Lawsuit: Dismissed Ko531 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 70

[ko531]

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

The Commonwealth of Redmont moves to dismiss this case under Rule 5.5 for lack of a claim.

Your Honor, the plaintiff lists one claim for relief, which is unfair dismissal, but fails to provide any substantial facts demonstrating how the dismissal was unfair. Government Departments can terminate employees at any time to ensure proper department management.

The Commercial Standards Act provides a cut-and-dry definition of Unfair Dismissal: "The unjust termination of an employee." This definition provides a simple, straightforward response to the question of being justified. The Plaintiff failed in their role outlined within defense exhibit (d-11). A reason was provided to the Plaintiff. While the defendant may not agree with this, they were adequately notified of the reason for this dismissal as cited by the Secretary of Construction and Transportation.

Should the court allow this case to remain active it would be making the automatic change in the precedent established within [2024] FCR 22 - Where the court more specifically you your honor cited the following:

The defendant stated themselves previously within this very case:


It is clear here that we merely have a disgruntled former employee wishing to attempt to make a cash run. The Plaintiff fails to connect what in the law the commonwealth broke. We provided a reason for dismissal, which is straightforward in saying they failed in their roles. They further have admitted within discovery for leaving the discord instead of contesting the termination or asking clarifying questions on their dismissal.

For these reasons, we respectfully request that this case be dismissed.

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS
They claim that my case doesnt provide any substantial facts how my dismissal was unfair but my chance to prove unfair dismissal isnt over. I still have witnesses to question and cross examine and prove why my dismissal was unfair. Not all forms of evidence can be provided in screenshots. For example trying to prove that something doesnt exist isnt really something you can provide in a screenshot. I will be trying to prove that it was never discussed to me that I was under performing in my job and that all I heard was good praise. This along with the vauge reason for my firing will meet the definition of unfair dismissal.

The defense is also forgetting that I was not only fired from Inspections Manager but also as a Building Inspector which I was never given reason as to why I was terminated

The precedent sited in which you said the reasoning was vauge. This is mostly because the law is vauge but my reasoning is simple. I was never talked to about any under performing and I have only recieved praise. How can someone avoid being fired for under performing if they are only told they are doing a good job.

The law for Unfair Dismissal is there to protect employees. By dismissing just about every unfair dimissal case infront of you because of vaugeness because the law is vauge in of itself would harm the very spirit of the law.

The Defense also claims this is a cash grab which is not the case what so ever. I would much rather have the job I had for 9 months in the department I was in for over a year then get a single penny. I only asked for the money as that is really the only other thing I can ask for if I can not get my job back.

If you pay attention to anything in this response pay attention to this:

Is it really fair to firing someone for under performing while only giving them praise?

How can an employee fix their actions if they are only told they are doing a good job?

These are the question I will be trying to answer moving foward if you dont dismiss this case and you will see I was never given a chase to keep my job and I was setup for failure which would be an unfair dismissal.

 

[RelaxedGV]

OBJECTION IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honor, Allowing the Prosection to provide their witnesses this late harms my ability to represent myself. Discovery is meant for preparation for the other sides arguements and witnesses and depending on who they choice as their witness I may need to file addtional evidence but I would be unable to do that if they are allowed to provide their witnesses during their opening statements and after discovery has ended.

Objection is overruled as this is complying with a Court Order. This is not their entire witness list and rather is limiting their witness list. If I were not busy during finals the same ruling would have come out and the Defense would have had to change their witness list during Discovery, I am allowing a slight change between the two that were listed for each reasoning.

Motion to Strike

Your Honor,

The plaintiff has failed to follow the defined naming conventions outlined within the court rules (Rule 4.6) mandated by the court. Evidence submitted within Discord and/or being used within the case must be appropriately labeled. I've attached the defined rule we cite to the court (Rule 4.6 - Submission of Discovery, Voluntarily).

The Plaintiff has a history of disregarding the rules and restrictions placed by this court. The Plaintiff also has a history of arguing and working on this very court to uphold the rules of the court. They are rather familiar with the rules and restrictions the court has. This is a blatant disregard for those very rules that maintain decorum within the courtroom.

The state requests that evidence submitted by the plaintiff within discovery be struck for the reason of improper evidence. We further stipulate that the cited evidence by the plaintiff within the original complaint should also be struck as improper evidence; however, we understand if the court wishes to maintain the original complaint evidence filed as it was done within the complaint, not within discovery.

This Motion to Strike will be overruled as the Plaintiff has corrected the mistake however, I do urge the Plaintiff to not make mistakes such as this again. This goes for both sides.

 

[RelaxedGV]

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS
They claim that my case doesnt provide any substantial facts how my dismissal was unfair but my chance to prove unfair dismissal isnt over. I still have witnesses to question and cross examine and prove why my dismissal was unfair. Not all forms of evidence can be provided in screenshots. For example trying to prove that something doesnt exist isnt really something you can provide in a screenshot. I will be trying to prove that it was never discussed to me that I was under performing in my job and that all I heard was good praise. This along with the vauge reason for my firing will meet the definition of unfair dismissal.

The defense is also forgetting that I was not only fired from Inspections Manager but also as a Building Inspector which I was never given reason as to why I was terminated

The precedent sited in which you said the reasoning was vauge. This is mostly because the law is vauge but my reasoning is simple. I was never talked to about any under performing and I have only recieved praise. How can someone avoid being fired for under performing if they are only told they are doing a good job.

The law for Unfair Dismissal is there to protect employees. By dismissing just about every unfair dimissal case infront of you because of vaugeness because the law is vauge in of itself would harm the very spirit of the law.

The Defense also claims this is a cash grab which is not the case what so ever. I would much rather have the job I had for 9 months in the department I was in for over a year then get a single penny. I only asked for the money as that is really the only other thing I can ask for if I can not get my job back.

If you pay attention to anything in this response pay attention to this:

Is it really fair to firing someone for under performing while only giving them praise?

How can an employee fix their actions if they are only told they are doing a good job?

These are the question I will be trying to answer moving foward if you dont dismiss this case and you will see I was never given a chase to keep my job and I was setup for failure which would be an unfair dismissal.

Before I rule on the Motion to Dismiss, I would like to remind the Plaintiff that you cannot edit your responses without asking to do so. I know you understand this.
I'd also like to state that the reasoning for this ruling to be taking longer than the Objections and Motions is due to the difficulty in deciding how to rule.
With that said however, I will be overruling the Motion to Dismiss.

While I understand the warrant for the Motion to Dismiss and the concerns, the difference is this case warrants a need for the lawsuit to continue the previous lawsuit listed lacked merit and failed to provide actual reason for why they saw the firing to be unfair beyond lack of playtime. The claim itself read as a cash grab. This case lacks that.

This case is also a showing of what can be done regarding the vagueness especially with a well put together case. I do understand the Commonwealth's warnings regarding the Precedent will set yet, this is the difference between a case that has merit and one that does not.

This case will be continuing and will not be ending here.

I'd like to remind the Plaintiff that they have around 48 hours remaining in their Opening Statements.

 

[Nacho]

Motion To Reconsider

Your Honor,

The State requests that you reconsider your verdict on our motion to strike. Court rule (Rule 4.6 - Submission of Discovery, Voluntarily) is relatively simple. The plaintiff is a practicing attorney, and they understand and know what they are doing. They drafted a suit within the Federal Court... They are trained and licensed attorneys arguing before the court; this body's role is to hold these individuals accountable.

Let alone, they fixed the issue AFTER the Commonwealth pointed it out to Plaintiff. Just because they fixed their behavior doesn't mean their actions are proper.

We appreciate you for considering this.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Motion To Reconsider

Your Honor,

The State requests that you reconsider your verdict on our motion to strike. Court rule (Rule 4.6 - Submission of Discovery, Voluntarily) is relatively simple. The plaintiff is a practicing attorney, and they understand and know what they are doing. They drafted a suit within the Federal Court... They are trained and licensed attorneys arguing before the court; this body's role is to hold these individuals accountable.

