Lawsuit: In Session RaiTheGuy07 v. Department of Homeland Security [2025] FCR 21

[Superwoops]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

RaiTheGuy07 (Represented by Superwoops)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Homeland Security
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:


Raitheguy07 was fired from the Department of Homeland Security on 16/02 by Secretary of DHS HellsideBurnton for “murder”. The “murders” for which he was terminated were consensual from the receiving party; therefore, they do not constitute murder. Upon realizing that he had become wanted, Rai opened a ticket with DHS, hoping to clear up this issue and have these murder charges removed from his criminal record. Having been opened on the 15th, the ticket goes unanswered and unsolved to this day. Not only did DHS fire Raitheguy07 for having killed others despite having received their express consent, they fired him without following their own protocol. These actions caused great harm to RaiTheGuy07.

I. PARTIES
1. RaiTheGuy07
2. Department of Homeland Security

II. FACTS
1. 12/02 Raitheguy receives a first offense infraction for murder. (See Infractions)
2. Raitheguy07 kills Doc upon receiving express verbal consent to do so. (P-001)
3. Raitheguy07 kills IamJeb_ upon receiving express verbal consent to do so. (P-002 and P-003)
4. Raitheguy07 is unlawfully arrested and sent to jail for two counts of murder.
5. Raitheguy07 kills Argen_Lee with his consent. (P-004 and P-005)
6. Raitheguy07 is unlawfully arrested and sent to jail for one count of murder.
7. 15/02 Raitheguy07 opens a ticket with DHS hoping to revert his criminal record for these murders.
8. 16/02 Raitheguy07 is terminated from the DHS for “murder” (See Infractions), a termination which became widespread public knowledge.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The DHS did not follow their own procedure to discipline employees. Using Ko531 v. Department of Health [2022] DCR 59 as precedent, it is clear that Departments must handle their employees' terminations according to their regulations. The Department of Homeland Security has a Code of Conduct that determines how employees are punished, which states that "Terminations automatically occur after a 3rd major offense or a 4th minor offense." Anything not constituting a 3rd major offense or a 4th minor offense or higher could warrant other disciplinary actions, but not termination. Since the killings in question do not constitute murders, they also should not count towards infractions. Furthermore, even if one assumes that the murders were illegal, (which they were not) Raitheguy07 should have received a verbal warning, a second time warning, be put under probation, then terminated, which did not happen. Therefore, under the Commercial Standards Act, this constitutes an unfair dismissal.
2. While the Plaintiff spent a total of 30 minutes in jail, he could have been doing other activities relating to his job, like arresting criminals, and/or painting frogs, a hobby through which he earns significant funds (as much as $50,000 per piece). (P-006)
3. The fact that my client has been made a criminal is, for him, angering by itself. Being arrested for those crimes is significantly more preposterous and exasperating. But, being fired for those crimes is orders of magnitude worse, and constitutes an outrageous act by DHS. Even more aggravating is the fact that my client still hasn't received a definitive answer in his DHS ticket.
4. My client's termination has become public knowledge and as a result, his reputation has been harmed (P-007). The No More Defamation Act states that my client could be entitled to an apology from the defaming party.
5. As a result of his firing, my client has begun to enjoy life in Redmont less, as his job meant a lot to him.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Raitheguy07 be found not guilty for the murders of Doc, IamJeb_, and Argen_Lee, and subsequently, his criminal record be expunged.
2. Immediate reinstatement of Raitheguy07 as Recruit in the Department of Homeland Security.
3. $1,500 in compensatory damages, as my client is entitled to $50 per minute spent in jail, according to the Standardised Criminal Code Act.
4. $5,000 in compensatory damages for missed earning capacity while in prison, as well as lost salary for arrests in the two days of playtime my client has had since his termination.
5. $35,000 in punitive damages for the Department of Homeland Security's outrageous conduct in the handling of this case. Is a reasonable person supposed to expect that you can be fired from a government job for crimes you didn't commit, all the while blatantly disregarding Department policy? My client was an outstanding member of the police force and did not deserve this treatment.
6. $10,000 in emotional damages, as this whole process, along with my client's sudden termination and the need to file a lawsuit to gain his job back and right these wrongs has caused him great anger and grief.
7. $20,000 for Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont.
8. A public apology from DHS to my client, Raitheguy07.
9. $21,450 in legal fees, corresponding to 30% of the value of this case.

EVIDENCE:

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: P-007

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

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 22nd day of February, 2025.

