Lawsuit: Adjourned Ko531 v. Department of Health [2022] DCR 59

[ko531]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Ko531
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Health
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

I was fired from the Department of Health on 12/11 by Southray. He fired me for "mass buying from the hospital chest." I do agree to buying products from the hospital chest shops but I did this without breaking any laws or DOH rules. There are no laws that state that mass buying from the hospital chest shops is illegal. The Doctor Guide does state "Only use materials from the Hospital supply room to craft cures." I did in fact use all the materials for crafting cures with the leftovers being dispose of. There is a law against the possession of medical objects outside of a government-approved Medical Facility. I transported the ingredients from the hospital shops into an undisclosed location in the wilderness which is a law free zone to craft the cures. With the curse never leaving the wilderness I cannot be prosecuted or fired for law 12.1. With the cures I did craft I never sold or cured any players with them. There is no DOH Rule or Law that gives Southray the reason to fire me.

I. PARTIES
1. Ko531
2. Southray
3. Department of Health

II. FACTS
1. 12/10-12/11 I bought ingredients from the hospital chest shop
2. 12/10-12/11 I transport the ingredients to the wild and craft cures in bulk
3. 12/11 I was fired from the Department of Health for "mass buying from hospital chest shops"

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Wrongful Termination

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $75 for the Doctor exams
2. $250 for the troubles of searching for a new profession

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 December 2022

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The Attorney General, or anyone else legally allowed to represent the state, must appear before the court in the case of Ko531 v. Department of Health [2022] DCR 59. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[RelaxedGV]

MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defense argues that the Plaintiff did in fact misuse the chests and were told not to abuse. In the following screenshot taken from the Doctor training guide for Medical Specialists (MS) it states that Doctors cannot keep excess items from making cures whether it is for curing a patient or for curing themselves from a disease. This means that Doctors cannot purchase a lot of sticks to craft splints for curing themselves or others or to keep excess of said items no matter the items.

The Plaintiff themselves provided a screenshot stating “Do not keep leftover materials (includes bottles and shears.) Recycle and dispose of them at the disposal sign.” This states that you cannot keep leftover items even for future use or to keep extra in the event it’s needed.

There is a law which states that you cannot bring cures/cure making items off hospital grounds. In law 12.1 it states “Possessing, selling, trading, or crafting medical objectives not sold in the hospital’s pharmacy outside government-approved Medical Facilities is prohibited. Excludes the Vaccine Prescription.” The Plaintiff has stated that they brought the items out into the wild which is not a Government-approved Medical Facility and is against the law.

 

[Dartanboy]

The Motion to Dismiss is overruled.

You have only provided defenses arguing why the actions taken by the Department of Health are allegedly legal, rather than pointing out any frivolous nature of this case or any other valid reasons to dismiss a case.

This case is specifically about the legality of the actions taken by the Department of Health. It cannot be dismissed on the grounds that the Defense believes the actions were legal.

The Plaintiff now has 48 hours to post their Opening Statement.

 

[ko531]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Opening Statement

Ko531
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Health
Defendant

There is no Law or DOH Rule that was broken with my actions. Starting off with law 12.1, The cures were never in the city. The materials were transported into the wild to be crafted and stored. The Wild is a "law free zone". Almost all laws become null and void when in the wild. it is even stated that the Wild is supposed to be a "law free zone" in the reasoning for the Nuke the Wild Act. Even if I was found guilty of breaking rule 12.1 note that the punishment as it would be my first offense is not the removal from the DOH but only a $100 fine.

The DOH Rules state that materials from the hospital supply room can only be used to craft curse with the extra being disposed. This is exactly what I did with the materials. I made cures in the wild legally. Another rule states that you cannot keep the materials but with the all the materials being either used for cures or disposed off. The materials themselves were not kept but used by which the hospital intended them to be used.

I believe that the DOH Secretary may have acted too fast in my removal from the DOH. I was fired in less then 24 hours after I bought the materials from the hospital shops without being contacted as to why I bought them. I also believe the punishment, if the circumstances were that I either broke DOH rules or the law, was way to much. Note in the message I received from DOH Secretary Southray about my termination that I was fired and "barred from taking the doctor exam for an indefinite period of time" The only law that has the punishment of termination of the DOH is 12.1. Termination only comes on the second offense of 12.1but this would be my only offense of buying materials in bulk from the hospital supply room.