Let alone, they fixed the issue AFTER the Commonwealth pointed it out to Plaintiff. Just because they fixed their behavior doesn't mean their actions are proper.

We appreciate you for considering this.

The Plaintiff has 24 hours to respond.

 

[ko531]

Motion To Reconsider

Your Honor,

The State requests that you reconsider your verdict on our motion to strike. Court rule (Rule 4.6 - Submission of Discovery, Voluntarily) is relatively simple. The plaintiff is a practicing attorney, and they understand and know what they are doing. They drafted a suit within the Federal Court... They are trained and licensed attorneys arguing before the court; this body's role is to hold these individuals accountable.

Let alone, they fixed the issue AFTER the Commonwealth pointed it out to Plaintiff. Just because they fixed their behavior doesn't mean their actions are proper.

We appreciate you for considering this.

Your Honor

The Commonwealth is arguing semantics based on the PNG name. The evidence should not be thrown away because of the name of the file. The evidence is extremely important and to throw is away based on semantics is just too extreme. I fixed the naming of the screenshots to try to make everyone happy but even if I didnt It wouldnt change how the evidence is used or seen. The PNG name for each piece of evidence does nothing to harm the court, myself or the commonwealth in this case.

Besides even though this is a court rule, not a single person follows it and not a single judge enforces it. The following is a list of every case in which evidence was allowed even though it was not in compliance to Court rule 4.6:

Steveshat v. Wetc [2024] FCR 64
Starlight0661 v. Bibsfi4a [2024] FCR 71
ItsBlazeX v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 76
Reppal v. EcoFinance [2024] FCR 77
Steveshat v. Supersuperking [2024] FCR 63
Steveshat v. Vanguard [2024] FCR 62
YourlocalDiabeto v. gsse [2024] FCR 61
Steveshat v. HenryDz5 [2024] FCR 65
Dodrio3 v. Block D'Infusion [2024] FCR 69
Bardiya_King v. Snowy_Heart [2024] FCR 67
The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Wetc [2024] FCR 68
Costco v. CostcoRep2439 [2024] DCR 14

The following is a list of cases in which evidence was struck based on rule 4.6:

N/A

Based on multiple cases, Multiple judges and Multiple levels of the court no one enforces rule 4.6 so to strike this evidenced based on rule 4.6 would be going against almost the entire Judiciary

 

[RelaxedGV]

Motion To Reconsider

Your Honor,

The State requests that you reconsider your verdict on our motion to strike. Court rule (Rule 4.6 - Submission of Discovery, Voluntarily) is relatively simple. The plaintiff is a practicing attorney, and they understand and know what they are doing. They drafted a suit within the Federal Court... They are trained and licensed attorneys arguing before the court; this body's role is to hold these individuals accountable.

Let alone, they fixed the issue AFTER the Commonwealth pointed it out to Plaintiff. Just because they fixed their behavior doesn't mean their actions are proper.

We appreciate you for considering this.

I will be granting the Motion to Reconsider.

The statement from the Plaintiff regarding "Based on multiple cases, Multiple judges and Multiple levels of the court no one enforces rule 4.6 so to strike this evidenced based on rule 4.6 would be going against almost the entire Judiciary" while yes this has slipped, the Courts are also to expect that the lawyers submitting the evidence are to follow Court Rules and Procedures. While the name is not as vital to the evidence itself, they should be focused on.

I will be notifying the Judiciary as a reminder to enforce this Court Rule and to pay closer attention as this is something that the Judiciary has missed, as for the current cases the opposing counsel will have to object otherwise the evidence will stay.

 

[ko531]

I will be granting the Motion to Reconsider.

The statement from the Plaintiff regarding "Based on multiple cases, Multiple judges and Multiple levels of the court no one enforces rule 4.6 so to strike this evidenced based on rule 4.6 would be going against almost the entire Judiciary" while yes this has slipped, the Courts are also to expect that the lawyers submitting the evidence are to follow Court Rules and Procedures. While the name is not as vital to the evidence itself, they should be focused on.

I will be notifying the Judiciary as a reminder to enforce this Court Rule and to pay closer attention as this is something that the Judiciary has missed, as for the current cases the opposing counsel will have to object otherwise the evidence will stay.

MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Your Honor, you are punishing me for something the entire Legal field (Lawyers and Judiciary) has been ignoring. I should not be your Scape Goat now that you realize this is a problem. I would be all for you improving this in the future but to punish me now is insane. The Commonwealth talks about how I should have known as a license lawyer when the commonwealth has not followed this rule in mulitple cases themselves. The only reason it is being objected to in this case is because the person representing the commonwealth is the same person to create rule 4.6 while they in the Judiciary.

How can you not see striking evidence based on a rule the entire legal field has ignored and created by the same person objecting is unfair? I should not be your Scape Goat for this problem. Inform the Legal community that the judiciary will be striking down on rule 4.6 Instead of using me to set precedent.

 

[RelaxedGV]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Your Honor, you are punishing me for something the entire Legal field (Lawyers and Judiciary) has been ignoring. I should not be your Scape Goat now that you realize this is a problem. I would be all for you improving this in the future but to punish me now is insane. The Commonwealth talks about how I should have known as a license lawyer when the commonwealth has not followed this rule in mulitple cases themselves. The only reason it is being objected to in this case is because the person representing the commonwealth is the same person to create rule 4.6 while they in the Judiciary.

How can you not see striking evidence based on a rule the entire legal field has ignored and created by the same person objecting is unfair? I should not be your Scape Goat for this problem. Inform the Legal community that the judiciary will be striking down on rule 4.6 Instead of using me to set precedent.

The Defense has 24 hours to respond.

 

[Nacho]

Objections - Perjury

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff has frivolously filed this case. Citing that they were never given a reason for their dismissal from the building inspector, The Plaintiff has perjured and has attempted to misguide the court into thinking the Commonwealth has dismissed the Plaintiff with no explanation. The Plaintiff was not a Building Inspector at the time of their dismissal. They were, in fact, Inspection Managers, which is outlined within the the dismissal message found within d-11. When the Plaintiff was promoted, they no longer were a Building Inspector but rather the Inspection Manager who manages the Building Inspector. The Plaintiff very much knows this for their extensive career within the department, as they said, being in the department for roughly 9 months.

The State finds this very sly method of misrepresenting facts to be applied in how it was presented to the court. Fact 3 outlines the following: "3. I was never given a reason why I was fired as Building Inspector." This point itself is the only fact supporting the reason for Unfair Dismissal.

Should the court find this probable reason to charge the Plaintiff with Perjury, we would like to further stipulate that a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 4.6 be applied to this case, the case dismissed with prejudice, and the Plaintiff charged with both perjury and a frivolous court case in their heinous attempt to deceive the court.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Objections - Perjury

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff has frivolously filed this case. Citing that they were never given a reason for their dismissal from the building inspector, The Plaintiff has perjured and has attempted to misguide the court into thinking the Commonwealth has dismissed the Plaintiff with no explanation. The Plaintiff was not a Building Inspector at the time of their dismissal. They were, in fact, Inspection Managers, which is outlined within the the dismissal message found within d-11. When the Plaintiff was promoted, they no longer were a Building Inspector but rather the Inspection Manager who manages the Building Inspector. The Plaintiff very much knows this for their extensive career within the department, as they said, being in the department for roughly 9 months.

The State finds this very sly method of misrepresenting facts to be applied in how it was presented to the court. Fact 3 outlines the following: "3. I was never given a reason why I was fired as Building Inspector." This point itself is the only fact supporting the reason for Unfair Dismissal.

Should the court find this probable reason to charge the Plaintiff with Perjury, we would like to further stipulate that a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 4.6 be applied to this case, the case dismissed with prejudice, and the Plaintiff charged with both perjury and a frivolous court case in their heinous attempt to deceive the court.

The Plaintiff has 24 hours to respond to the Objection.