 

[Dartanboy]

Writ of Summons

The Attorney General @Freeze_Line or another person who is legally qualified to represent the Commonwealth is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of RaiTheGuy07 v. Department of Homeland Security [2025] FCR 21.

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

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

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Writ of Summons

The Attorney General @Freeze_Line or another person who is legally qualified to represent the Commonwealth is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of RaiTheGuy07 v. Department of Homeland Security [2025] FCR 21.

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

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

Commonwealth is present, your honor.

 

[Dartanboy]

Commonwealth is present, your honor.

The Defense has 72 hours to file an Answer to Complaint.

 

[juniperfig]

Answer to Complaint

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

RaiTheGuy07
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defence AFFIRMS that on 12/02, Raitheguy07 received a first offense infraction for murder.
2. The Defence DENIES that Raitheguy07 killed Doc upon receiving express verbal consent to do so. P-001 does not show "express verbal consent".
3. The Defence DENIES that Raitheguy07 killed IamJeb_ upon receiving express verbal consent to do so. The Defence has submitted no proof of this occurring. P-002 does not show “express verbal consent”. P-003 occurred after the murder, and there is no reason to believe IamJeb_ was speaking to RaiTheGuy07 in that conversation.
4. The Defence DENIES that Raitheguy07 was unlawfully arrested and sent to jail for two counts of murder. RaiTheGuy07 was lawfully arrested.
5. The Defence DENIES that Raitheguy07 killed Argen_Lee with his consent. P-004 does not show “consent”. P-005 shows Argen_Lee’s opinion on what constitutes murder, which is not the law.
6. The Defence DENIES that Raitheguy07 was unlawfully arrested and sent to jail for one count of murder. RaiTheGuy07 was lawfully arrested.
7. The Defence AFFIRMS that on 15/02, Raitheguy07 opened a ticket with DHS hoping to revert his criminal record for these murders.
8. The Defence AFFIRMS that on 16/02, Raitheguy07 was terminated from the DHS for murder, a termination which became widespread public knowledge.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Constitution grants Secretaries the right to appoint and dismiss employees of their respective departments. The precedent identified by the Plaintiff involved a termination that lacked a clear violation of the DOH’s code of conduct. RaiTheGuy07’s termination was based on established laws prohibiting murder and adhered to the DHS Code of Conduct, which explicitly grants the Secretary the authority to fire employees for severe offences. Unlike Ko531, where no clear misconduct was established, this case involves a well-documented violation of the law and the code of conduct. Therefore, the precedent set in Ko531 does not apply.

2. Verbal consent to murder is not consent to murder under the law. Only running the command “/police consent” allows a citizen to consent to murder (D-001).

3. The No More Defamation Act states that “Defamation is a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation”. The DHS did not make a false statement—RaiTheGuy07 did commit murder. According to the Violent Offences Act, murder is “The act of unlawfully killing another player”, which RaiTheGuy07 clearly did, as seen in P-001 and P-002.

4. The Plaintiff’s claim of reputational harm is unfounded, as public reaction demonstrates the opposite effect. Rather than suffering damage to his reputation, the Plaintiff has garnered significant public support, as evidenced by petitions advocating for his reinstatement (P-007). Far from defamation, the Plaintiff’s termination has, if anything, enhanced his public standing.

Spoiler: D-001

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 27th day of February 2025

Motion

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

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Lack of Claim (Rule 5.5)
The Plaintiff alleges wrongful termination, reputational harm, and financial loss but fails to demonstrate any legal basis that would entitle him to relief.

The Constitution of Redmont grants the Secretary of DHS the authority to hire and fire employees, and the DHS Code of Conduct explicitly states that the Secretary may fire employees for severe offences. The Plaintiff murdered three citizens who did not legally consent to the murders. Murder is a severe crime, and outrageous behaviour from an agent of the law. The Secretary, and agents acting on behalf of the Secretary, were well within their rights to fire the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff claims defamation, but DHS made no false or misleading statements about the Plaintiff—his termination for “murder” was based on fact. The Plaintiff claims reputational harm but provides evidence of public support for his reinstatement, demonstrating that his reputation has not suffered.

The Plaintiff claims damages for time spent in jail; however, he was lawfully arrested and sentenced for committing murder. Compensation for lost time is not available to individuals who were lawfully incarcerated as a consequence of their actions. Since the Plaintiff’s imprisonment was not wrongful, he has no legal basis to claim monetary relief for time spent serving his valid sentence.

