Lawsuit: In Session End v Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 39

[End]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


End
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Executive has failed in its duties and judicial intervention is required to remedy an unjust employment termination.

I. PARTIES
(1) xEndeavour
(2) Commonwealth (Department of Construction and Transport)

II. FACTS
(1) The Plaintiff was employed as a Constructor in the Department of Construction and Transport for a period of five years.
(2) The Plaintiff was widely recognised as one of the most active and productive members of the Department during their employment.
(3) On 30 March 2025, the Plaintiff informed the Secretary of the Department of a temporary period of inactivity due to StateCraft commitments.
(4) The Secretary acknowledged and accepted this notification without raising any objections or issuing a warning.
(5) Despite this, the Plaintiff was terminated from the Department on the basis of inactivity during the acknowledged absence.
(6) The Plaintiff was not given any formal warning, disciplinary process, or opportunity to respond before the dismissal.
(7) There was no indication that the Department was undergoing financial hardship or operational downsizing that necessitated the Plaintiff’s termination.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
(1) The Plaintiff asserts that the termination constitutes unfair dismissal under s13 of the Commercial Standards Act.
(2) The dismissal was not made under s13.1(a), as no business necessity or operational reasoning was presented to justify the termination.
(3) The dismissal was not made under s13.1(b), as the Plaintiff’s continued employment posed no detriment to the Department’s workflow, reputation, or legal standing.
(4) The dismissal violates s13.1(d), as a reasonable person would not consider it fair to terminate a long-serving employee for temporary inactivity that had been communicated and acknowledged.
(5) The Defendant failed to afford procedural fairness and acted in a manner inconsistent with established employee protections.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
(1) A declaration that the Plaintiff’s dismissal was unfair under s13 of the Commercial Standards Act.
(2) An order compelling the Defendant to reinstate the Plaintiff to their former position within the Department.
(3) Reasonable compensation for reputational damage and loss of employment caused by the Defendant’s conduct.
(4) Punitive compensation for unlawful conduct.

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 5th day of May 2025

 

[End]

P-001
Dismissal Message 1/2

P-002
Dismissal Message 2/2

P-003
Discussion that notice was provided

P-004
Discussion that notice was provided

P-005
Links to relevant messages in the DCT Discord that indicates a strong and consistent pattern of activity prior to going on a leave of absence.

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discordapp.com

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discordapp.com

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discordapp.com

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discordapp.com

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discordapp.com

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discordapp.com

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discordapp.com

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discordapp.com

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discordapp.com

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discordapp.com

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discordapp.com

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discordapp.com

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discordapp.com

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discordapp.com

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discordapp.com

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discordapp.com

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discordapp.com

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discordapp.com

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discordapp.com

P-006
Further notification of absence

P-007
Continuing to respond to voting

P-008
Continuing to respond to discussion

P-009
Continuing to respond to discussion

P-010
Continuing to respond to discussion

P-011
Continuing to respond to discussion

P-012
Continuing to respond to discussion

P-013
Continuing to respond to discussion

P-014
Continuing to respond to discussion

P-015
Continue to respond to discussion

No evidence of project assignment because it doesn't exist.

 

[juniperfig]

Writ of Summons

@Freeze_Line is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of End v Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 39.

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.

 

[Nim]

I hope Vroomba realizes that End and Nacho do most of the projects.

 

[Vroomba]

Yes I am completely unaware of what goes on in my department

 

[Nim]

The sad part is we do not have judges to determine that

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

I will be taking over this case following the (Frmr.) Honourable Judge juniperfig's untimely resignation. All deadlines will remain in effect.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

On a further note, let all members of the Commonwealth hereby be warned. Anyone to speak out of turn in this court, if they were not summoned, or not requested to speak, will be punished severely.

 

[Freeze_Line]

The Commonwealth is present.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

The Commonwealth has 72 hours to file an answer to complaint.

 

[Freeze_Line]

Requesting a 24-hour extension, Your Honor. I just finished most of my finals and would like some time to confirm a few details with the relevant parties before submitting the answer to the complaint.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Granted. You have 24 hours from this post.

 

[SumoMC]

Your Honor,

As the Attorney General resigned this morning, i as the Solicitor General request a 72 Hours extension on behalf od the commonwealth in this case.

 

[End]

Objection

The commonwealth has had 4 days. I appreciate that the AG has just resigned but this does not warrant an extra three days.

 

[juniperfig]

Your honour,

I would like to offer my deepest apologies for the lack of response in this case. I was not anticipating having a new job so soon, and as the (very short-lived) former presiding officer in this case, I'm unable to continue it as the Attorney General.

I humbly request a 48 hour extension from the time of this posting to file an Answer to Complaint.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Objection

The commonwealth has had 4 days. I appreciate that the AG has just resigned but this does not warrant an extra three days.

Sustained. The Commonwealth has had an excess of time to file an answer to complaint. Failure to manage manpower and cases is no excuse for delaying a trial. They will be charged with contempt of court.