At the end of the day no laws or DOH Rules were broken and even if they were I believe the punishment brought onto me was extremely too much. I hope the DOH can be held accountable for my wrongful termination. I gave up the pretty nice job of attorney to join the DOH only for it to be wasted.

 

[Dartanboy]

Thank you to the Plaintiff for your Opening Statement.

The Defendant now has 48 hours to post their Opening Statement.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Opening Statement

Your Honor, opposing counsel,

The Commonwealth affirms that although the wild is considered a law-free zone, the fact of the matter stands that the plaintiff did in fact take items from a government-approved medical facility. No matter if the cures were crafted in the wild, the ingredients were transported from the Government-approved Medical Facility then removed from the premises of the Medical Facility. If someone commits a murder in the city it is not pardoned when they go into the wild rather they are still going to be arrested. This is essentially the same scenario as taking items from a Medical Facility.

In the Constitution it is stated that Secretaries can terminate employees for almost any reason, as the departments are under the discretion of that department’s Secretary. Given this, the plaintiff’s argument is that it was an unlawful termination, however the Secretary in question did the termination in a legal manner as outlined within the constitution. The dereliction of duty, abuse of privileges, and breaking the rules, makes this termination legal.

In the Rules & Laws page, law 12.1 states, “Possessing Medical Objective outside of a Government-approved Medical Facility” is a criminal offense, carrying punishments of up to a $1,000 fine and permanent barring from employment within the Department of Health. In this law it is clear that even possessing medical objects is enough for breaking the law, which this plaintiff has clearly violated.

Given the information listed, the State’s position is one that even taking the materials to the wild is breaking the law, not the holding of them in the wild. Secretaries are permitted to fire under almost any reason, and given that there is a law preventing the possession of the items to any degree, this termination is more than justified. Given all of this information, the State believes that the termination stands. can be challenged the fact of the matter is that the firing itself was legal. Whether the time period listed is a good duration is up to debate.

 

[Dartanboy]

Thank you to the Defendant for your opening statement.

Both parties now have 48 hours to declare any witnesses they wish to call, or state that they have none.

 

[RelaxedGV]

your Honor, the State would like to call Southray_ and VerySmolBirb

 

[ko531]

Your honor, I have no witnesses

 

[Dartanboy]

Thank you to both parties for your quick responses. I will post a summons soon.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

Southray_ and VerySmolBirb are required to appear before the District Court in the case of Ko531 v. Department of Health [2022] DCR 59 as witnesses.

Please ensure you familiarize yourselves with the case. You will receive questions and may be cross-examined.

I also ask that all questions be provided to witnesses in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers to earlier questions, that is also acceptable. Please inform the Court beforehand if you wish to ask follow-up questions.

Once all witnesses have declared themselves present, the Defendant may begin to question both witnesses. After all of the Defendant's questions have been answered, the Plaintiff may cross-examine the witnesses.

I am hereby informing each witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies, pursuant to the Perjury Act.​

 

[VerySmolBirb]

I am present and familiarized myself with the case.

 

[YeetBoy1872325]

I am present and have familiarized myself with the case. (I am a witness in spirit because I was there when ko was fired)

 

[Southray_]

I am present and familiarized myself with the case.

 

[Dartanboy]

I am present and have familiarized myself with the case. (I am a witness in spirit because I was there when ko was fired)

I hereby find Yeet_Boy in Contempt of Court, and order the Department of Justice to fine/jail them appropriately.

Please refrain from speaking in court when you are not called to.

 

[Dartanboy]

The Defendant has just under 47 hours remaining to begin questioning the witnesses.

 

[RelaxedGV]

VerySmolBirb - Do you believe that what the plaintiff did would be a good reason to fire someone?

Southray_ - How long is the firing supposed to be for? Did you talk to anyone about firing the Plaintiff? Why did you believe a firing was the right approach?

 

[ko531]

Objection your honor.

Why is VerySmolBirb Relevant to this trial, she had nothing to do with me being fired and she doesn't work for the DOH anymore. Relaxed is also leading the witness in their question to VerySmolBirb

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection your honor.