2. Immunity Protection (Rule 5.11)
The Constitution of Redmont grants the Secretary of DHS the authority to fire and hire employees, meaning this termination was conducted under Constitutional authority, and not subject to legal challenge. The courts have historically upheld the doctrine of immunity in cases where government officials act within their Constitutional authority (Lawsuit: Dismissed - Commonwealth of Redmont v. Deadwax [2022] SCR 24, Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. xLayzur [2024] SCR 1, Lawsuit: Adjourned - Mask3D_WOLF v. Judiciary of Redmont [2024] SCR 13). Since the termination was lawful and followed departmental procedure, this case must be dismissed under Rule 5.11.

 

[Dartanboy]

Answer to Complaint

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

RaiTheGuy07
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defence AFFIRMS that on 12/02, Raitheguy07 received a first offense infraction for murder.
2. The Defence DENIES that Raitheguy07 killed Doc upon receiving express verbal consent to do so. P-001 does not show "express verbal consent".
3. The Defence DENIES that Raitheguy07 killed IamJeb_ upon receiving express verbal consent to do so. The Defence has submitted no proof of this occurring. P-002 does not show “express verbal consent”. P-003 occurred after the murder, and there is no reason to believe IamJeb_ was speaking to RaiTheGuy07 in that conversation.
4. The Defence DENIES that Raitheguy07 was unlawfully arrested and sent to jail for two counts of murder. RaiTheGuy07 was lawfully arrested.
5. The Defence DENIES that Raitheguy07 killed Argen_Lee with his consent. P-004 does not show “consent”. P-005 shows Argen_Lee’s opinion on what constitutes murder, which is not the law.
6. The Defence DENIES that Raitheguy07 was unlawfully arrested and sent to jail for one count of murder. RaiTheGuy07 was lawfully arrested.
7. The Defence DENIES that on 15/02, Raitheguy07 opened a ticket with DHS hoping to revert his criminal record for these murders. The Plaintiff has submitted no proof of this occurring, and the Defence has been unable to confirm the contents this ticket independently.
8. The Defence AFFIRMS that on 16/02, Raitheguy07 was terminated from the DHS for murder, a termination which became widespread public knowledge.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Constitution grants Secretaries the right to appoint and dismiss employees of their respective departments. The precedent identified by the Plaintiff involved a termination that lacked a clear violation of the DOH’s code of conduct. RaiTheGuy07’s termination was based on established laws prohibiting murder and adhered to the DHS Code of Conduct, which explicitly grants the Secretary the authority to fire employees for severe offences. Unlike Ko531, where no clear misconduct was established, this case involves a well-documented violation of the law and the code of conduct. Therefore, the precedent set in Ko531 does not apply.

2. Verbal consent to murder is not consent to murder under the law. Only running the command “/police consent” allows a citizen to consent to murder (D-001).

3. The No More Defamation Act states that “Defamation is a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation”. The DHS did not make a false statement—RaiTheGuy07 did commit murder. According to the Violent Offences Act, murder is “The act of unlawfully killing another player”, which RaiTheGuy07 clearly did, as seen in P-001 and P-002.

4. The Plaintiff’s claim of reputational harm is unfounded, as public reaction demonstrates the opposite effect. Rather than suffering damage to his reputation, the Plaintiff has garnered significant public support, as evidenced by petitions advocating for his reinstatement (P-007). Far from defamation, the Plaintiff’s termination has, if anything, enhanced his public standing.

Spoiler: D-001

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 27th day of February 2025

Motion

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

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Lack of Claim (Rule 5.5)
The Plaintiff alleges wrongful termination, reputational harm, and financial loss but fails to demonstrate any legal basis that would entitle him to relief.

The Constitution of Redmont grants the Secretary of DHS the authority to hire and fire employees, and the DHS Code of Conduct explicitly states that the Secretary may fire employees for severe offences. The Plaintiff murdered three citizens who did not legally consent to the murders. Murder is a severe crime, and outrageous behaviour from an agent of the law. The Secretary, and agents acting on behalf of the Secretary, were well within their rights to fire the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff claims defamation, but DHS made no false or misleading statements about the Plaintiff—his termination for “murder” was based on fact. The Plaintiff claims reputational harm but provides evidence of public support for his reinstatement, demonstrating that his reputation has not suffered.