 

[ko531]

Objections - Perjury

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff has frivolously filed this case. Citing that they were never given a reason for their dismissal from the building inspector, The Plaintiff has perjured and has attempted to misguide the court into thinking the Commonwealth has dismissed the Plaintiff with no explanation. The Plaintiff was not a Building Inspector at the time of their dismissal. They were, in fact, Inspection Managers, which is outlined within the the dismissal message found within d-11. When the Plaintiff was promoted, they no longer were a Building Inspector but rather the Inspection Manager who manages the Building Inspector. The Plaintiff very much knows this for their extensive career within the department, as they said, being in the department for roughly 9 months.

The State finds this very sly method of misrepresenting facts to be applied in how it was presented to the court. Fact 3 outlines the following: "3. I was never given a reason why I was fired as Building Inspector." This point itself is the only fact supporting the reason for Unfair Dismissal.

Should the court find this probable reason to charge the Plaintiff with Perjury, we would like to further stipulate that a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 4.6 be applied to this case, the case dismissed with prejudice, and the Plaintiff charged with both perjury and a frivolous court case in their heinous attempt to deceive the court.

Your Honor

The Commonwealth may be confused but I had both the titles of Inspections Manager and Building Inspector. They are not exclusive and I was fired from both jobs in game and the same time. I didnt believe this evidence to be necessary but in order to inform the court and have the correct decision be made I will provide this piece of evidence.

I know that discovery has ended but since neither side has moved to opening statements I dont see how this would harm anyone. Plus I would hope the court rather have this piece of evidence in order to avoid charging an innocent person of a crime then strike it for being submitted slightly after discover has ended.

I will also add that as the defense is able to give part of their witness list in their opening statements after discovery giving me no time to prep and submit evidence specifically for those witnesses during discovery. It would only be fair to let me post one piece of evidence before opening statements but slightly after discover has ended.

 

[ko531]

Your Honor,

I request an extention on my opening statements as there is evidence here still being considered and I can not properly write an opening statement if I dont know what evidence has and hasnt been struck

 

[RelaxedGV]

Your Honor,

I request an extention on my opening statements as there is evidence here still being considered and I can not properly write an opening statement if I dont know what evidence has and hasnt been struck

You have an additional 24 hours.

Objections - Perjury

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff has frivolously filed this case. Citing that they were never given a reason for their dismissal from the building inspector, The Plaintiff has perjured and has attempted to misguide the court into thinking the Commonwealth has dismissed the Plaintiff with no explanation. The Plaintiff was not a Building Inspector at the time of their dismissal. They were, in fact, Inspection Managers, which is outlined within the the dismissal message found within d-11. When the Plaintiff was promoted, they no longer were a Building Inspector but rather the Inspection Manager who manages the Building Inspector. The Plaintiff very much knows this for their extensive career within the department, as they said, being in the department for roughly 9 months.

The State finds this very sly method of misrepresenting facts to be applied in how it was presented to the court. Fact 3 outlines the following: "3. I was never given a reason why I was fired as Building Inspector." This point itself is the only fact supporting the reason for Unfair Dismissal.

Should the court find this probable reason to charge the Plaintiff with Perjury, we would like to further stipulate that a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 4.6 be applied to this case, the case dismissed with prejudice, and the Plaintiff charged with both perjury and a frivolous court case in their heinous attempt to deceive the court.

I will be partially granting this Objection of perjury. The reason for partial is the final paragraph pertaining to dismissal is the only part not being accepted.

The reasoning for this is that when you are promoted you still do not keep the position you are being promoted from. If I'm a cashier and promoted to Regional Manager (unrealistic but this is an example) I am still not a cashier, I manage the regions stores I am in. This is the same that applies here. The Inspection Manager manages the Building Inspectors and may file reports of their own, if anything it is an increase of their responsibilities.

As for the statement of providing their witness list after Opening Statements, this is again a Court Order and is to reduce their witness list. They are not providing their entire witness list. Please read the Court Order again before you make these statements.

I will be charging the Plaintiff with Perjury given they not only contradict themselves in the filing of their complaint but they also state they were fired without reason when in evidence there is a reason listed.

I'd also like to remind the Defense that they have around 9 hours remaining on being able to provide a response to the Motion to Reconsider.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

I get out of work at 9:30 tonight. I request an additional 2 hours to provide a response to the motion to reconsider.

I will be prompt in my response if you allow me.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Your Honor,

I get out of work at 9:30 tonight. I request an additional 2 hours to provide a response to the motion to reconsider.

I will be prompt in my response if you allow me.

You have an additional 2 hours.

 

[ko531]

You have an additional 24 hours.


I will be partially granting this Objection of perjury. The reason for partial is the final paragraph pertaining to dismissal is the only part not being accepted.

The reasoning for this is that when you are promoted you still do not keep the position you are being promoted from. If I'm a cashier and promoted to Regional Manager (unrealistic but this is an example) I am still not a cashier, I manage the regions stores I am in. This is the same that applies here. The Inspection Manager manages the Building Inspectors and may file reports of their own, if anything it is an increase of their responsibilities.

As for the statement of providing their witness list after Opening Statements, this is again a Court Order and is to reduce their witness list. They are not providing their entire witness list. Please read the Court Order again before you make these statements.

I will be charging the Plaintiff with Perjury given they not only contradict themselves in the filing of their complaint but they also state they were fired without reason when in evidence there is a reason listed.

I'd also like to remind the Defense that they have around 9 hours remaining on being able to provide a response to the Motion to Reconsider.

MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Your Honor Inspections Manager is not just promotion from Inspection manager like your analogy is with Cashier and Regional Manager. Some Constructors in the past have been made Inspections manger with zero experience as a Building Inspector including the previous two inspections managers before me in Galavance and SergeCool.

Building Inspector is a job that allows you to file reports on behalf of the DCT on plots that are not in compliance to building regulations.

Inspections Manager is managing the Inspections department, No experience being a Building Inspector is needed.

The evidence provided is a reason I was fired as Inspections Manager AKA deputy Secretary but never does it say why I was fired as Building inspector as well as they are 2 seperate jobs that arent exclusive.

 

[RelaxedGV]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Your Honor Inspections Manager is not just promotion from Inspection manager like your analogy is with Cashier and Regional Manager. Some Constructors in the past have been made Inspections manger with zero experience as a Building Inspector including the previous two inspections managers before me in Galavance and SergeCool.

Building Inspector is a job that allows you to file reports on behalf of the DCT on plots that are not in compliance to building regulations.

Inspections Manager is managing the Inspections department, No experience being a Building Inspector is needed.

The evidence provided is a reason I was fired as Inspections Manager AKA deputy Secretary but never does it say why I was fired as Building inspector as well as they are 2 seperate jobs that arent exclusive.

This is overruled as the same can be applied to any job. If I'm a cashier, that does not show I am qualified for Regional Manager however I can still be hired in that position. It is not the duty of the Courts to manage who the Departments can and cannot promote. If the Secretary saw that Galavance and SergeCool were needed or qualified to become Inspection Managers then that is their ability to do.

You provided little reason that this Motion to Reconsider is to be accepted beyond arguing that two separate people were promoted to the position and then in the last paragraph mention the idea of being fired from two separate positions.

If I get promoted and fired later on that does not mean that I am to be fired from my previously. I was promoted which means I was moved up in the Corporate Ladder. I was basically fired from one position and hired into a new position. While strange, that is the best I can figure out how to put it.

You were promoted from Building Inspector to Inspection Manager. While I cannot speak for Galavance and SergeCool's promotion and how that went, if they were promoted from Constructor to a higher position they should not retain that position unless rehired within that position as well. You can have multiple jobs however if your promoted from one job to another you don't retain that previous job.

 

[ko531]

This is overruled as the same can be applied to any job. If I'm a cashier, that does not show I am qualified for Regional Manager however I can still be hired in that position. It is not the duty of the Courts to manage who the Departments can and cannot promote. If the Secretary saw that Galavance and SergeCool were needed or qualified to become Inspection Managers then that is their ability to do.