Your honour,

I would like to offer my deepest apologies for the lack of response in this case. I was not anticipating having a new job so soon, and as the (very short-lived) former presiding officer in this case, I'm unable to continue it as the Attorney General.

I humbly request a 48 hour extension from the time of this posting to file an Answer to Complaint.

This is yet another poor show from the Commonwealth. Is there truly no organisation whatsoever in the department?

The Commonwealth will be afforded a final, 24 hours to post an Answer to Complaint. No extension. Failure to meet this deadline will result in summary judgement, as the Commonwealth has wasted enough of the court's time as it is.

 

[aubunny]

Answer to Complaint

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

End
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth Of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. The Defense AFFIRMS that the Plaintiff was employed as a Constructor in the Department of Construction and Transport for a long time.
2. The Defense NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that the Plaintiff was widely recognized as one of the most active and productive members of the Department during their employment.
3. The Defense DENIES that on 30 March 2025, the Plaintiff informed the Secretary of the Department of a temporary period of inactivity due to StateCraft commitments.
4. The Defense DENIES that the Secretary acknowledged and accepted this notification.
5. The Defense AFFIRMS that the Plaintiff was terminated from the Department but NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that it was solely on the basis of inactivity.
6. The Defense AFFIRMS that the Plaintiff was not given a former warning or a chance to respond before disciplinary action.
7. The Defense DENIES that there was no indication that the Department was undergoing financial hardship or operational downsizing that necessitated the Plaintiff’s termination.

II. DEFENCES

1. Fact 3 States that there was a LoA as of March 30th, but neglects to admit that his period of inactivity spans much earlier than the point of the given date. As is listed within [D-01]

2. The defendant misconstrues the text behind the Commercial Standards Act, as 13.1(a) does not necessitate financial hardships, and a lengthy, unknown period of inactivity is more than enough reason to fire someone under the clause of necessity to continue efficient operation of the terminating party.

3. The defendant underplays the obstruction to workflow that being inactive for months on end would play into an ever-changing department. Thus would his firing would also meet the requirements of the Commercial Standards Act 13.1(b)

4. The defendant did not list an estimated return date in his claimed LoA, as is customary for DCT employees, The defendant however continued to make claims a few days later claiming that the reason why he refuses to do work within the DCT due to the new changes within the internal payment structure [D-02], This implies that the defendant was capable of returning to normal obligation and duties at the time of the message, but chose not to as an act of defiance against current policies, chosing to instead act as a brick wall obstructing the flow of the department. The defendant has only listed vague terms like "soon", whereas no reasonable person would take soon to be over a month from now.

5. The defense states in fact 4 that the Secretary of the DCT accepted the LoA. Still, evidence shows that there was no certain terms of acceptance, only acknowledgement of the secretary's own hard work in light of the plantiffs absence, saying "Thanks for acknowledging that" in response to "Its good to see you and ik you arent getting much support" [P-003]. With fact 4 in contest for being an unauthorized LoA, fact 5 would be provably false as there is no acknowledged absence.

6. Fact 2 can neither be confirmed nor denied due to perceived activity going unsaid by various employees.



III. Evidence:

Spoiler: D-01

Spoiler: D-02

IV. Witnesses:
Vroomba
xEndeavor
Goldblooded

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 12 day of May, 2025

 

[aubunny]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

The plaintiff lists P-005 as a list of continued activity within the department, yet it is actually a list of dead links.

The plaintiff lists under P-015 "No evidence of assigned project because it doesn't exist," which is inappropriate evidence submission and just conjecture and fluff.

 

[End]

Objection

OBJECTION
Perjury

The plaintiff lists P-005 as a list of continued activity within the department, yet it is actually a list of dead links.

The links are active, you need to join the Department of Construction and Transport to view them. They are in public channels.

 

[End]

Objection

OBJECTION
Relevance, Narrative

The Defendant introduces irrelevant information that does not pertain to the specific allegations of unfair dismissal in this case.

Specifically, I was fired for inactivity and lack of progress.

Any broader commentary on departmental expectations, unrelated policy justifications, or generalised remarks about workplace conduct are immaterial to the core issue: whether the dismissal was procedurally fair and lawfully executed under the applicable standards.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court strikes the additional material and confine consideration to the conduct and circumstances directly surrounding the dismissal.

 

[End]

Objection

OBJECTION
Speculation

The Defendant speculates about the department's operational requirements without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.

 

[End]

Objection

OBJECTION
Relevance

The Defence’s interpretation of s.13.1(a/b) of the Commercial Standards Act is not relevant to the issues properly before the Court.

The Defence misrepresents these provisions by treating them as a blanket justification for dismissal based on perceived inefficiency alone. In fact, both clauses require a necessity for continued operation and must be applied in accordance with the principles of natural justice, including fair warning, and procedural fairness.

The Plaintiff’s case does not dispute the existence of s.13.1, but rather challenges whether its requirements were met in this instance, specifically whether the dismissal was necessary, reasonable, and procedurally fair. The Defence’s hypothetical reading of the Act is irrelevant to the factual and procedural failures at the heart of this matter.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

The plaintiff lists P-005 as a list of continued activity within the department, yet it is actually a list of dead links.