The Plaintiff claims damages for time spent in jail; however, he was lawfully arrested and sentenced for committing murder. Compensation for lost time is not available to individuals who were lawfully incarcerated as a consequence of their actions. Since the Plaintiff’s imprisonment was not wrongful, he has no legal basis to claim monetary relief for time spent serving his valid sentence.

2. Immunity Protection (Rule 5.11)
The Constitution of Redmont grants the Secretary of DHS the authority to fire and hire employees, meaning this termination was conducted under Constitutional authority, and not subject to legal challenge. The courts have historically upheld the doctrine of immunity in cases where government officials act within their Constitutional authority (Lawsuit: Dismissed - Commonwealth of Redmont v. Deadwax [2022] SCR 24, Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. xLayzur [2024] SCR 1, Lawsuit: Adjourned - Mask3D_WOLF v. Judiciary of Redmont [2024] SCR 13). Since the termination was lawful and followed departmental procedure, this case must be dismissed under Rule 5.11.

Overruled.

On Lack of Claim, this motion alleges insufficient evidence for damages, which could still be shown in Discovery. Furthermore, regardless of whether the Plaintiff has yet demonstrated a legal basis for his claims, his filing may be amended during Discovery, and also Opening Statements tend to be where the bulk of the legal analysis appears.

On Immunity Protection, the Constitution expressly gives the power to "appoint and dismiss employees" in their departments, however, unlike the President's power to fire Secretaries, their tenure is not "at the pleasure" of their superior, and may be subject to further regulation outside the Constitution. Thus, I'm not satisfied that there is definitely immunity in this case.

 

[Dartanboy]

Discovery will now begin. It will last 72 hours unless otherwise modified.

 

[Superwoops]

Your honor, we wish to add the following pieces of evidence:

P-008:



P-009:

https://imgur.com/LWES8QA

P-010:

 

[juniperfig]

I respectfully request to amend the Answer to Complaint as follows:

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
...
7. The Defence DENIES AFFIRMS that on 15/02, Raitheguy07 opened a ticket with DHS hoping to revert his criminal record for these murders. The Plaintiff has submitted no proof of this occurring, and the Defence has been unable to confirm the contents this ticket independently.

 

[Dartanboy]

I respectfully request to amend the Answer to Complaint as follows:

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
...
7. The Defence DENIES AFFIRMS that on 15/02, Raitheguy07 opened a ticket with DHS hoping to revert his criminal record for these murders. The Plaintiff has submitted no proof of this occurring, and the Defence has been unable to confirm the contents this ticket independently.

You may make this change.

 

[Superwoops]

We would like to amend our filing as follows:


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Raitheguy07 be found not guilty for the murders of Doc, IamJeb_, and Argen_Lee from Raitheguy07's, and subsequently, his criminal record be expunged.
2. Immediate reinstatement of Raitheguy07 as Recruit in the Department of Homeland Security.
3. $1,500 in compensatory damages, as my client is entitled to $50 per minute spent in jail, according to the Standardised Criminal Code Act.
4. $5,000 in compensatory damages for missed earning capacity while in prison, as well as lost salary for arrests in the two days of playtime my client has had since his termination.
5. $35,000 in punitive damages for the Department of Homeland Security's outrageous conduct in the handling of this case. Is a reasonable person supposed to expect that you can be fired from a government job for crimes you didn't commit, all the while blatantly disregarding Department policy? My client was an outstanding member of the police force and did not deserve this treatment.
6. $10,000 in emotional damages, as this whole process, along with my client's sudden termination and the need to file a lawsuit to gain his job back and right these wrongs has caused him great anger and grief.
7. $20,000 for Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont.
8. $10,000 for reputational loss (through defamation) by stating that my client committed murder.
9. 8. A public apology from DHS to my client, Raitheguy07.
10. 9. $24,450 $21,450 in legal fees, corresponding to 30% of the value of this case.