You provided little reason that this Motion to Reconsider is to be accepted beyond arguing that two separate people were promoted to the position and then in the last paragraph mention the idea of being fired from two separate positions.

If I get promoted and fired later on that does not mean that I am to be fired from my previously. I was promoted which means I was moved up in the Corporate Ladder. I was basically fired from one position and hired into a new position. While strange, that is the best I can figure out how to put it.

You were promoted from Building Inspector to Inspection Manager. While I cannot speak for Galavance and SergeCool's promotion and how that went, if they were promoted from Constructor to a higher position they should not retain that position unless rehired within that position as well. You can have multiple jobs however if your promoted from one job to another you don't retain that previous job.

Your Honor

I know that I can not motion to consider a second time but I must correct you when have based your reason on false facts.

Every person that has been promoted to a leadership position has been able to return to a previous job when demoted. Secretary is a promotion yet every secretary in any department when they are no longer Secretary are not fired from that department but they continue to work in that department just not as secretaries

The Previous 3 inspections managers stayed in the department following their removal. Sergecool and Galavance returned to being Constructors and SimplyHarci returned to being a Building Inspector.
The information you are using is based on false assumptions. If you do not believe me please by all means compel the commonwealth to verify as I can not access any proof myself now that I no longer have access to those DCT channels.

As I said I have been working in the DCT for over a year so I know how it has been run for a long time and firing someone from a management position never meant they were fired as a whole

 

[RelaxedGV]

Your Honor

I know that I can not motion to consider a second time but I must correct you when have based your reason on false facts.

Every person that has been promoted to a leadership position has been able to return to a previous job when demoted. Secretary is a promotion yet every secretary in any department when they are no longer Secretary are not fired from that department but they continue to work in that department just not as secretaries

The Previous 3 inspections managers stayed in the department following their removal. Sergecool and Galavance returned to being Constructors and SimplyHarci returned to being a Building Inspector.
The information you are using is based on false assumptions. If you do not believe me please by all means compel the commonwealth to verify as I can not access any proof myself now that I no longer have access to those DCT channels.

As I said I have been working in the DCT for over a year so I know how it has been run for a long time and firing someone from a management position never meant they were fired as a whole

This is struck due to failure to clarify if they are Motioning of Objecting.

 

[ko531]

This is struck due to failure to clarify if they are Motioning of Objecting.

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor

I know that I can not motion to consider a second time but I must correct you when have based your reason on false facts.

Every person that has been promoted to a leadership position has been able to return to a previous job when demoted. Secretary is a promotion yet every secretary in any department when they are no longer Secretary are not fired from that department but they continue to work in that department just not as secretaries

The Previous 3 inspections managers stayed in the department following their removal. Sergecool and Galavance returned to being Constructors and SimplyHarci returned to being a Building Inspector.
The information you are using is based on false assumptions. If you do not believe me please by all means compel the commonwealth to verify as I can not access any proof myself now that I no longer have access to those DCT channels.

As I said I have been working in the DCT for over a year so I know how it has been run for a long time and firing someone from a management position never meant they were fired as a whole

 

[RelaxedGV]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor

I know that I can not motion to consider a second time but I must correct you when have based your reason on false facts.

Every person that has been promoted to a leadership position has been able to return to a previous job when demoted. Secretary is a promotion yet every secretary in any department when they are no longer Secretary are not fired from that department but they continue to work in that department just not as secretaries

The Previous 3 inspections managers stayed in the department following their removal. Sergecool and Galavance returned to being Constructors and SimplyHarci returned to being a Building Inspector.
The information you are using is based on false assumptions. If you do not believe me please by all means compel the commonwealth to verify as I can not access any proof myself now that I no longer have access to those DCT channels.

As I said I have been working in the DCT for over a year so I know how it has been run for a long time and firing someone from a management position never meant they were fired as a whole

This is overruled as stated within your very own Motion to Reconsider, you cannot Motion to Reconsider a second time.

 

[ko531]

This is overruled as the same can be applied to any job. If I'm a cashier, that does not show I am qualified for Regional Manager however I can still be hired in that position. It is not the duty of the Courts to manage who the Departments can and cannot promote. If the Secretary saw that Galavance and SergeCool were needed or qualified to become Inspection Managers then that is their ability to do.

You provided little reason that this Motion to Reconsider is to be accepted beyond arguing that two separate people were promoted to the position and then in the last paragraph mention the idea of being fired from two separate positions.

If I get promoted and fired later on that does not mean that I am to be fired from my previously. I was promoted which means I was moved up in the Corporate Ladder. I was basically fired from one position and hired into a new position. While strange, that is the best I can figure out how to put it.

You were promoted from Building Inspector to Inspection Manager. While I cannot speak for Galavance and SergeCool's promotion and how that went, if they were promoted from Constructor to a higher position they should not retain that position unless rehired within that position as well. You can have multiple jobs however if your promoted from one job to another you don't retain that previous job.

OBJECTION SPECULATION

Your Honor

The entire reason for you denying my motion to reconsider is Speculation and Assumptions which are wrong. When being fired from management it has never meant being fired as a whole

Every person that has been promoted to a leadership position has been able to return to a previous job when demoted. Secretary is a promotion yet every secretary in any department when they are no longer Secretary are not fired from that department but they continue to work in that department just not as secretaries

The Previous 3 inspections managers stayed in the department following their removal. Sergecool and Galavance returned to being Constructors and SimplyHarci returned to being a Building Inspector.
The information you are using is based on false assumptions. If you do not believe me please by all means compel the commonwealth to verify as I can not access any proof myself now that I no longer have access to those DCT channels.

As I said I have been working in the DCT for over a year so I know how it has been run for a long time and firing someone from a management position never meant they were fired as a whole

 

[Nacho]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Your Honor, you are punishing me for something the entire Legal field (Lawyers and Judiciary) has been ignoring. I should not be your Scape Goat now that you realize this is a problem. I would be all for you improving this in the future but to punish me now is insane. The Commonwealth talks about how I should have known as a license lawyer when the commonwealth has not followed this rule in mulitple cases themselves. The only reason it is being objected to in this case is because the person representing the commonwealth is the same person to create rule 4.6 while they in the Judiciary.

How can you not see striking evidence based on a rule the entire legal field has ignored and created by the same person objecting is unfair? I should not be your Scape Goat for this problem. Inform the Legal community that the judiciary will be striking down on rule 4.6 Instead of using me to set precedent.

Your Honor,

Let's face the facts, regardless of whether the entire legal community ignores something. The rights awarded to us by the Constitution are outlined as a fair and speedy trial. While the Plaintiff might think the Commonwealth has no rights, we argue that we very much do have the right to a fair and speedy trial.

This right is further protected by enforcing rules that the court created to ensure the proper execution of the court process. A society that does not follow the rules would be nothing but a barren waste land. The Supreme Court deemed the rules outlined and cited to be the standard. In this case, by allowing the Plaintiff to have the evidence submitted to me, you are going against what the Supreme Court wanted originally.

I appreciate the court for permitting me two additional hours to draft this response. It turns out I did not need the full two hours, but I was able to quickly throw something together.

 

[Nacho]

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

OBJECTION SPECULATION

Your Honor

The entire reason for you denying my motion to reconsider is Speculation and Assumptions which are wrong. When being fired from management it has never meant being fired as a whole

Every person that has been promoted to a leadership position has been able to return to a previous job when demoted. Secretary is a promotion yet every secretary in any department when they are no longer Secretary are not fired from that department but they continue to work in that department just not as secretaries

The Previous 3 inspections managers stayed in the department following their removal. Sergecool and Galavance returned to being Constructors and SimplyHarci returned to being a Building Inspector.
The information you are using is based on false assumptions. If you do not believe me please by all means compel the commonwealth to verify as I can not access any proof myself now that I no longer have access to those DCT channels.

As I said I have been working in the DCT for over a year so I know how it has been run for a long time and firing someone from a management position never meant they were fired as a whole

Hey, hi, it's me from the State! o/

I wanted to slide into this discussion as well. While it's entertaining to watch the Plaintiff attempt to argue with the presiding Judge, the State has an opinion on the matter.