The plaintiff lists under P-015 "No evidence of assigned project because it doesn't exist," which is inappropriate evidence submission and just conjecture and fluff.

The Objection to P-005 is Overruled.

The Objection to P-015 is Sustained. I shall give the Plaintiff 24 hours to defend this piece of evidence, and shall subsequently strike it if it fails to meet standard.

Objection

OBJECTION
Perjury



The links are active, you need to join the Department of Construction and Transport to view them. They are in public channels.

Sustained.

On the off-chance that the defense attorney was simply ignorant of this fact, I will not be recommending a perjury charge. However, given that the evidence is specifically labelled with "Links to relevant messages in the DCT Discord that indicates a strong and consistent pattern of activity prior to going on a leave of absence.", I find it more likely that ignorance is the contributing factor to this false objection rather than a desire to deceive the court.

Let the Defense Attorney be warned.

Objection

OBJECTION
Relevance, Narrative

The Defendant introduces irrelevant information that does not pertain to the specific allegations of unfair dismissal in this case.

Specifically, I was fired for inactivity and lack of progress.

Any broader commentary on departmental expectations, unrelated policy justifications, or generalised remarks about workplace conduct are immaterial to the core issue: whether the dismissal was procedurally fair and lawfully executed under the applicable standards.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court strikes the additional material and confine consideration to the conduct and circumstances directly surrounding the dismissal.

Overruled.

It is quite silly to assume that departmental expectations, departmental policy modifications or remarks about workplace conduct do not relate to your disputed dismissal.

Objection

OBJECTION
Relevance

The Defence’s interpretation of s.13.1(a/b) of the Commercial Standards Act is not relevant to the issues properly before the Court.

The Defence misrepresents these provisions by treating them as a blanket justification for dismissal based on perceived inefficiency alone. In fact, both clauses require a necessity for continued operation and must be applied in accordance with the principles of natural justice, including fair warning, and procedural fairness.

The Plaintiff’s case does not dispute the existence of s.13.1, but rather challenges whether its requirements were met in this instance, specifically whether the dismissal was necessary, reasonable, and procedurally fair. The Defence’s hypothetical reading of the Act is irrelevant to the factual and procedural failures at the heart of this matter.

Overruled.

It is not your place to determine whether the Defense's defenses are relevant or not. I find that their interpretation of the Commercial Standards Act is quite relevant, as it poses an alternative to your interpretation, as well as shed some light into the decision-making process undergone by the officials in question, given that it is being used as a defense.


On another note, let both parties be warned that objection-spam will not be tolerated. If you wish to object to several things, post all objections in 1 post. Repeated frivolous objections will be sanctioned accordingly, but let both parties be reassured that this has not been breached at all in this case as of now.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

With that out of the way, the Plaintiff is afforded 48 hours to post their Opening Statement. Please request a time extension if necessary. Failure to comply with court deadlines will result in punishment.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Apologies, I am frankly way too tired right now. Ignore the previous order. Discovery is set for 72 hours.

 

[End]

Interrogatories

1. State the exact date the decision to terminate the Plaintiff was made and the reasoning relied upon at that time.

2. Provide the Department policy which describes how leave of absence requests, including how they must be submitted, and whether estimated return dates are mandatory.

3. Identify the exact date you first considered the Plaintiff inactive, and explain why no warning or inquiry was issued at that time.

4. Admit or deny: At no point did the Department formally request the Plaintiff to clarify, revise, or withdraw their communicated leave of absence.

5. Admit or deny: The Department does not have a written or public policy requiring estimated return dates as a condition for accepting leave of absence notifications.

Requests for Production

1. All internal messages showing deliberation or justification for the Plaintiff’s dismissal, between Department Leadership and or the President/Vice President.

2. Provide the Department policy which describes how leave of absence requests, including how they must be submitted, and whether estimated return dates are mandatory.

3. Provide where the Secretary asked if the Plaintiff had completed their period of inactivity, as previously advised.

4. A list or anonymised summary of employees terminated for inactivity in the last 12 months, including length of inactivity and whether a warning was issued.

5. The date of D-001

Witnesses

1. Vroomba

 

[End]

The Objection to P-015 is Sustained. I shall give the Plaintiff 24 hours to defend this piece of evidence, and shall subsequently strike it if it fails to meet standard.

P-015 is separate to the comment made at the bottom of the thread.

I have noted that I cannot provide evidence of project assignment because I was not assigned anything. Strike the comment if you wish, but it's unrelated to P-015.

 

[End]

It is quite silly to assume that departmental expectations, departmental policy modifications or remarks about workplace conduct do not relate to your disputed dismissal.

Response

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

I acknowledge the Court’s view that departmental policies and expectations sometimes help explain the context of a dismissal. However, I maintains that the Defendant’s comments go well beyond relevant background and instead introduce broad, narrative claims that:

• Were not cited at the time of the dismissal (inactivity and lack of progress),
• Appear to be after-the-fact justifications rather than reasons actually relied upon.