 

[Superwoops]

We submit this additional piece of evidence:

P-011:

 

[Superwoops]

We would like to submit the following witness list:

1: Doc
2: IamJeb_
3: Argen_Lee
4: RaiTheGuy07

 

[Dartanboy]

We would like to amend our filing as follows:


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Raitheguy07 be found not guilty for the murders of Doc, IamJeb_, and Argen_Lee from Raitheguy07's, and subsequently, his criminal record be expunged.
2. Immediate reinstatement of Raitheguy07 as Recruit in the Department of Homeland Security.
3. $1,500 in compensatory damages, as my client is entitled to $50 per minute spent in jail, according to the Standardised Criminal Code Act.
4. $5,000 in compensatory damages for missed earning capacity while in prison, as well as lost salary for arrests in the two days of playtime my client has had since his termination.
5. $35,000 in punitive damages for the Department of Homeland Security's outrageous conduct in the handling of this case. Is a reasonable person supposed to expect that you can be fired from a government job for crimes you didn't commit, all the while blatantly disregarding Department policy? My client was an outstanding member of the police force and did not deserve this treatment.
6. $10,000 in emotional damages, as this whole process, along with my client's sudden termination and the need to file a lawsuit to gain his job back and right these wrongs has caused him great anger and grief.
7. $20,000 for Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont.
8. $10,000 for reputational loss (through defamation) by stating that my client committed murder.
9. 8. A public apology from DHS to my client, Raitheguy07.
10. 9. $24,450 $21,450 in legal fees, corresponding to 30% of the value of this case.

You may make this change.

 

[Superwoops]

We would like to add the following piece of evidence:

P-012:

 

[Superwoops]

Your honor, we request a 48-hour extension of Discovery as we have requested information from DHS and are awaiting their response.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, we request a 48-hour extension of Discovery as we have requested information from DHS and are awaiting their response.

Granted

 

[juniperfig]

The Defence submits the following into evidence:

Spoiler: D-002

 

[Superwoops]

Your honor, we request an additional 48 hour extension so we can get our client’s requested information privately from the Department of Homeland Security.

 

[juniperfig]

Your honor, we request an additional 48 hour extension so we can get our client’s requested information privately from the Department of Homeland Security.

Your honour, this more than double the time allotted for discovery. The Plaintiff could have acquired this information prior to filing their lawsuit.

 

[ColonelKai]

Good afternoon. I will be taking over this case as the previous officer presiding over the case has now resigned.

Your honor, we request an additional 48 hour extension so we can get our client’s requested information privately from the Department of Homeland Security.

Unless there is justification on why this could not have been done without an extension, or through the interrogatives, this is rejected.

The discovery period is hereby over, and therefore the plaintiff has 72 hours to submit an opening statement to the court.

 

[Superwoops]

Your honor, I would like to please request a 30 hour extension for the opening statement deadline as I’m currently out of town.

 

[ColonelKai]

Granted.

 

[Superwoops]

Opening Statement

Good evening, your honor and everyone present,
Today I will demonstrate how verbal consent is still valid nowadays, and how, under established norms, the Defendant’s actions fail to fall under fair dismissal and undermine the very justice the DHS vows to protect and uphold.

On Murder and Consent
Murder is illegal. This is a well known fact. However, a clear distinction between “killing” and “murder” needs to be made. To kill is not to murder, because if this were true, any instance where a player kills another (including where there is consent, duels, etc.) would constitute murder, which is not the case. Therefore, there can be instances where killing another player does not constitute murder. This is excellently exemplified when someone kills another player in self defense. In this case, the other player doesn’t even run /police consent, and yet the killing player is not found guilty of murder. So, there are instances where, even when a player doesn’t run /police consent, it is not classified as murder.
My client caused their deaths by killing them, but he did not commit murder when killing Doc, IamJeb_, or Argen_Lee.

In 2024, a new plugin was implemented to deal with police consent. (See P-011) This way, players automatically do not consent to all murders, and by running /police consent they would consent to all murders. It is important to note that before this happened and since 2021, the way murders worked was the following (P-012): if a player killed another player, they had the option to run a command that let the DoJ know there was no consent, similar to the way /911 works nowadays. In other words, in the DoJ’s eyes, there was always consent for killings unless a player ran the command. But, if you ran /complaint, you’d need to prove that there wasn’t consent in order for the DoJ to actually process it. And how did this consent work? Verbally.

Now, while /complaint as a plugin was replaced by /911, there is not a single piece of evidence to suggest that /police consent replaced verbal consent, because /police consent serves as a way to streamline the consent procedure and make it so one doesn’t accidentally get charged with a criminal record. So, the same way verbal consent works, just easier. Because what if a player doesn’t want to consent to all killings, just one? Is it unreasonable to assume that the only way to give consent is by running a command? We believe not because the command is merely a reflection of that same verbal consent which does not lower its threshold of validity or nullify my client’s right to give spoken consent, just provide an administratively easier way to deal with it. This is supported by the wording in the announcement where the command was introduced, which says that "You can now consent to murders natively" and does not say "You must now consent to murders natively."


