Lawsuit: Dismissed Steveshat V. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 20

[Unseatedduke1]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION​

To avert further irreparable harm, specifically the unjust terminations of Department Employees without proper cause, and to prevent additional financial mismanagement by the Department Head, the following measures are asked to be imposed:

1. The privileges of CzarKovalev as the Secretary of Commerce to fire Steveshat are to be revoked until the conclusion of this case.
   
   
2. Steveshat be reinstated to his former positions within the Departments of Commerce and State during the duration of this case, and/or to continue receiving regular payments during the duration of this case such that his standard of living is maintained.

The case brought before the court brings concerns of wrongful termination of department employees driven by political agendas. It also involves allegations of financial impropriety, with certain employees closely affiliated with the department head receiving payroll amounts exceeding market value. These issues will be subject to thorough examination during the proceedings.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION​

Steveshat (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On 2/5/2024, the Plaintiff experienced an unwarranted termination orchestrated by the Department of Commerce (DOC) Secretary, CzarKovalev. Despite providing irrefutable documentation substantiating their active participation, the Plaintiff was unjustly labeled as "inactive." Subsequently, after being called out for the invalid reason, CzarKovalev revised the rationale for termination, asserting a failure to meet DOC standards. The removal of the Plaintiff transpired under politically motivated agendas, as the DOC hired inexperienced individuals, aligned with the Secretary. My client, thus, suffered an unlawful expulsion from the DOC. After the removal from the DOC my client was then removed from a position within the Department of State (DOS) for the same original reason, both instances being marked by evident political motivations.

I. PARTIES
Steveshat
CzarKovalev (DOC Secretary)
Krix (DOS Deputy Secretary)
DOC (Department of Commerce)
DOS (Department of State)

II. FACTS

1. The Plaintiff's termination from the DOC was initially attributed to "inactivity," despite evidence of consistent work.

2. The Plaintiff provided proof of active work within the DOC.

3. After proving to the DOC that the Plaintiff was an active employee. The grounds for termination were then changed to "Not meeting DOC standards," with the Secretary providing vague and arbitrary criteria.

4. Dragons1ayer343, an employee with limited experience, was appointed as a senior economist within the DOC, further suggesting the influence of personal relationships in employment decisions.

5. The Plaintiff engaged in negotiations with the DOC, which proved unproductive, contributing to a lack of resolution.

6. Following the unsuccessful negotiations with the DOC, the DOS terminated the Plaintiff for the identical reason of "Being inactive," thereby indicating a consistent pattern of politically motivated removals within the government.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The Plaintiff was unjustly and egregiously dismissed from positions within the Department of Commerce (DOC) and the Department of State (DOS), thereby flagrantly violating the laws set forth in the Commercial Standards Act. 13 - Employee Protections (1) Unfair dismissal - the unjust termination of an employee. (e.g. a position is made vacant without reason only to be immediately filled). This dismissal, lacking just cause or procedural fairness, reflects a gross miscarriage of justice within the governmental framework.

2. The Plaintiff was abruptly severed from employment without prior notification or indication of non-compliance with DOC standards. This sudden and unanticipated termination inflicted severe emotional distress and profound anxiety upon the Plaintiff, who had been diligently fulfilling their duties and demonstrating commitment to their roles within the DOC.

3. The termination from both the DOC and the DOS has resulted in a substantial loss of income for the Plaintiff, whose livelihood largely depended on the stability and continuity of their employment within these governmental entities. This financial repercussion compounds the injustices suffered as a result of the unwarranted terminations.

4. The Plaintiff continues to grapple with anxiety and confusion stemming from the lack of clarity surrounding the grounds for termination from both the DOC and the DOS. The absence of transparent communication and coherent justification exacerbates the Plaintiff's distress, leaving them in a state of uncertainty and disarray regarding their professional standing and future prospects within the government.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. Compensatory Damages: $50,000: The Plaintiff seeks $25,000 from both the Department of Commerce (DOC) and the Department of State (DOS) as compensatory damages. This amount is warranted to address the financial repercussions resulting from the unwarranted terminations. It encompasses the loss of income suffered by the Plaintiff due to their abrupt dismissal from both governmental positions, highlighting the economic hardships incurred. The loss of in-game wages, future project wages as well as investment opportunities with wages are calculated within this amount.