These statements risk distracting from the real issue and legal question at hand: whether the Plaintiff’s dismissal followed fair procedure, and whether the Department genuinely applied s.13.1 of the Commercial Standards Act in a lawful and transparent way.

The defence is trying to impugn my character by introducing irrelevant context into the question and the case. Again, I emphasise this case is not about unfair dismissal on the grounds of being belligerent or insubordinate, this is about my activity in the department and that alone.

 

[aubunny]

Response

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

I acknowledge the Court’s view that departmental policies and expectations sometimes help explain the context of a dismissal. However, I maintains that the Defendant’s comments go well beyond relevant background and instead introduce broad, narrative claims that:

• Were not cited at the time of the dismissal (inactivity and lack of progress),
• Appear to be after-the-fact justifications rather than reasons actually relied upon.

These statements risk distracting from the real issue and legal question at hand: whether the Plaintiff’s dismissal followed fair procedure, and whether the Department genuinely applied s.13.1 of the Commercial Standards Act in a lawful and transparent way.

The defence is trying to impugn my character by introducing irrelevant context into the question and the case. Again, I emphasise this case is not about unfair dismissal on the grounds of being belligerent or insubordinate, this is about my activity in the department and that alone.

Your honor, may the defense submit a response?

 

[aubunny]

Interrogatories

1. State the exact date the decision to terminate the Plaintiff was made and the reasoning relied upon at that time.

2. Provide the Department policy which describes how leave of absence requests, including how they must be submitted, and whether estimated return dates are mandatory.

3. Identify the exact date you first considered the Plaintiff inactive, and explain why no warning or inquiry was issued at that time.

4. Admit or deny: At no point did the Department formally request the Plaintiff to clarify, revise, or withdraw their communicated leave of absence.

5. Admit or deny: The Department does not have a written or public policy requiring estimated return dates as a condition for accepting leave of absence notifications.

Requests for Production

1. All internal messages showing deliberation or justification for the Plaintiff’s dismissal, between Department Leadership and or the President/Vice President.

2. Provide the Department policy which describes how leave of absence requests, including how they must be submitted, and whether estimated return dates are mandatory.

3. Provide where the Secretary asked if the Plaintiff had completed their period of inactivity, as previously advised.

4. A list or anonymised summary of employees terminated for inactivity in the last 12 months, including length of inactivity and whether a warning was issued.

5. The date of D-001

Witnesses

1. Vroomba

Response to 4 AND 5: The Defense Denies both statements.
There was never an LOA. If there had been, the Plaintiff would have posted it properly in the relations channel, as he has done multiple times before. Simply DMing someone that "I can't help a lot right now because I'm busy, but I will help again soon" [paraphrased] does not constitute filing an LOA for over a month, and claiming that it does is completely unreasonable.

 

[aubunny]

Interrogatories

1. State the exact date the decision to terminate the Plaintiff was made and the reasoning relied upon at that time.

2. Provide the Department policy which describes how leave of absence requests, including how they must be submitted, and whether estimated return dates are mandatory.

3. Identify the exact date you first considered the Plaintiff inactive, and explain why no warning or inquiry was issued at that time.

4. Admit or deny: At no point did the Department formally request the Plaintiff to clarify, revise, or withdraw their communicated leave of absence.

5. Admit or deny: The Department does not have a written or public policy requiring estimated return dates as a condition for accepting leave of absence notifications.

Requests for Production

1. All internal messages showing deliberation or justification for the Plaintiff’s dismissal, between Department Leadership and or the President/Vice President.

2. Provide the Department policy which describes how leave of absence requests, including how they must be submitted, and whether estimated return dates are mandatory.

3. Provide where the Secretary asked if the Plaintiff had completed their period of inactivity, as previously advised.

4. A list or anonymised summary of employees terminated for inactivity in the last 12 months, including length of inactivity and whether a warning was issued.

5. The date of D-001

Witnesses

1. Vroomba

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Compound Question:
Questions 1, 2, and 3 are all compounding questions, including multiple questions within the same Interrogatory submission, and the defense requests that they be struck from the record.

 

[aubunny]

Your honor,

The defense moves to admit the following screenshots into evidence:

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

View attachment 55051

P-015 is separate to the comment made at the bottom of the thread.

I have noted that I cannot provide evidence of project assignment because I was not assigned anything. Strike the comment if you wish, but it's unrelated to P-015.

I'll allow this.

Response

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

I acknowledge the Court’s view that departmental policies and expectations sometimes help explain the context of a dismissal. However, I maintains that the Defendant’s comments go well beyond relevant background and instead introduce broad, narrative claims that:

• Were not cited at the time of the dismissal (inactivity and lack of progress),
• Appear to be after-the-fact justifications rather than reasons actually relied upon.

These statements risk distracting from the real issue and legal question at hand: whether the Plaintiff’s dismissal followed fair procedure, and whether the Department genuinely applied s.13.1 of the Commercial Standards Act in a lawful and transparent way.