The killings
Both P-001 and P-002 show that Doc and IamJeb_ were letting RaiTheGuy07 know that they had turned on consent (“i have police consent on” and “do /police consent” followed by “on”), and therefore RaiTheGuy07 could kill them. For some reason, the command did not work, which is why verbal consent also exists as a backup, in case the plugin fails.

P-005 shows that there was consent for the Argen_Lee kill, as they were having fun at spawn and Argen himself states that he had given RaiTheGuy07 consent. This is further backed up by P-004.


On Constitutional Faculties and Policy

It is true that Secretaries may appoint and dismiss their departments’ employees. However, one key point to note is that, as the Defense well said, they must follow their departmental policy to do so, pointing out infractions and following the steps required within. If a Department lays out how they will discipline employees, it is for one purpose: to be followed. This means that the DHS Secretary’s constitutional right to dismiss employees is subject to the terms stated in their departmental policy because it lays out checks and balances to follow due process.

On Unfair Dismissal

The Commercial Standards Act gives a very broad definition for unfair dismissal: “the unjust termination of an employee.” However, when an employee is fired for something he did not do, that definitely falls under unfair dismissal, because as we determined above, a Secretary’s right to dismiss their department’s employees is subjugated to their departmental policy. Since termination is only possible (as per DHS policy) “after a 3rd major offense or a 4th minor offense,” their policy does not give just cause to terminate. And while it also goes on to say that “The Secretary has a right to terminate any employee as they see fit, as long as the termination is done fairly, justly, properly, and without bias,” that last part is key, as it would not be considered a “just” termination for such a stellar employee. Therefore, we request RaiTheGuy07’s reinstatement by following precedent set through court order in The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Bezzergeezer [2024] SCR 31, which gave courts the ability to reinstate employees into a Department.


We would like to reiterate that the Department of Homeland Security has failed justice, and has failed a stellar employee who was fired for crimes he did not commit. We humbly request the Federal Court to right these wrongs and protect employees from arbitrary terminations by government departments. Thank you.

 

[ColonelKai]

The defendant has 72 hours to submit their opening statement to the court.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor. Ladies, gentlemen, enbies and others, plaintiff’s counsel has attempted to weave a narrative of a good cop crushed under the boot of a corrupt system. Reality has something to say on the matter.

On the Plaintiff’s ‘Claims for Relief’:

Let us go over the plaintiff's case. As my colleague Juniper has pointed out, the Constitution grants Secretaries the right to appoint and dismiss employees. The DHS does not wield this power unrestrained, and they have chosen to assess employees based on the Code of Conduct. For severe offences, the DHS can terminate employees without prior infractions. I think you will agree that multiple murders, despite having previously received an infraction for murder, is a severe offense. The DHS followed their own procedure without fault.

The plaintiff complains that he “spent a total of 30 minutes in jail” and has been “made a criminal”. Criminals are not made by anyone but themselves. He murdered those people. We know he murdered those people. He provided evidence attesting he murdered those people. He was properly charged with the crime and given the appropriate punishment. As shown by the chat logs, the plaintiff was very much aware that murder is a crime, and was fully aware of any consequences should he proceed down that path.

On the matter of plaintiff’s termination becoming “public knowledge”, my colleague has already discredited any claims of reputational harm. Yet more to the point, the plaintiff willingly signed a public petition (P-007) calling for his reinstatement.

On top of that however, the Code of Conduct outlines the following:

“When agreeing upon taking on the duty of becoming an employee of the Department of Homeland Security of the Commonwealth of Redmont, you are agreeing to the terms outlined in this Code of Conduct….”

More specifically, the plaintiff agreed to the terms of Punishments (section 7 of the Code of Conduct) which specifies that infractions are logged. Plaintiff cannot now complain that there is a public log (one rarely visited by forum members) of his termination after he agreed to the Code of Conduct.

On the Plaintiff’s Actions:

To be blunt, the evidence presented by the plaintiff not only does not prove his case, but justifies DHS’ actions. Note P-001, where after murdering NotADoctor9217, he not only tampered with the crime scene by picking up a piece of evidence, but then assigned the case of the murder TO HIMSELF. You’d be forgiven for thinking he was trying to sabotage it.

Take a gander at P-002 where, after asking IamJeb to change his consent settings, he slew him for the princely sum of $1.27K, and proceeded to move evidence once more.