Every person that has been promoted to a leadership position has been able to return to a previous job when demoted. Secretary is a promotion yet every secretary in any department when they are no longer Secretary are not fired from that department but they continue to work in that department just not as secretaries

The Plaintiff is attempting to compare the internal management structure to that of what a Secretary is considered within the department. A Secretary is not hired, they are appointed and confirmed. It's not a promotion as it's 2 different scales. An internal department promotion such as the one the Plaintiff experienced as they are an employee of the department, not a public official such as a secretary.

The Previous 3 inspections managers stayed in the department following their removal. Sergecool and Galavance returned to being Constructors and SimplyHarci returned to being a Building Inspector.

While this attempt to hijack an objection to get what fishing expedition you so much wish to seek through, the State strongly condones this type of arguing. The individual mentioned yes, they left the roles on good terms and were merely demoted back to their previous positions as you mentioned. The State does not deny it. However, you were fired for poor job performance, which you are currently contesting and we are defending fairly well if you ask me.

As I said I have been working in the DCT for over a year so I know how it has been run for a long time and firing someone from a management position never meant they were fired as a whole

The Plaintiff has never been confirmed as a DCT Secretary and has never run the department or merely worked within the confines of their role. This does not validate their claims nor does it provide further clarification to their objection....

In Summary
It's clear the Plaintiff is struggling to grasp that the case they claim to have for unfair dismissal is slowly falling apart. The claims of speculation are false and cannot be founded on any legal basis. The State encourages the court to overrule this objection as it took the Plaintiff 3 attempts to put it in the right form for the court to even allow it to remain on the record.

 

[RelaxedGV]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Your Honor, you are punishing me for something the entire Legal field (Lawyers and Judiciary) has been ignoring. I should not be your Scape Goat now that you realize this is a problem. I would be all for you improving this in the future but to punish me now is insane. The Commonwealth talks about how I should have known as a license lawyer when the commonwealth has not followed this rule in mulitple cases themselves. The only reason it is being objected to in this case is because the person representing the commonwealth is the same person to create rule 4.6 while they in the Judiciary.

How can you not see striking evidence based on a rule the entire legal field has ignored and created by the same person objecting is unfair? I should not be your Scape Goat for this problem. Inform the Legal community that the judiciary will be striking down on rule 4.6 Instead of using me to set precedent.

This will be overruled as regardless of when the mistake is realized the deed can still be corrected.
We are correcting the mistake that has been going on and while I do appreciate you bringing the cases to my attention, the rules should still be enforced and as Nacholebraa has stated in the response both sides regardless of its the Commonwealth or a private individual are entitled to the same rights within the Constitution just some may not apply such as wrongful search and seizure.

You provided minimal reasoning as to why the action should be reconsidered beyond ignoring and punishing an innocent person.

To also go on to state they you should not be used as precedent is a poor argument. That same argument could then be used in every single lawsuit to get the Judge to rule a certain way. Precedent will ultimately harm a side whether good or bad Precedent they are harming a side and so stating that you should not be used as Precedent is a incredibly poor argument.

OBJECTION SPECULATION

Your Honor

The entire reason for you denying my motion to reconsider is Speculation and Assumptions which are wrong. When being fired from management it has never meant being fired as a whole

Every person that has been promoted to a leadership position has been able to return to a previous job when demoted. Secretary is a promotion yet every secretary in any department when they are no longer Secretary are not fired from that department but they continue to work in that department just not as secretaries

The Previous 3 inspections managers stayed in the department following their removal. Sergecool and Galavance returned to being Constructors and SimplyHarci returned to being a Building Inspector.
The information you are using is based on false assumptions. If you do not believe me please by all means compel the commonwealth to verify as I can not access any proof myself now that I no longer have access to those DCT channels.

As I said I have been working in the DCT for over a year so I know how it has been run for a long time and firing someone from a management position never meant they were fired as a whole

No. We have been over this, I am not forcing the Commonwealth to reveal certain aspects of the Secretary channel. I am not allowing you to continue to use other avenues such as this Objection to go on this fishing expedition.

This is not only the end of that but also the end of this argument you have been trying to instigate.
I also appreciate the Commonwealth in giving a response in a timely manner for the Motion to Reconsider and the Objection to Speculation.

 

[ko531]

MOTION TO RECUSE

This is not a fair trial by any means. Everything has been done to harm my case. Every piece of evidence I try to provide has been struck or refused to be compelled.

I request evidence of the last conversation between be and my former employee in which he said I was carrying the department which you refused to compel due to its classified nature. I motion for closed court because of the classified nature and you first refuse because:

you have failed to not only prove but provide reasonable suspicion as to why the evidence you need would be within those channels.

Which is simply not true as I was apart of the conversation myself. It was the last conversation I had with my former employeer before I was fired. After pointing this out to you in my motion to reconsider you again refuse because:

This Motion to Reconsider is still rejected as you haven't provided a time frame, reasoning as to why specifically those channels must be seen beyond just simple stating it is critical to your case. While I understand that the time frame between being praised and fired is odd, a lot can still happen within 2 days.

How is it that I did not provide a time frame yet in the same paragraph you talk about the time frame I gave in which the conversation happen about 2 days before my firing? I told the court the time, place, topic, length and members of this conversation. I also requested Closed court for this evidence deemed to be classifed What else do I need to provide in order to have it compelled?

My evidence has been struck for not having the correct PNG name which every practicing lawyer has not paid attention too and once you realized this fact you used this court case and harmed my ability to try my case in order to set precedent on this problem that has been brought to your attention. It is extremely unfair to use me and thios court case as a scapegoat

The rule my evidence is being struck for(4.6) brings up a COI. The Commonwealth made this statement in response to my motion to reconsider

In this case, by allowing the Plaintiff to have the evidence submitted to me, you are going against what the Supreme Court wanted originally.

The Commonwealth or more importantly the person representing the commonwealth Nacho talks about "What the Supreme Court wanted originally." when talking about rule 4.6. This brings up the question of who was on the Supreme Court when this rule was created? No other then The Presiding Officer in this case and the Person Representing the Commonwealth. How is it not a COI when the Defense's Representation is objecting to a rule they helped create and the Presiding officer is granting their objection based on a rule They also helped create WITH THE DEFENSE'S REPRESENTATION

Then I am charged with Perjury based on Assumption that are not true. You state that:

You were promoted from Building Inspector to Inspection Manager. While I cannot speak for Galavance and SergeCool's promotion and how that went, if they were promoted from Constructor to a higher position they should not retain that position unless rehired within that position as well

This is false as Both Sergecool, Galavance and the 3rd previous Inspections manager before me, SimplyHarci all continued in the department after being removed from Inspections manager as Constructors and Building Inspectors. The Defense AGREES with this fact by stating:

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
The individual mentioned yes, they left the roles on good terms and were merely demoted back to their previous positions as you mentioned. The State does not deny it.

Yet instead of righting the wrong based on false assumptions and Speculation Relaxed deny it based on something I did not motion for.

No. We have been over this, I am not forcing the Commonwealth to reveal certain aspects of the Secretary channel. I am not allowing you to continue to use other avenues such as this Objection to go on this fishing expedition.

I simply said that if you did not believe me feel free to compel the commonwealth. I was not asking the court to or motioning for the such. I also never mention the Secretary Channel when making this statement yet Relaxed brought it up. This makes it easy to believe Relaxed is not truely reading this case while ruling which is another reason for recusal.

With the COI of striking my evidence based on rule 4.6 while rule 4.6 having been made with both the presiding officer and the Defense's representation, What seems to be the presiding officer blantantly not reading the case before ruling with examples such as:

1. Stating I never gave a timeline which is false
2. Denying a motion to reconsider based on me trying to compel evidence in the #secretary channel which is all untrue
3. Stating I didnt provide reasonable suspicion when I did.

and the false assumptions made by the presiding officer used as reasonings for charging me with a crime. I have no choice but to as for Recusal.