The defence is trying to impugn my character by introducing irrelevant context into the question and the case. Again, I emphasise this case is not about unfair dismissal on the grounds of being belligerent or insubordinate, this is about my activity in the department and that alone.

Denied.

I am quite capable of remaining focused on the disputed matters. I find that their arguments remain somewhat relevant. If you feel they are ignoring your arguments, their loss. This decision is final.

Your honor, may the defense submit a response?

It is not required.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Compound Question:
Questions 1, 2, and 3 are all compounding questions, including multiple questions within the same Interrogatory submission, and the defense requests that they be struck from the record.

Sustained.

Questions are hereby struck. The Plaintiff may separate them into smaller questions and resubmit them if they so choose.

 

[End]

I am willing to break these questions down into smaller parts as directed. However, I respectfully request approval to exceed the five-question limit set out in the court rules to ensure clarity.

Additionally, I submit that asking a witness to state the time and reason they decided to terminate an individual, for example, is very reasonable as a compound question.

 

[End]

Response to 4 AND 5: The Defense Denies both statements.
There was never an LOA. If there had been, the Plaintiff would have posted it properly in the relations channel, as he has done multiple times before. Simply DMing someone that "I can't help a lot right now because I'm busy, but I will help again soon" [paraphrased] does not constitute filing an LOA for over a month, and claiming that it does is completely unreasonable.

This does not answer question 5. If you deny it, please produce it.

 

[End]

I'll allow this.



Denied.

I am quite capable of remaining focused on the disputed matters. I find that their arguments remain somewhat relevant. If you feel they are ignoring your arguments, their loss. This decision is final.



It is not required.



Sustained.

Questions are hereby struck. The Plaintiff may separate them into smaller questions and resubmit them if they so choose.

Objection

OBJECTION
PREJUDICE

Your Honour, I respectfully submit an objection to the continued reliance on context which falls outside the scope of this dispute.

The matter before the Court concerns a dismissal for alleged inactivity and lack of progress. That is the basis on which I was terminated, and accordingly, it is the basis on which I have brought this claim.

Repeated references by the Defendant to my broader stance on departmental policy, or prior unrelated conduct, do not address the specific grounds for my dismissal and risk introducing irrelevant and prejudicial material into these proceedings.

With respect, I request that the Court limit consideration to the lawfulness and procedural fairness of the dismissal itself, rather than matters that were not contemporaneously raised or relied upon in the decision to terminate my employment.

 

[aubunny]

Objection

OBJECTION
PREJUDICE

Your Honour, I respectfully submit an objection to the continued reliance on context which falls outside the scope of this dispute.

The matter before the Court concerns a dismissal for alleged inactivity and lack of progress. That is the basis on which I was terminated, and accordingly, it is the basis on which I have brought this claim.

Repeated references by the Defendant to my broader stance on departmental policy, or prior unrelated conduct, do not address the specific grounds for my dismissal and risk introducing irrelevant and prejudicial material into these proceedings.

With respect, I request that the Court limit consideration to the lawfulness and procedural fairness of the dismissal itself, rather than matters that were not contemporaneously raised or relied upon in the decision to terminate my employment.

Your honor, the defense requests a response if it pleases you.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Your honor, the defense requests a response if it pleases you.

Granted. Please file a response within 24 hours.

I am willing to break these questions down into smaller parts as directed. However, I respectfully request approval to exceed the five-question limit set out in the court rules to ensure clarity.

Additionally, I submit that asking a witness to state the time and reason they decided to terminate an individual, for example, is very reasonable as a compound question.

So permitted.

 

[aubunny]

Objection

OBJECTION
PREJUDICE

Your Honour, I respectfully submit an objection to the continued reliance on context which falls outside the scope of this dispute.

The matter before the Court concerns a dismissal for alleged inactivity and lack of progress. That is the basis on which I was terminated, and accordingly, it is the basis on which I have brought this claim.

Repeated references by the Defendant to my broader stance on departmental policy, or prior unrelated conduct, do not address the specific grounds for my dismissal and risk introducing irrelevant and prejudicial material into these proceedings.

With respect, I request that the Court limit consideration to the lawfulness and procedural fairness of the dismissal itself, rather than matters that were not contemporaneously raised or relied upon in the decision to terminate my employment.

Response

Response to Objection

1) "Prejudice"
Prejudice is not a valid objection and should be ignored by the court accordingly. Alongside the fact that there has already been a motion to reconsider on the same points presented by the Plaintiff, who is simply just restating what has already been said in said motion, but with different conjecture around it.


Given the fact that the Plaintiff will most likely just refile under a different format, for the sake of a speedy trial, we have presented a counterargument regardless.

2) "Scope"
In the claims for relief, the Plantiff lists under each given claim the violations of the CSA "Employee Protections", as such the defense has been responding to the case filing with all provisions of the Employee Protections act in mind, as the list for reasons behind termination being valid in the given act go beyond activity as the sole blame. The Plaintiffs' badgering of the judge to limit the scope of a case revolving around the Employee Protections section of the CSA in its entirety to just the notions of inactivity would be misrepresenting the law as written, which doesn't even list activity as a given reason for sustained employment within its clauses.