Review P-009, where roryyy attempting to prank the plaintiff (annoying, I will admit) with a knockback stick resulted in plaintiff GUNNING HIM DOWN. Self-defense is permitted in situations where one’s life is in danger, not when they’re getting prodded by a branch. The plaintiff had any manner of tools to deescalate the situation without resorting to such brutal violence. Instead, they resorted to murder.

Even if the plaintiff was somehow not aware that murder is illegal and could result in sanctions (something we’ve already proven is not the case), any doubts should have been dispelled when he received his first sanction on Feb 12. It was crystal clear from this moment that punishment would result from this if he continued to murder his fellow citizens.

Your Honor, this is four separate counts of murder. Four sanctionable actions. More than enough to result in automatic dismissal, as per the DHS’ Code of Conduct.

Yet worst of all, how did the plaintiff respond? Did he make an effort to learn from his mistakes? To understand why he was fired? No, he did not. Instead, a petition was made, attempting to paint the plaintiff as an “effective police officer” and falsely claiming a crime wave had been unleashed in his absence. No evidence has been presented to justify these statements.

We place trust in the agents of the DHS, because we believe they’re here to keep us safe. We give them the tools and powers necessary to punish those who genuinely deserve it. Plaintiff’s actions have shaken that trust.

On the Plaintiff’s performance:

Plaintiff has provided a great deal of evidence in his attempts to claim this was an unfair dismissal. In-game screenshots, a DHS ticket, Discord announcements, and so on. Yet one piece of evidence he has failed to provide? Examples of the employee’s stellar performance.

Much of the plaintiff’s argument hinges on the plaintiff’s job performance. However, thus far the plaintiff has failed to present evidence justifying this exemplary performance. Plaintiff cannot base their argument against “unfair dismissal” on the basis of performance, and then fail to present evidence justifying said performance.

In Conclusion:

To conclude, I ask the court review the opening paragraph of the DHS’ Code of Conduct once more:

“When agreeing upon taking on the duty of becoming an employee of the Department of Homeland Security of the Commonwealth of Redmont, you are agreeing to the terms outlined in this Code of Conduct and accepting your responsibilities and duties to protect the citizens of the Commonwealth of Redmont.”

Under no circumstance does murdering the citizens of Redmont for fun, for a bounty, or for poking you with a stick uphold these responsibilities. The plaintiff chose to skirt these responsibilities and duties. They violated the terms of the Code of Conduct, and were dismissed for it.

I beseech the court today to rule in favor of the defense, and find that our dismissal was very much justified. Thank you.

 

[Superwoops]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

he slew him for the princely sum of $1.27K

The Defense is assuming that my client killed him for the money. While he received the bounty, it doesn't mean it's why he killed him. This unfairly skews my client's image.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

The Defense is assuming that my client killed him for the money. While he received the bounty, it doesn't mean it's why he killed him. This unfairly skews my client's image.

Your Honor, this is blatantly false. The defense themselves provided the evidence to support these facts. If I might draw your attention to P-003, where the plaintiff clearly asks IAmJeb_:

"... did you give me conset [sic] to take the bounty off you some time ago?"

This very clearly shows why the plaintiff killed IAmJeb_. It was for the bounty.

 

[ColonelKai]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

The Defense is assuming that my client killed him for the money. While he received the bounty, it doesn't mean it's why he killed him. This unfairly skews my client's image.

Objection overruled. The court concurs with the answer to the objection.

We would like to submit the following witness list:

1: Doc
2: IamJeb_
3: Argen_Lee
4: RaiTheGuy07

Can the plaintiff please provide the court with the contact information (discord & forums usernames) of the listed witnesses as available? I do not wish to make a mistake in the summons. You have 24 hours to comply with this request however you may request an extension.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Objection overruled. The court concurs with the answer to the objection.



Can the plaintiff please provide the court with the contact information (discord & forums usernames) of the listed witnesses as available? I do not wish to make a mistake in the summons. You have 24 hours to comply with this request however you may request an extension.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Plaintiff has failed to provide the means to contact the witnesses in the alloted time.

 

[Superwoops]

Apologies your honour, I hope the Court can forgive my being late:

1. NotADoctor7819 and NotADoctor9217 (aka Doc) (NotADoctor7819)
2. Doesn't appear to have Discord or forums
3. Argen_Lee (Argen)
4. RaiTheGuy07 (MasterAshim) (MasterAshim)