I wish for SumoMC to rule on this Recusal and not Relaxed and I will be holding out my opening statements until that time.

 

[RelaxedGV]

MOTION TO RECUSE

This is not a fair trial by any means. Everything has been done to harm my case. Every piece of evidence I try to provide has been struck or refused to be compelled.

I request evidence of the last conversation between be and my former employee in which he said I was carrying the department which you refused to compel due to its classified nature. I motion for closed court because of the classified nature and you first refuse because:

Which is simply not true as I was apart of the conversation myself. It was the last conversation I had with my former employeer before I was fired. After pointing this out to you in my motion to reconsider you again refuse because:

How is it that I did not provide a time frame yet in the same paragraph you talk about the time frame I gave in which the conversation happen about 2 days before my firing? I told the court the time, place, topic, length and members of this conversation. I also requested Closed court for this evidence deemed to be classifed What else do I need to provide in order to have it compelled?

My evidence has been struck for not having the correct PNG name which every practicing lawyer has not paid attention too and once you realized this fact you used this court case and harmed my ability to try my case in order to set precedent on this problem that has been brought to your attention. It is extremely unfair to use me and thios court case as a scapegoat

The rule my evidence is being struck for(4.6) brings up a COI. The Commonwealth made this statement in response to my motion to reconsider

The Commonwealth or more importantly the person representing the commonwealth Nacho talks about "What the Supreme Court wanted originally." when talking about rule 4.6. This brings up the question of who was on the Supreme Court when this rule was created? No other then The Presiding Officer in this case and the Person Representing the Commonwealth. How is it not a COI when the Defense's Representation is objecting to a rule they helped create and the Presiding officer is granting their objection based on a rule They also helped create WITH THE DEFENSE'S REPRESENTATION

Then I am charged with Perjury based on Assumption that are not true. You state that:

This is false as Both Sergecool, Galavance and the 3rd previous Inspections manager before me, SimplyHarci all continued in the department after being removed from Inspections manager as Constructors and Building Inspectors. The Defense AGREES with this fact by stating:

Yet instead of righting the wrong based on false assumptions and Speculation Relaxed deny it based on something I did not motion for.

I simply said that if you did not believe me feel free to compel the commonwealth. I was not asking the court to or motioning for the such. I also never mention the Secretary Channel when making this statement yet Relaxed brought it up. This makes it easy to believe Relaxed is not truely reading this case while ruling which is another reason for recusal.

With the COI of striking my evidence based on rule 4.6 while rule 4.6 having been made with both the presiding officer and the Defense's representation, What seems to be the presiding officer blantantly not reading the case before ruling with examples such as:

1. Stating I never gave a timeline which is false
2. Denying a motion to reconsider based on me trying to compel evidence in the #secretary channel which is all untrue
3. Stating I didnt provide reasonable suspicion when I did.

and the false assumptions made by the presiding officer used as reasonings for charging me with a crime. I have no choice but to as for Recusal.

I wish for SumoMC to rule on this Recusal and not Relaxed and I will be holding out my opening statements until that time.

This does not mean the requirements for recusal as per the Judicial Standards Act as listed below.

 

[ko531]

This does not mean the requirements for recusal as per the Judicial Standards Act as listed below.
View attachment 44089

"Appearance of bias"

I have provided how there seems to be an apperance of bias and I will still wait for Justice Sumo to rule on this recusal

 

[RelaxedGV]

"Appearance of bias"

I have provided how there seems to be an apperance of bias and I will still wait for Justice Sumo to rule on this recusal

This is struck for lack of clarity on whether this is a Motion or Objection.

 

[ko531]

MOTION TO RECUSE

This is not a fair trial by any means. Everything has been done to harm my case. Every piece of evidence I try to provide has been struck or refused to be compelled.

I request evidence of the last conversation between be and my former employee in which he said I was carrying the department which you refused to compel due to its classified nature. I motion for closed court because of the classified nature and you first refuse because:

Which is simply not true as I was apart of the conversation myself. It was the last conversation I had with my former employeer before I was fired. After pointing this out to you in my motion to reconsider you again refuse because:

How is it that I did not provide a time frame yet in the same paragraph you talk about the time frame I gave in which the conversation happen about 2 days before my firing? I told the court the time, place, topic, length and members of this conversation. I also requested Closed court for this evidence deemed to be classifed What else do I need to provide in order to have it compelled?

My evidence has been struck for not having the correct PNG name which every practicing lawyer has not paid attention too and once you realized this fact you used this court case and harmed my ability to try my case in order to set precedent on this problem that has been brought to your attention. It is extremely unfair to use me and thios court case as a scapegoat

The rule my evidence is being struck for(4.6) brings up a COI. The Commonwealth made this statement in response to my motion to reconsider

The Commonwealth or more importantly the person representing the commonwealth Nacho talks about "What the Supreme Court wanted originally." when talking about rule 4.6. This brings up the question of who was on the Supreme Court when this rule was created? No other then The Presiding Officer in this case and the Person Representing the Commonwealth. How is it not a COI when the Defense's Representation is objecting to a rule they helped create and the Presiding officer is granting their objection based on a rule They also helped create WITH THE DEFENSE'S REPRESENTATION

Then I am charged with Perjury based on Assumption that are not true. You state that:

This is false as Both Sergecool, Galavance and the 3rd previous Inspections manager before me, SimplyHarci all continued in the department after being removed from Inspections manager as Constructors and Building Inspectors. The Defense AGREES with this fact by stating:

Yet instead of righting the wrong based on false assumptions and Speculation Relaxed deny it based on something I did not motion for.

I simply said that if you did not believe me feel free to compel the commonwealth. I was not asking the court to or motioning for the such. I also never mention the Secretary Channel when making this statement yet Relaxed brought it up. This makes it easy to believe Relaxed is not truely reading this case while ruling which is another reason for recusal.

With the COI of striking my evidence based on rule 4.6 while rule 4.6 having been made with both the presiding officer and the Defense's representation, What seems to be the presiding officer blantantly not reading the case before ruling with examples such as:

1. Stating I never gave a timeline which is false
2. Denying a motion to reconsider based on me trying to compel evidence in the #secretary channel which is all untrue
3. Stating I didnt provide reasonable suspicion when I did.

and the false assumptions made by the presiding officer used as reasonings for charging me with a crime. I have no choice but to as for Recusal.

I wish for SumoMC to rule on this Recusal and not Relaxed and I will be holding out my opening statements until that time.

I forgot to add this in my reasoning for Recusal and wish to add it now how Relaxed has favored the defense with their witness list.

Relaxed gave the Defense the ability to provide part of their witness list during their opening statements. When I informed Relaxed that depending on who they call I might need to provide additional evidence but I would be able to since Discovery would be over. He refused to compel the defense to provide part of their witness list during discovery in which harms my ability to try my case and cross examine those witnesses

 

[RelaxedGV]

I forgot to add this in my reasoning for Recusal and wish to add it now how Relaxed has favored the defense with their witness list.

Relaxed gave the Defense the ability to provide part of their witness list during their opening statements. When I informed Relaxed that depending on who they call I might need to provide additional evidence but I would be able to since Discovery would be over. He refused to compel the defense to provide part of their witness list during discovery in which harms my ability to try my case and cross examine those witnesses

You know how Court Procedures work. This is struck due to not stating whether this is an Objection or a Motion.

 

[ko531]

MOTION TO RECUSE

This is not a fair trial by any means. Everything has been done to harm my case. Every piece of evidence I try to provide has been struck or refused to be compelled.

I request evidence of the last conversation between be and my former employee in which he said I was carrying the department which you refused to compel due to its classified nature. I motion for closed court because of the classified nature and you first refuse because:

Which is simply not true as I was apart of the conversation myself. It was the last conversation I had with my former employeer before I was fired. After pointing this out to you in my motion to reconsider you again refuse because:

How is it that I did not provide a time frame yet in the same paragraph you talk about the time frame I gave in which the conversation happen about 2 days before my firing? I told the court the time, place, topic, length and members of this conversation. I also requested Closed court for this evidence deemed to be classifed What else do I need to provide in order to have it compelled?

