Lawsuit: Adjourned Mask3d_WOLF v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 28

[SumoMC]

The court thanks you for your Closing Statement, we will now move onto the Commonwealths closing statements. They have 72 Hours to present them to the court.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Your Honour,

Justice Matthew was well within their domain when terminating the employment of Magistrate Mask3d_Wolf. According to the Judicial Restructuring Amendment, no Judicial Officer, the term granting to Magistrates, Judges and Justices as per the Constitution, Part 2 Section 21, may not join any campaign in an official capacity. Magistrate Mask3d_Wolf's presence as the Campaign Manager of the End/Snowy ticket directly links them as an official member of said campaign, and thus provides the legal basis and appropriate justification for the termination of Mask3d_Wolf by Justice Matthew.

The Plaintiff further suggests that Magistrate Mask3d_Wolf was fired for political reasons relating to a case filed against Justice Matthew. However, the Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient evidence or reasoning as to why it was politically motivated. In addition to this, the Plaintiff has suggested that suing the Judiciary is not a direct attack on the Judiciary, when the lawsuit aimed to incapacitate the Supreme and remove it's capability to rule on verdicts. The case concluded in favor of the Judiciary, and thus the case can be summarized to have no actual impact, and thus can be extrapolated as an attack on the Judiciary. This provides further legal basis and even more justification for the termination of Mask3d_Wolf by Justice Matthew.

As 2 appropriate and solid reasons have been provided by Justice Matthew, the termination of Magistrate Mask3d_Wolf was entirely within Justice Matthew's purview, was not illegitimate nor unjust as it cites the rules and laws of the Court and the nation, and thus no argument referring to unjust termination is therefore valid.
The Plaintiff's claims for relief can all be refuted very easily with the arguments and evidences provided (or lack thereof) within this case.

- Claim 1 is refuted as the initial lawsuit had no genuine impact on the courts other than an attempt to disrupt the courts by depriving it of it's ability to conduct trials. In addition to this, the Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence regarding the political motivations of Justice Matthew/

- Claim 2 is may be justified, but is unimportant in the grand scheme of things as termination only required 1 legitimate reason.

- Claim 3 is refuted as Magistrate Mask3d_Wolf did in fact hold an official position within an campaign, as a campaign manager in the End/Snowy campaign, and thus was in direct violation of the JRA. This is evidenced in the testimony by xEndeavour.

- Claims 4,5,6 are invalid as the termination therefore justified, removing any fault under the CSA, removing any obligation to may Mask3d_Wolf as they rightfully no longer worked as a Magistrate in any capacity following the termination, and as the termination was justified, the emotional damages that the Plaintiff may have incurred are not the responsibility of the court as it is entirely the Plaintiff's fault for termination.

The Commonwealth urges the courts to analyze the case properly with the evidence provided and find that the termination of Magistrate Mask3d_Wolf was justified, to deny all claims by the Plaintiff, and dismiss all charges against the Commonwealth.

Thank you for your time.

 

[SumoMC]

The court will now be in recess pending a rendered verdict.

 

[SumoMC]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Mask3d_Wolf v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 28

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. Mask3d_Wolf was wrongfully terminated from the District Court
2. The former Chief Justice's violated their right “every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status"

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The plaintiff is a Public Official/Judicial Officer and is subject to the Judicial Standers Act, not the Commercial Standard Act.
2. The Chief Justice was well within his right to fire the plaintiff

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. When it comes to the question of if magistrates fall under the CSA or the JSA, it is clear that Magistrates are Judicial Officers appointed to the District Court by the Chief Justice. This means that they do not fall under the CSA and do not enjoy the same protections.
2. The Judicial Standards Act states that "Judicial Officers is the collective name given to Magistrates, Judges, Justices, and the Chief Justice." This in itself proves that the position of Magistrate falls under the JSA, not the CSA.
3. Mask3d_Wolf was fired by Chief Justice Matthew prior to the amendment to the constitution changing the firing power of the Supreme Court, with this being said the Chief Justice was within his right to fire the former magistrate.

IV. DECISION
1. The Court rules in favor of the Defense, no prayer for relief will be granted.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.