2. Punitive Damages: $20,000: In light of the politically motivated terminations orchestrated by the DOC and the DOS, the Plaintiff requests $10,000 from each department as punitive damages. This sum is intended to serve as a deterrent and punitive measure against the wrongful actions undertaken by the governmental entities. It reflects the severity of the injustice endured by the Plaintiff due to political motivations in their termination.

3. Consequential Damages: $40,000: The Plaintiff seeks $20,000 from both the DOC and the DOS as consequential damages. This amount is justified to address the emotional humiliation and severe anxiety inflicted upon the Plaintiff as a direct consequence of the unjust terminations. It accounts for the distress and confusion experienced by the Plaintiff, stemming from the lack of clarity surrounding the grounds for termination, as detailed in the earlier sections of this complaint.


Witness List:
Bardiya_King


Evidence:

Spoiler: Article A

Spoiler: Article B

Spoiler: Article C

Spoiler: Article D

Spoiler: Client

By making this submission, I affirm my understanding of the legal consequences associated with perjury and hereby acknowledge my accountability for any knowingly false statements made in court.

DATED: This 11th day of February 2024

 

[RelaxedGV]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION​

To avert further irreparable harm, specifically the unjust terminations of Department Employees without proper cause, and to prevent additional financial mismanagement by the Department Head, the following measures are asked to be imposed:

1. The privileges of CzarKovalev as the Secretary of Commerce to fire Steveshat are to be revoked until the conclusion of this case.
   
   
2. Steveshat be reinstated to his former positions within the Departments of Commerce and State during the duration of this case, and/or to continue receiving regular payments during the duration of this case such that his standard of living is maintained.

The case brought before the court brings concerns of wrongful termination of department employees driven by political agendas. It also involves allegations of financial impropriety, with certain employees closely affiliated with the department head receiving payroll amounts exceeding market value. These issues will be subject to thorough examination during the proceedings.

The Emergency Injunction is overruled in its entirety. The first section of the Injunction cannot happen without the second and the second does not need to occur for the duration of this case. Injunctions are used to prevent irreparable harm and in this case it is not warranted. I will be issuing summons soon.

 

[RelaxedGV]

View attachment 41151
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
​

@Snowy_Heart (As the Attorney General) is required to appear before the court in the case of Steveshat v. Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

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

 

[RelaxedGV]

After reading over the Complaint again, I will be dismissing this case for lack of legal basis.

Under the Employee Protections section of the Commerce Standards Act there is no argument for what would be considered an unjust firing beyond the firing and then immediate hire of an employee. Given the immediate hiring is incredibly vague we have to leave it up the Interpretation. Given the Plaintiff did not state that their position was immediately replaced, I can deduce that the hiring of new employees (experienced or not) was done outside of the considered immediate timeframe.

Onto the reasoning part of the argument, a reasoning was provided. Whether the Plaintiff agrees with the reasoning or not is irrelevant to a firing as anyone then could disagree with a firing and stay hired within their position. This simply is not a just argument for this case and even if the case were to continue would be disproven by the Defense almost immediately.

For the improper notification, there is nowhere within the Commercial Standards Act that states the Employer needs to give just notification. Whether moral or not, they are not legally required to do so and thus this argument is thrown out. As a Judge I am looking at the facts and should not allow my personal feelings to get in the way of this.

Loss of income, although yes an argument that can be used, this is not alone a reason to sue the Commonwealth.

Also regarding the DOS and DOC firings happening close to each other, CzarKovalev is not the Secretary of both and thus the DOS Secretary acted upon their own accord.

Finally, the Confusion and Anxiousness regarding the future employment at the Government. This is also not alone a reason to sue the Commonwealth. Although I am not putting down the feelings regarding the firing, its not a reason to sue. Although compensation could be in order that is in need of a case with legal arguments, given those were dismissed earlier in this very dismissal, the case should not continue with that.

With that said, the Federal Court thanks all for their time.