For the sake of clarity, the defense will list the provisions within the Employee Protections that the defense submitted in their claims, and then show how limiting the scope to just activity would be an act of ignorance on behalf of the defense.

Spoiler: Section 13.1(a)

Section 13.1(a) if the employee’s termination made financial sense given the regular business activities and necessity to maintain operations of the terminating party (such as in the case of normal company downsizing);
This section is listed within the Plantiffs Claim for Relief at number 2, Under no circumstances would an interpretation of this law to relate to activity and activity alone make sense under the current definitions of "necessity to maintain operations of the terminating party", as this clause very much also refers to actions such as sabotage of the terminating party, or other harmful activities for the terminating parties operations that may be done while maintaining full activity.

Spoiler: Section 13.1(b)

whether or not the employee’s continued employment would have been a detriment to the workflow, reputation, or legal standing of the business;
This one is the most obvious to rebuke as relating to more than just standards of activity, so I will keep it short and simple for the sake of clarity.

It would be stupid to consider inactivity as the only way for somebody to be a detriment to workflow or reputation.

Spoiler: Section 13.1(d)

other metrics that courts find necessary to consider in accordance with what may be considered unfair dismissal by any reasonable person and is consistent with the previous language and intent of this section. Courts may not construe this section in any way that creates a result that is odd, absurd, or otherwise inconsistent with this section or the intent thereof.
This clause, the final one mentioned by the plantiffs claims of relief, is very open in the fact that it allows for the courts to interpret what is and isnt related to an allegedly unjust termination, I cannot add much else to it as it argues for itself

The Plantiff has accused the Defending party of violations of these acts in its claims for relief, and as demonstrated we are using the acts in their full definition to show the accusations of an unjust dismissal as being false.
To paraphrase, there is no "Inactivity law" that the plantiff is using as grounds for fighting their dismissal, the protections afforded to employees are an open book of allowing termination of employees that are active yet still harmful to the work enviornment, even though in this case the Plantiff was both simultaniously. As such, the notion of striking anything not related to solely activity would create an imperfect picture of the definition of the laws this case is standing on.

This does not answer question 5. If you deny it, please produce it.

The statement made was to dismiss the relevance of question 5, as you did not submit a LoA in any official capacity in the relations channel that extended to the length that you were inactive for. But I will give you a very clear answer if so requested, in the interest of cooperation in speeding up this trial.

The Commonwealth denies that there is a requirement for inputting dates; however, through the recommendation of former CM Endeavor [D-07] and examples given in other people's LoA [D-04], it is commonplace to do so where possible.

D-07 attached.

Motion

Motion to Amend Complaint

The defense would like to make the following amendment to our answer to complaint;

The Defense AFFIRMS that the Plaintiff was terminated from the Department but DENIES that it was solely on the basis of inactivity.

 

[aubunny]

The defense request a 24 hour extension of discovery in order to deliver the request for production, Ive been stuck at work all weekend with extra shifts.

 

[End]

Interrogatories

Here are all questions broken down into non-compound questions:

What was the exact date the decision to terminate the Plaintiff was made?

What was the reasoning relied upon at the time of the Plaintiff’s termination?

What Department policy governs leave of absence requests?

How must leave of absence requests be submitted according to Department policy?

Does the Department policy require estimated return dates for leave of absence requests?

On what exact date did you first consider the Plaintiff inactive?

Why did the Department not issue a warning at the time the Plaintiff was first considered inactive?

Why did the Department not make an inquiry at the time the Plaintiff was first considered inactive?

Did the Department ever formally request the Plaintiff to clarify their leave of absence?

Did the Department ever formally request the Plaintiff to revise their leave of absence?

Did the Department ever formally request the Plaintiff to withdraw their leave of absence?

Does the Department have a written policy requiring estimated return dates for leave of absence notifications?

Is the Department’s policy on estimated return dates publicly available?

Requests for Production

1. All internal messages showing deliberation or justification for the Plaintiff’s dismissal, between Department Leadership and or the President/Vice President.

2. Provide the Department policy which describes how leave of absence requests, including how they must be submitted, and whether estimated return dates are mandatory.

3. Provide where the Secretary asked if the Plaintiff had completed their period of inactivity, as previously advised.

4. A list or anonymised summary of employees terminated for inactivity in the last 12 months, including length of inactivity and whether a warning was issued.

5. The date of D-001

Witnesses

1. Vroomba

 

[End]

Response

Response to Objection

1) "Prejudice"
Prejudice is not a valid objection and should be ignored by the court accordingly. Alongside the fact that there has already been a motion to reconsider on the same points presented by the Plaintiff, who is simply just restating what has already been said in said motion, but with different conjecture around it.


Given the fact that the Plaintiff will most likely just refile under a different format, for the sake of a speedy trial, we have presented a counterargument regardless.