Why is VerySmolBirb Relevant to this trial, she had nothing to do with me being fired and she doesn't work for the DOH anymore. Relaxed is also leading the witness in their question to VerySmolBirb

Sustained.

The question to VerySmolBirb simultaneously asks for an opinion rather than fact, and leads the Witness to confirming what the Defendant is trying to confirm.

The Defendant has 24 hours to re-word the question to VerySmolBirb or explain they have no questions for that witness.

Southray_ is still expected answer their questions at their earliest convenience.

 

[Dartanboy]

I would also like to remind the Plaintiff to use the proper format for objections, as found in the Objections Guide.

 

[Southray_]

How long is the firing supposed to be for?: It is supposed to be a while, at least until ko531 proves that they would be a good doctor. I said indefinitely, as I did not know the rough time until I or the next secretary would let ko531 back. According to Oxford dictionary, indefinitely means "for an unlimited or unspecified period of time." In this case, it is unspecified.

Did you talk to anyone about firing the Plaintiff?: Yes, I talked to my Deputy Secretary sleepyjay_. My first question was
(screenshot 1)
I was asking this, as it was shortly after I became secretary. The response was:
(screenshot 2)
I then asked
(screenshot 3)
The response was
(screenshot 4)

Why did you believe a firing was the right approach?: I believe that firing is a good approach due to the fact that it says in the training guide for doctors:
"You are allowed to treat yourself as a Doctor, but never keep any materials for yourself. Always dispose of extra materials in the Disposal Sign at the Doctor Supply room. The chests are monitored, and misuse is immediate termination."
Focusing on the last sentence, it notes that any misuse of the supply chests would result in termination. As buying out all the chests is considered misuse, I fired them. If I did not fire ko531, others might do the same thing, and cause a giant headache for the DOH. Plus, it would be hypocritical to not fire ko.

 

[Southray_]

It seems that the screenshots did not send, here they are in the correct order.

 

[RelaxedGV]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

VerySmolBirb was brought in as a former DOH Secretary to give extra input rather than just the Plaintiff of current DOH Secretary. Given the reason why VerySmolBirb was brought in the State believes that the question should not need to be reworded as there would be no reason for the witness to be there in the first place.

 

[Dartanboy]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

VerySmolBirb was brought in as a former DOH Secretary to give extra input rather than just the Plaintiff of current DOH Secretary. Given the reason why VerySmolBirb was brought in the State believes that the question should not need to be reworded as there would be no reason for the witness to be there in the first place.

Overruled.

The question is still a leading question that calls for a conclusion, regardless of the reasoning behind the question and/or the relevance of the Witness.

 

[RelaxedGV]

VerySmolBirb - Given the circumstances would the firing in question be one that should have happened?

 

[VerySmolBirb]

No, I don't believe so.

 

[Dartanboy]

Does Defendant have any follow-up questions?

 

[RelaxedGV]

your Honor, can we move on from this part as both sides have a right to a speedy trial and I have seen ko351 online however not responding to the court case. If you believe that we should stay on this then we can however I would like to speed the trial up.

 

[Dartanboy]

your Honor, can we move on from this part as both sides have a right to a speedy trial and I have seen ko351 online however not responding to the court case. If you believe that we should stay on this then we can however I would like to speed the trial up.

We were actually awaiting a response from you. Nonetheless, your time has expired at this point.

The Plaintiff may now cross-examine the witnesses.

 

[ko531]

Birb: why don't you believe I shouldn't of been fired and what do you believe should of happened
South: To your knowledge are item such as drugs, WMD and medical items are legal to own in the wild

 

[VerySmolBirb]

Birb: why don't you believe I shouldn't of been fired and what do you believe should of happened

I think you may have misread, I believe you shouldn’t have been fired, not that you should have.

The training script for MS specifies that misusing the chests results in “immediate termination”, but this text is not anywhere else that’s easily accessible for Doctors to review such as the Doctor’s Guide. It is also never reviewed at all since the training only happens once. So when Ko decided to review the “complete” Doctor’s guide, there was never any mention of this in there.