My evidence has been struck for not having the correct PNG name which every practicing lawyer has not paid attention too and once you realized this fact you used this court case and harmed my ability to try my case in order to set precedent on this problem that has been brought to your attention. It is extremely unfair to use me and thios court case as a scapegoat

The rule my evidence is being struck for(4.6) brings up a COI. The Commonwealth made this statement in response to my motion to reconsider

The Commonwealth or more importantly the person representing the commonwealth Nacho talks about "What the Supreme Court wanted originally." when talking about rule 4.6. This brings up the question of who was on the Supreme Court when this rule was created? No other then The Presiding Officer in this case and the Person Representing the Commonwealth. How is it not a COI when the Defense's Representation is objecting to a rule they helped create and the Presiding officer is granting their objection based on a rule They also helped create WITH THE DEFENSE'S REPRESENTATION

Then I am charged with Perjury based on Assumption that are not true. You state that:

This is false as Both Sergecool, Galavance and the 3rd previous Inspections manager before me, SimplyHarci all continued in the department after being removed from Inspections manager as Constructors and Building Inspectors. The Defense AGREES with this fact by stating:

Yet instead of righting the wrong based on false assumptions and Speculation Relaxed deny it based on something I did not motion for.

I simply said that if you did not believe me feel free to compel the commonwealth. I was not asking the court to or motioning for the such. I also never mention the Secretary Channel when making this statement yet Relaxed brought it up. This makes it easy to believe Relaxed is not truely reading this case while ruling which is another reason for recusal.

With the COI of striking my evidence based on rule 4.6 while rule 4.6 having been made with both the presiding officer and the Defense's representation, What seems to be the presiding officer blantantly not reading the case before ruling with examples such as:

1. Stating I never gave a timeline which is false
2. Denying a motion to reconsider based on me trying to compel evidence in the #secretary channel which is all untrue
3. Stating I didnt provide reasonable suspicion when I did.

and the false assumptions made by the presiding officer used as reasonings for charging me with a crime. I have no choice but to as for Recusal.

I wish for SumoMC to rule on this Recusal and not Relaxed and I will be holding out my opening statements until that time.

MOTION TO RECUSE PT. 2

I forgot to add this in my reasoning for Recusal and wish to add it now how Relaxed has favored the defense with their witness list.

Relaxed gave the Defense the ability to provide part of their witness list during their opening statements. When I informed Relaxed that depending on who they call I might need to provide additional evidence but I would be able to since Discovery would be over. He refused to compel the defense to provide part of their witness list during discovery in which harms my ability to try my case and cross examine those witnesses.

He is also has struck everything I said in this court case that isnt an Objection or Motion which no where does it state that everything stated in a lawsuit must be Motions, Objections or responses to Motions or Objections. He has struck half a dozen statements I have made included a late response due to a deadline being during a holiday and he has yet to strike any of the Defense. I tried being nice and inform the presiding officers of certain things but he is forcing me to object or make a motion. At this point he seems to be doing this as revenge which would be bias.

 

[xtub12345]

Due to this being the second Motion to Recuse, I will be ruling on the Motion to Recuse. The Motion is still rejected given you failed to fulfill the reasons for recusal and are doing so to cherry pick your Presiding Officer, while it is clear that you are not a big fan of Chief Justice RelaxedGV, your disgruntled opinions about him to not make the rules for recusal any different.

Now so I don't get investigated, the reasoning I am able to do this is within the very own Constitution, within right 9 there is a statement referring to impartial Judges which if we were to apply this to only Federal Court Judges then Magistrates and Justices can rule with a bias and without a speedy trial. This of course is not the convention we have been operating under along with Judges being used as a general term for years over Judicial Officials.

 

[ko531]

Due to this being the second Motion to Recuse, I will be ruling on the Motion to Recuse. The Motion is still rejected given you failed to fulfill the reasons for recusal and are doing so to cherry pick your Presiding Officer, while it is clear that you are not a big fan of Chief Justice RelaxedGV, your disgruntled opinions about him to not make the rules for recusal any different.

Now so I don't get investigated, the reasoning I am able to do this is within the very own Constitution, within right 9 there is a statement referring to impartial Judges which if we were to apply this to only Federal Court Judges then Magistrates and Justices can rule with a bias and without a speedy trial. This of course is not the convention we have been operating under along with Judges being used as a general term for years over Judicial Officials.

OBJECTION BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Magistrates have zero power in the Federal court outlined in the Judicial Standards act. So again I will be waiting on SumoMC to rule.

Normally it would fall to the Cheif Justice but since Relaxed is the acting Cheif Justice it would automatically fall to the next and only other justice SumoMc

 

[RelaxedGV]

OBJECTION BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Magistrates have zero power in the Federal court outlined in the Judicial Standards act. So again I will be waiting on SumoMC to rule.

Normally it would fall to the Cheif Justice but since Relaxed is the acting Cheif Justice it would automatically fall to the next and only other justice SumoMc

No, your fishing expedition and further ends here. You don't get to pick who rules on your Motion to Recuse nor do you decide who presides over your case. You are using this as a way to choose who rules on your case and likely who will auto rule in your favor. You know how the Court System works and should know this is now how it works.

I have put up with your escapades long enough throughout this case from trying to instigate an argument to this recusal. There is no conspiracy nor is there bias. I have been ruling how you both have presented arguments and what the case is on, you fail to like how I rule given you auto have a bias towards the Plaintiff given you filed the case.

Going back to not even granting your objections, the only one you seem to dislike is the fact of when your evidence was struck which was proper. Precedent does indeed hurt one side same with any outcome of any ruling, you caught the poor side this time. I rejected the Motion to Dismiss to let this case continue yet you don't want to bring that up, that shows I don't have bias. I've been rejecting the Defense's motions and objections when appropriate yet again fail to state that.

You are not using these recusals to get a bias Presiding Officer off of your case but rather to choose your Presiding Officer.

 

[ko531]

No, your fishing expedition and further ends here. You don't get to pick who rules on your Motion to Recuse nor do you decide who presides over your case. You are using this as a way to choose who rules on your case and likely who will auto rule in your favor. You know how the Court System works and should know this is now how it works.

I have put up with your escapades long enough throughout this case from trying to instigate an argument to this recusal. There is no conspiracy nor is there bias. I have been ruling how you both have presented arguments and what the case is on, you fail to like how I rule given you auto have a bias towards the Plaintiff given you filed the case.

Going back to not even granting your objections, the only one you seem to dislike is the fact of when your evidence was struck which was proper. Precedent does indeed hurt one side same with any outcome of any ruling, you caught the poor side this time. I rejected the Motion to Dismiss to let this case continue yet you don't want to bring that up, that shows I don't have bias. I've been rejecting the Defense's motions and objections when appropriate yet again fail to state that.

You are not using these recusals to get a bias Presiding Officer off of your case but rather to choose your Presiding Officer.

OBJECTION BREACH OF PROCEDURE

You can not rule on the Motion to Recuse and Neither can xTub so AGAIN I will be waiting for SumoMC to rule on this recusal since he is the only other supreme court Justice. I am not trying to pick my presiding officer but I have a right to a fair trial and this trial is clearly not fair. I am only specifically asking for Sumo as he is the only other Supreme Court Justice. If there were multiple other Supreme Court Justices I would ask for either of them to rule but it is only Sumo so I am asking for Sumo.

 

[RelaxedGV]

OBJECTION BREACH OF PROCEDURE

You can not rule on the Motion to Recuse and Neither can xTub so AGAIN I will be waiting for SumoMC to rule on this recusal since he is the only other supreme court Justice. I am not trying to pick my presiding officer but I have a right to a fair trial and this trial is clearly not fair. I am only specifically asking for Sumo as he is the only other Supreme Court Justice. If there were multiple other Supreme Court Justices I would ask for either of them to rule but it is only Sumo so I am asking for Sumo.