2) "Scope"
In the claims for relief, the Plantiff lists under each given claim the violations of the CSA "Employee Protections", as such the defense has been responding to the case filing with all provisions of the Employee Protections act in mind, as the list for reasons behind termination being valid in the given act go beyond activity as the sole blame. The Plaintiffs' badgering of the judge to limit the scope of a case revolving around the Employee Protections section of the CSA in its entirety to just the notions of inactivity would be misrepresenting the law as written, which doesn't even list activity as a given reason for sustained employment within its clauses.

For the sake of clarity, the defense will list the provisions within the Employee Protections that the defense submitted in their claims, and then show how limiting the scope to just activity would be an act of ignorance on behalf of the defense.

Spoiler: Section 13.1(a)

Section 13.1(a) if the employee’s termination made financial sense given the regular business activities and necessity to maintain operations of the terminating party (such as in the case of normal company downsizing);
This section is listed within the Plantiffs Claim for Relief at number 2, Under no circumstances would an interpretation of this law to relate to activity and activity alone make sense under the current definitions of "necessity to maintain operations of the terminating party", as this clause very much also refers to actions such as sabotage of the terminating party, or other harmful activities for the terminating parties operations that may be done while maintaining full activity.

Spoiler: Section 13.1(b)

whether or not the employee’s continued employment would have been a detriment to the workflow, reputation, or legal standing of the business;
This one is the most obvious to rebuke as relating to more than just standards of activity, so I will keep it short and simple for the sake of clarity.

It would be stupid to consider inactivity as the only way for somebody to be a detriment to workflow or reputation.

Spoiler: Section 13.1(d)

other metrics that courts find necessary to consider in accordance with what may be considered unfair dismissal by any reasonable person and is consistent with the previous language and intent of this section. Courts may not construe this section in any way that creates a result that is odd, absurd, or otherwise inconsistent with this section or the intent thereof.
This clause, the final one mentioned by the plantiffs claims of relief, is very open in the fact that it allows for the courts to interpret what is and isnt related to an allegedly unjust termination, I cannot add much else to it as it argues for itself

The Plantiff has accused the Defending party of violations of these acts in its claims for relief, and as demonstrated we are using the acts in their full definition to show the accusations of an unjust dismissal as being false.
To paraphrase, there is no "Inactivity law" that the plantiff is using as grounds for fighting their dismissal, the protections afforded to employees are an open book of allowing termination of employees that are active yet still harmful to the work enviornment, even though in this case the Plantiff was both simultaniously. As such, the notion of striking anything not related to solely activity would create an imperfect picture of the definition of the laws this case is standing on.

The statement made was to dismiss the relevance of question 5, as you did not submit a LoA in any official capacity in the relations channel that extended to the length that you were inactive for. But I will give you a very clear answer if so requested, in the interest of cooperation in speeding up this trial.

The Commonwealth denies that there is a requirement for inputting dates; however, through the recommendation of former CM Endeavor [D-07] and examples given in other people's LoA [D-04], it is commonplace to do so where possible.

D-07 attached.

Motion

Motion to Amend Complaint

The defense would like to make the following amendment to our answer to complaint;

The Defense AFFIRMS that the Plaintiff was terminated from the Department but DENIES that it was solely on the basis of inactivity.

Objection

OBJECTION
Relevance

The Defence appears to be deliberately expanding the scope of the case to include speculative or unrelated provisions of the Employee Protections clauses, none of which were cited at the time of termination. Their reference to sabotage or reputational harm, for example, is unsupported by any factual allegation or disciplinary record against the Plaintiff. These are post-event justifications, not lawful grounds contemporaneously invoked.

To be clear:

• The cause of termination was explicitly stated to be inactivity and lack of progress.
• The issue before the Court is whether that cause was valid, procedurally fair, and compliant with Section 13.1 of the CSA.
• The Defence's attempt to interpret broad provisions as if they were operative in my case — when no such rationale was ever cited — is legally immaterial.

Misapplication of Justification
The Plaintiff does not deny that Section 13.1 provides for various justifications for dismissal. However, the onus is on the employer to demonstrate that those justifications were the actual basis for termination — not merely that they hypothetically could have been.

The Court must assess:

• Whether the Department, at the time of termination, cited lawful and relevant reasons under the CSA;
• Whether the process was fair and transparent;
• And whether the Defence is now introducing alternative rationales that were not contemporaneously communicated to the Plaintiff.

This is a fundamental distinction between a lawful dismissal and a post hoc rationalisation.

On the LoA and Relevance of Questioning
The Plaintiff maintains that Question 5 — regarding the Department’s policy on leave of absence (LoA) and whether estimated return dates are mandatory — is directly relevant. The Defence now acknowledges that dates are not formally required, despite previously relying on the absence of an end date to support the claim of inactivity. That inconsistency matters.

I urge the Court to refocus on the essential legal question:

Was my dismissal for inactivity and lack of progress lawfully justified under the CSA as applied at the time — not retroactively interpreted through unrelated provisions.

Anything extraneous material to influence the outcome is, respectfully, to risk prejudicing the case.

