power of a secretary without their consent."

The executive branch disagrees with this assessment for the already given reasons. These arguments are known as unitary executive theory, the idea that the president has the vested power to control the executive branch as needed. These powers can be constrained, however, in this case, I believe that they are necessary to remedy the situation brought forward to this court.

2. Objection two: the statement the defendant made on the duty of the president would be a good argument if it was an exigent circumstance, but as it currently stands this event happened due to my inactivity a month prior which he didn't even bother to talk to me about before firing me from sergeant

This would be a good objection if an exigent circumstance was a necessary prerequisite for the president to take action. The President did not want you being promoted straight to Sargeant after you had resigned from the Police Force. "this event happened due to my inactivity" is an untrue statement. This event happened because you resigned and then reapplied. You're still fine to be a police officer but the President felt that you should earn that position, not be immediately given it.

Objection three: while I concede that I said everything in part two of the defendant's argument I was assuming that it was a temporary move in order to ensure he actually meant what he did, while he didn't have the power either way I also wouldn't have gone this far precisely due to the fact that it would have lasted for a short amount of time

The President was clear with you when he said that he didn't know why you were promoted to sergeant and that he was going to speak to Dusty_3 about it. You acknowledge that the President told you what was going to happen and then you sued him over it? The President was clear that he did not believe Dusty's judgment was correct because it was late for him. Regardless, Dusty did not disagree with the president on this matter and agreed with him later during their sit-down conversation to keep you at a lower rank for a bit and let you work your way back into sergeant.


II DEFENCES
1. Unitary Executive Theory is a United States theory that holds that the President, through its power derived from executive authority, holds the ability to do many things that were not previously envisioned within the constitution. Power is derived via the terminology "executive Power". Within the constitution of Redmont, we to therein have a clause that gives implicit authority to the presidential office. I call this authority 'Executive Authority' because it is derived from the executive powers bequeathed to the President by the constitution. I've already highlighted the establishing clause in the constitution for this authority within my opening statements because the president is "responsible for the execution and enforcement of the law."

The idea is simple, The president is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the law. The President, therefore, wants to make sure that the branch is functioning properly because it would reflect poorly on him. While the power of the department policy is granted to the Secretary, it does not deny the President from taking action. The only thing that the constitution explicitly prevents is the president explicitly removing departmental employees, which the executive branch maintains that Krix did not do in demoting BubbaRC from Sergeant to Corporal.

2. The plaintiff states that the job of sergeant is its own job. I as the Attorney General maintain the stance that this argument is irrelevant. I state this on the premise that the executive branch views that all jobs are within the DoJ department and that the executive branch views it as one singular job with ranks called a PO. The Constitutional statute that the plaintiff refers to states that the President "Cannot remove a Department Employee". If he argues that there is no clause saying that the president can demote him then he also acknowledges that there is no clause denying that the president can demote if he so chooses to.



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 12th day of March 2021

 

[Matt]

I thank both parties for providing statements. I will now ask you to present your closing arguments. These submissions may relate to previous submissions by each respective party, and they should sum up your position as best as possible. If the plaintiff could submit their statement first, with the defendant submitting afterwards. I would appreciate it if statements could be made within 72 hours.

 

[bubbarc]

Closing Statement
Firstly I would like to apologize to the court for the delay, I have had IRL stuff the past two days, that being said Krix unconstitutionally fired me from a government job, which he did not have the power to do constitutionally, his duty has nothing to do with it and yes, I will admit I was fine with it at first, however as shown in my evidence it was supposed to only be a temporary move to confirm he intended to do it, however that is not how it turned out, even if the court decides to rule that sergeant isn't a separate job think of it this way, where in the constitution does the president have the power to demote/fire anybody except secretaries, general advisors, and principle officers

 

[Matthew100x]

The executive branch denies the claims made in the plaintiff's closing argument. They've already been addressed and we've concluded that we have done nothing wrong. Since the power that Bubbarc comes from the presidency, the president must be able to manage it with constitutional restrictions. Bubbarc is still a police officer and serves proudly on the department. We rest our case.

 

[Matt]

Can either party please confirm whether the method of promotion within the DoJ now requires an application, or is it still a merit-based, discretionary decision?