Nope. Xtub explained the reasoning why they were able to and I affirm the reasoning and going beyond that you again do not choose who rules on the Motion to Recuse as anyone else on the Judiciary can rule on it.

I'm not entertaining this.

 

[ko531]

Nope. Xtub explained the reasoning why they were able to and I affirm the reasoning and going beyond that you again do not choose who rules on the Motion to Recuse as anyone else on the Judiciary can rule on it.

I'm not entertaining this.

OBJECTION BREACH OF PROCEDURE

It is outline in the JSA and the Constitution that Judges can not rule on court which are above them. xTub is a Magistrate and therefore has no power in making any ruling on the Federal court level. By allowing this to happen is to allow the Judicary to breach the constitution.

At this point I would be fine with MrFluffy to make this ruling as long as it is someone besides you and someone who actually has the power to make such a ruling on the Federal Court level. By allowing this would be another reason in which you should be recused as you have no intention to follow the law and the constitution at this point

 

[RelaxedGV]

OBJECTION BREACH OF PROCEDURE

It is outline in the JSA and the Constitution that Judges can not rule on court which are above them. xTub is a Magistrate and therefore has no power in making any ruling on the Federal court level. By allowing this to happen is to allow the Judicary to breach the constitution.

At this point I would be fine with MrFluffy to make this ruling as long as it is someone besides you and someone who actually has the power to make such a ruling on the Federal Court level. By allowing this would be another reason in which you should be recused as you have no intention to follow the law and the constitution at this point

This is your one and only warning. We are not going to keep going through this over and over again with slight changes the ruling is done. You have an Opening Statement that you have yet to post as you are sitting here attempting instigating an argument to find reasons for impeachment. Yes, I can see through your game.

 

[ko531]

OBJECTION BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Your Honor I am not a representative or a senator or in any power to impeach you. If congress decides that then that is there decision and has nothing to do with me. I am not moving foward in this case until someone with the actual power to make a ruling on the Recusal does as xtub and yourself do not.

I am not trying to argue but I am not going to have my rights violated by your blantant disregard of the constitution. I will accept a ruling by either MrFluffy or Sumo as they actual have the power to make a ruling on the Federal court level. Until that time I will not be moving on in this case as my Motion to Recuse has not been properly answered

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Greetings,

I was asked to provide a verdict on this motion for recusal.

I would like to preface this decision with pointing out that I am not making a verdict on any previous decision made by the presiding judge, merely observing the motion to recuse, and the presiding judges conduct to determine if the criteria is met for recusal based on bias.

Upon review I do not believe that the standard required for recusal has been met. I understand the plaintiffs frustration with this case, and while I may not necessarily agree with all of the decisions made in this case, I do not feel that the presiding judge has displayed a blatant bias nor made any egregious or unjustifiable rulings in this case.

This motion for recusal is denied.

 

[RelaxedGV]

OBJECTION BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Your Honor I am not a representative or a senator or in any power to impeach you. If congress decides that then that is there decision and has nothing to do with me. I am not moving foward in this case until someone with the actual power to make a ruling on the Recusal does as xtub and yourself do not.

I am not trying to argue but I am not going to have my rights violated by your blantant disregard of the constitution. I will accept a ruling by either MrFluffy or Sumo as they actual have the power to make a ruling on the Federal court level. Until that time I will not be moving on in this case as my Motion to Recuse has not been properly answered

Now you have no room to argue the ruling on the motion to recuse. This is also now rejected.

I'll grant a 12 hour extension for you to post your Opening Statement.

 

[ko531]

MOTION TO RECUSE
I hate to do this again but I must. Your opinion on me is tainted and I feel that it will affect how you rule. This would be the appearanc of bias. You made remarks to me stating I am trying to negatively impact your job and try to get you Impeach.

You have an Opening Statement that you have yet to post as you are sitting here attempting instigating an argument to find reasons for impeachment. Yes, I can see through your game.

There is not evidence for you to assume that I am trying to impeach you meaning that you made this assumption on your own.

By making the negative assumption onto me with zero evidence makes me question your impartiality as it seems you have a negative perception of me. You assumed the worst about me and my intention and I feel this could impact how you rule in this trial moving forward. For this negative assumption you have made and what seems to be a negative preception of me I must ask you to recuse.

 

[RelaxedGV]

MOTION TO RECUSE
I hate to do this again but I must. Your opinion on me is tainted and I feel that it will affect how you rule. This would be the appearanc of bias. You made remarks to me stating I am trying to negatively impact your job and try to get you Impeach.

There is not evidence for you to assume that I am trying to impeach you meaning that you made this assumption on your own.

By making the negative assumption onto me with zero evidence makes me question your impartiality as it seems you have a negative perception of me. You assumed the worst about me and my intention and I feel this could impact how you rule in this trial moving forward. For this negative assumption you have made and what seems to be a negative preception of me I must ask you to recuse.

You already motioned for this twice. You cannot motion a third time.

 

[ko531]

You already motioned for this twice. You cannot motion a third time.

Objection Breach of Procedure
I very much can ask you to recuse again if something new has happened since the first 2 motions which it has.

Just because I failed a motion to recuse do not lose me the right to a fair trial and when the judge is showing the appearance of a bias that can harm my right to a fair trial if the judge acts uppon those bias. This is why I have the right to motion to recuse. I would understand your argument if the reasoning for the motion were the same but this is a brand new reasoning from something that happened after the first 2 motions.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Objection Breach of Procedure
I very much can ask you to recuse again if something new has happened since the first 2 motions which it has.

Just because I failed a motion to recuse do not lose me the right to a fair trial and when the judge is showing the appearance of a bias that can harm my right to a fair trial if the judge acts uppon those bias. This is why I have the right to motion to recuse. I would understand your argument if the reasoning for the motion were the same but this is a brand new reasoning from something that happened after the first 2 motions.

No. I'm not entertaining this, your hereby held in Contempt and I order the DHS to jail/fine appropriately.

This has already been ruled on and you are posting nearly identical Objection and Motions, they have already been ruled on and been ruled on by two other members of the Judiciary. That was your third despite being rejected already and then this is your 5th Objection for Breach on the same reason.

 

[ko531]

No. I'm not entertaining this, your hereby held in Contempt and I order the DHS to jail/fine appropriately.

This has already been ruled on and you are posting nearly identical Objection and Motions, they have already been ruled on and been ruled on by two other members of the Judiciary. That was your third despite being rejected already and then this is your 5th Objection for Breach on the same reason.

OBJECTION BREACH OF PROCEDURE
I very much can ask you to recuse again as something new has happened showing your biases. You made a negative assumption about my intentions with zero proof. If you do not rule on this motion to recuse I will consider it as you violating my IX right (the right to a fair trial). You are bias against me and you are ruling on said bias.

As for the Objections, You are forcing me to either Object or Motion for something as you have struck everything else I have said for not clarifying. No where does it state I can only objection or motion when speaking in a court case but as you are forcing me to I have no choice unless I want you to strike my grievances again.

 

[RelaxedGV]

OBJECTION BREACH OF PROCEDURE
I very much can ask you to recuse again as something new has happened showing your biases. You made a negative assumption about my intentions with zero proof. If you do not rule on this motion to recuse I will consider it as you violating my IX right (the right to a fair trial). You are bias against me and you are ruling on said bias.

As for the Objections, You are forcing me to either Object or Motion for something as you have struck everything else I have said for not clarifying. No where does it state I can only objection or motion when speaking in a court case but as you are forcing me to I have no choice unless I want you to strike my grievances again.

You are hereby held in Contempt again. These are already answered and what is honestly a shock is the fact that you can keep writing these yet fail to post your Opening Statement even with the extension.

 

[ko531]

OBJECTION BREACH OF PROCEDURE

I will not move foward in this case and give my opening statements until my rights are no longer being violated and I get a ruling on my motion to recuse due to you clearing showing bias.