I believe that a DOH ticket should have been issued with you to discuss the situation, or any sort of meeting with you, instead of an immediate firing with no warning. An infraction should have been issued instead. Although the Doctor’s Guide doesn’t explicitly rule against what you did, it is incredibly poor judgement/faith to deplete the hospital’s supplies for your own interests and leave your fellow doctors without any ingredients, as well as not mention this to any of your superiors.

The Doctor’s guide should also be edited to include misuse of hospital supply chests as “immediate termination.” As well as clarifying if any of the other rules have the same consequences.

 

[Southray_]

I do believe that all of the items you mentioned are legal in the wild.

 

[Dartanboy]

Does the Plaintiff have any follow-up questions?

 

[ko531]

South, are those medical items legal to have while on hospital grounds

 

[Southray_]

By medical items, do you mean the materials, or the cures?

Either way, they are legal to possess on hospital grounds. To be clear, I am not a lawyer, so I may be incorrect regarding this.

 

[Dartanboy]

Thank you to the witnesses for answering questions.

That concludes witness testimonies.

The Plaintiff now has 48 hours to deliver their Closing Statement.

 

[ko531]

This should be an open open-and-shut case. The reasoning the state has provided as to why I got fired in their opening statement has all been disproven.

The state stated that the constitution says that secretaries can terminate employment for almost any reason. This is a complete lie. The constitution only states that secretaries have the power to hire and fire but never states under what circumstances in which secretaries should hire and fire. "They (Secretaries) appoint and dismiss employees of their respective departments."

Law 12.1 or any law was never broken. South stated that the Wild and Hospital are both legal places to have medical items. The medical items in question were only in those 2 places as they were teleported from the hospital to the Wild. Therefore as both places are deemed to be legal by the man that fired me, he nor the state can not claim that the reason for my firing was Law 12.1 as that law was never broken.

South in response to a question brings up the line in the doctor rules "You are allowed to treat yourself as a Doctor, but never keep any materials for yourself. Always dispose of extra materials in the Disposal Sign at the Doctor Supply room. The chests are monitored, and misuse is immediate termination." The materials themselves were never kept and only transported. The were used in the way the hospital intends them to be. "Only use materials from the Hospital supply room to craft cures."

The facts of the matter is that these medical items were used as intended and never left legal land. I should not have been fired as everything I did was within Hospital Rules and the Law. Former DOH secretary VerySmolBirb believes I should never have been fired, Current DOH secretary South proves that he himself believe I never broke the law and the state either misread or lied about what the constitution says about secretaries ability to hire and fire. Not a single one of the reason the state argued as to the reason of my firing is left standing. This only leaves the fact that my termination was in fact wrongful. I hope that by the end of this trial the DOH learns from their mistakes and looks into their firing process in order to try and avoid wrongful terminations such as myself.

 

[Dartanboy]

Thank you to the Plaintiff for your Closing Statement.

The Defendant now has 48 hours to provide their Closing Statement.

 

[RelaxedGV]

your Honor, in light of the holiday season I would like to request the case go into recess until after December 25. If this is believed to not be in good form then I will get the closing statement out as early as I can. I understand what I said earlier however I was given a surprise trip last night and will be unable to perform my full duties during this trip.

 

[Dartanboy]

your Honor, in light of the holiday season I would like to request the case go into recess until after December 25. If this is believed to not be in good form then I will get the closing statement out as early as I can. I understand what I said earlier however I was given a surprise trip last night and will be unable to perform my full duties during this trip.

Very well. Family and IRL matters are much more important. You have 84 hours (~11pm EST, Dec. 26) from now to post your Closing Statement.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Closing Statement

Your Honor, opposing counsel,

The Commonwealth affirms that although the wild is considered a law-free zone, the fact of the matter stands that the plaintiff did in fact take items from a government-approved medical facility. No matter if the cures were crafted in the wild, the ingredients were transported from the Government-approved Medical Facility then removed from the premises of the Medical Facility. If someone commits a murder in the city it is not pardoned when they go into the wild rather they are still going to be arrested. This is essentially the same scenario as taking items from a Medical Facility.

In the Constitution it is stated that Secretaries can terminate employees for almost any reason, as the departments are under the discretion of that department’s Secretary. Given this, the plaintiff’s argument is that it was an unlawful termination, however the Secretary in question did the termination in a legal manner as outlined within the constitution. The dereliction of duty, abuse of privileges, and breaking the rules, makes this termination legal.