 

[bubbarc]

Appointment to sergeant has been handled differently between secretaries, it is at their discretion how they want to handle it, however marx did it application based and tox/dusty decided it through sergeant discussion after putting forward a candidate

 

[Matthew100x]

We can call dusty as a witness and ask.

 

[Matt]

We can call dusty as a witness and ask.

We can if you want - does the defence dispute the answer given by the plaintiff?

 

[Matthew100x]

We can if you want - does the defence dispute the answer given by the plaintiff?

I'd rather bring to the stand dusty and tox since I can't say anything on their behalf. My arguments are based on the views of the president and the executive branch at large.

 

[Matt]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WITNESS SUMMONS

Dusty_3 is hereby summoned as a witness before the court. The witness has 24 hours to acknowledge this summons and provide testimony. Failure to do this may lead to being found guilty of contempt of court.

​

Question for witness:

- Was the method of promotion to Sergeant within the DoJ by means of formal application and/or process, or an informal, merit-based discretionary decision made by the Secretary? If it was neither of these, please clarify.

 

[Dusty_3]

The promotion process was through appointing Constables who were exceeding many of their colleagues in skill and experience. It's a merit-based decision, I did not do an application process for Sergeant.

Hope this helps

 

[Matt]

Verdict

Thank you to both parties for a clear and concise case. There are two issues at hand. Firstly, whether the Sergeant role is an independent job from other DoJ roles. Secondly, deciding whether the phrase "responsible for the execution and enforcement of the law" takes primacy over "NOT remove any department employee". Given this second question falls majoritively within the remit of the Supreme Court, this section of my judgment will be given from this position.



The context of this dispute is that the President removed the plaintiff from their role of Sergeant after believing that the Secretary made a mistake in the promotion after re-hiring the plaintiff.



Regarding the role of Sergeant:

I am persuaded by the argument provided by the plaintiff on this count. The role of a Sergeant does come with it increased pay, and more importantly, increased powers and responsibility. It is this latter fact which holds more cogency in my opinion. The role is not something one applies to, which must be noted, but it has a distinct tag and I believe is a distinct entity - albeit under the remit of the DoJ. While the core duties of each role are the same within the DoJ, the duties of a Sergeant are materially different from that of other ranks given the seniority of the position.


Primacy of the Constitution

As such, it is therefore apparent that the President has removed the plaintiff, who was not a secretary, from their job. This raises a conflict between whether a President's responsibility for the execution and enforcement of the law takes primacy over not removing the plaintiff. I appreciate the defendant's interpretation on this matter, indeed this matter caused me great pain to decide upon. However, I struggle to agree that, due to the fact the President is charged with the execution and enforcement of the law, this extends to micromanaging problematic members in non-exigent circumstances. The defendant did submit that the reason the President took this action was not due to any problem caused by the plaintiff, but rather in question over the immediate reinstatement of his previous rank. I greatly appreciate the defendant highlighting my attention to Unitary Executive Theory and its premise. I understand that the nature and scope of this theory are still debated widely. My understanding of the clause in question, the execution and enforcement of the law, is in relation to the power of the President to, in times of crisis, command and enforce the law where his appointed Secretary is unable or incapable of doing so. This would not extend to situations where the execution and enforcement of the law were not at risk of being compromised. Personnel issues not core to the immediate ability of the DoJ to function should be left to the Secretary who the Senate approved. I do not believe that the President did this with any culpability, intending to solely act vicariously. However, to rule otherwise would hugely diminish the role of the DoJ Secretary. The matter at hand was not one of urgency and thus should have been left to the Secretary to decide. Should the President have been concerned at the actions of the Secretary, given the lack of exigent circumstances, there should have been dialogue between the President and the Secretary as soon as reasonably practicable; but not direct action involving the President and the Plaintiff.

While I find the President's actions unlawful, I strain to expound a lack of culpability with no real need to investigate the matter further. Indeed I accept that the President outlined his reasoning to the plaintiff and the plaintiff was happy to accept this, albeit believing it was temporary. Due to this lack of culpability, I find the prayers for the relief requested by the plaintiff to be overly disproportionate. The President acted with an honest belief, even if this was mistaken. As such this case is settled in favour of the plaintiff with no further prayers for relief granted.