In the Rules & Laws page, law 12.1 states, “Possessing Medical Objective outside of a Government-approved Medical Facility” is a criminal offense, carrying punishments of up to a $1,000 fine and permanent barring from employment within the Department of Health. In this law it is clear that even possessing medical objects is enough for breaking the law, which this plaintiff has clearly violated.

Given the information listed, the State’s position is one that even taking the materials to the wild is breaking the law, not the holding of them in the wild. Secretaries are permitted to fire under almost any reason, and given that there is a law preventing the possession of the items to any degree, this termination is more than justified. Given all of this information, the State believes that the termination stands. can be challenged the fact of the matter is that the firing itself was legal. Whether the time period listed is a good duration is up to debate.

 

[Dartanboy]

Thank you to the Defendant for your Closing Statement. This court is now in recess until a verdict is delivered.

 

[Dartanboy]

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Ko531 v. Department of Health [2022] DCR 59

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Defendant terminated the employment of the Plaintiff unlawfully.
2. The Defendant did this by firing the Plaintiff for “mass buying from the hospital chest.”
3. The Plaintiff agrees that he did mass buy from the hospital chest, but argues that is not a legal reason to fire the Plaintiff.
4. The Plaintiff did not break Law 12.1, and even if they did, removal from the DoH is not the proper punishment.
5. The Constitution does not give Secretaries the ability to terminate employees for almost any reason.

II. DEFENDANT’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff took medical objectives outside of a Government-approved Medical Facility, even if the end result was in the Wild.
2. The Constitution gives Secretaries the power to terminate employees for almost any reason.
3. Possessing Medical Objectives outside of a Government-approved Medical Facility is a criminal offense that carries “punishments of up to a $1,000 fine and permanent barring from employment within the Department of Health.”
4. The Plaintiff clearly violated this law and thus, the termination stands.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The Plaintiff’s employment was terminated because the Plaintiff was “mass buying from the hospital chest.” This is clear in the mail sent by the Secretary of Health.
2. Thus, whether the Plaintiff violated Law 12.1 is irrelevant. The question that matters is, “Was it just to terminate the Plaintiff’s employment for ‘mass buying from the hospital chest?’”
3. Department policy is generally enforceable.
4. The Constitution gives Secretaries the ability to “appoint and dismiss employees of their respective departments.” Notably, the Constitution does not define when they should do so.
5. Despite the Constitution not explicitly defining when the Secretary can dismiss an employee, the Employee Protection Act does, defining Unfair Dismissal as “The unjust termination of an employee.”
6. The “Rules” as shown in evidence (and clearly shown on the Doctor Guide) make no mention of mass buying from the hospital chest or similar misuse of the hospital chest.
7. The only time mass buying from the hospital chest, or other similar misuse, is mentioned at all is in the Medical Specialist training guide. In fact, as it is worded “MS: You are allowed to treat yourself as a Doctor, but never keep any materials for yourself. Always dispose of extra materials in the Disposal Sign at the Doctor Supply room. The chests are monitored, and misuse is immediate termination.” Thus, not only is it not expected for the Plaintiff to have seen this, but the wording of this policy applies only to Medical Specialists – not all Doctors.
8. As such, it is not clear that the Plaintiff violated any policies laid out by the Department of Health. If the Department wishes to ensure this does not happen again, they should make a policy that is clearly visible and applies to all employees of the Department.
9. Thus, looking at this situation through the lens of both the Constitution and the Employee Protection Act, this termination is an “unfair dismissal” or “unjust termination” as the aforementioned legislation defines it.

IV. DECISION
1. I hereby rule in favor of the Plaintiff, as the Defendant has failed to show any bona-fide violation of Department Policy made by the Plaintiff.

I hereby order the Department of Justice to fine the Department of Health $325 ($75 for Doctor Exams + $250 for having to search for a new job) and to unfine the Plaintiff, ko531, the same amount.

Additionally, I hereby order the Department of Health to immediately stop disallowing the Plaintiff from taking the Doctor Exam.

The District Court thanks all involved.