 

[aubunny]

Objection

OBJECTION
Relevance

The Defence appears to be deliberately expanding the scope of the case to include speculative or unrelated provisions of the Employee Protections clauses, none of which were cited at the time of termination. Their reference to sabotage or reputational harm, for example, is unsupported by any factual allegation or disciplinary record against the Plaintiff. These are post-event justifications, not lawful grounds contemporaneously invoked.

To be clear:

• The cause of termination was explicitly stated to be inactivity and lack of progress.
• The issue before the Court is whether that cause was valid, procedurally fair, and compliant with Section 13.1 of the CSA.
• The Defence's attempt to interpret broad provisions as if they were operative in my case — when no such rationale was ever cited — is legally immaterial.

Misapplication of Justification
The Plaintiff does not deny that Section 13.1 provides for various justifications for dismissal. However, the onus is on the employer to demonstrate that those justifications were the actual basis for termination — not merely that they hypothetically could have been.

The Court must assess:

• Whether the Department, at the time of termination, cited lawful and relevant reasons under the CSA;
• Whether the process was fair and transparent;
• And whether the Defence is now introducing alternative rationales that were not contemporaneously communicated to the Plaintiff.

This is a fundamental distinction between a lawful dismissal and a post hoc rationalisation.

On the LoA and Relevance of Questioning
The Plaintiff maintains that Question 5 — regarding the Department’s policy on leave of absence (LoA) and whether estimated return dates are mandatory — is directly relevant. The Defence now acknowledges that dates are not formally required, despite previously relying on the absence of an end date to support the claim of inactivity. That inconsistency matters.

I urge the Court to refocus on the essential legal question:

Was my dismissal for inactivity and lack of progress lawfully justified under the CSA as applied at the time — not retroactively interpreted through unrelated provisions.

Anything extraneous material to influence the outcome is, respectfully, to risk prejudicing the case.

Response

Response to Objection

While this objection recaps a lot of the previous facts that the defense has already debunked, in the spirit of not badgering the judges, we will only focus on what we believe is new information provided to the case at hand.

Application of Justification

The plaintiff agrees that 13.1 provides for various justifications for dismissal; however seems to focus on the specific dismissal message as an exhaustive list of reasons of firing and not what it is- a notice of termination—said notices are not legal messages, or meant to exist to stand to this supposed "onus to demonstrate justification". As far as the law textually leads, the DCT's message to you could have said, "We don't like you, goodbye," and if the evidence exists that you were a problem to the department, the dismissal message would be irrelevant to the case itself. The burden of proof lays squarely on the shoulder of the plaintiff, and if they cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is more evidence then just the dismissal message, which leads room to doubt, then there is no reason to assume that inactivity is the sole reason beyond just conjecture.


Post Hoc Rationalization

On behalf of the Secretary of the DCT, the commonwealth asserts that nothing about the termination was decided after the fact. There has been a repeated pattern of argumentative fighting between the Secretary and the Plaintiff [D-06] which includes multiple threats of resignation. And the idea that those would not factor in at all into the reasons behind the resignation is rather silly.

Relevance of Questioning.
The defendant affirms that there was no argument saying that due to not having an end date that the Plaintiff was therefore inactive, To clarify on the justification for the admission around not having a return date on his unofficially filed LoA, we submitted it to show that even if it was being recognized as a Leave of Absence, which the evidence provided has failed to show anything but a recognition for the hard work the Defendant has done for their department, the return date not being shown allows for interpretation and action on behalf of the Defendant.

The rest of the above objection merely recaps what has already been discussed; as such we do not feel the need to respond in turn with our own recaps. We hope the court responds accordingly.

The defense will hopefully have the interrogatories and production requests done by the end of today, god willing.

 

[aubunny]

4. A list or anonymised summary of employees terminated for inactivity in the last 12 months, including length of inactivity and whether a warning was issued.

Objection

OBJECTION

Relevance

The Secretary of the DCT has not been in office for 12 months, and policy and standards between then and now has changed. As such, terminations before that point would not have any relevance to the actions taken by Secretary Vroomba.

If the plaintiff wishes to amend their production to include only from the Secretaries induction, The defense would be more then happy with the compromise.

 

[aubunny]

Interrogatories

Here are all questions broken down into non-compound questions:

What was the exact date the decision to terminate the Plaintiff was made?

What was the reasoning relied upon at the time of the Plaintiff’s termination?

What Department policy governs leave of absence requests?

How must leave of absence requests be submitted according to Department policy?

Does the Department policy require estimated return dates for leave of absence requests?

On what exact date did you first consider the Plaintiff inactive?

Why did the Department not issue a warning at the time the Plaintiff was first considered inactive?

Why did the Department not make an inquiry at the time the Plaintiff was first considered inactive?

Did the Department ever formally request the Plaintiff to clarify their leave of absence?

Did the Department ever formally request the Plaintiff to revise their leave of absence?

Did the Department ever formally request the Plaintiff to withdraw their leave of absence?

Does the Department have a written policy requiring estimated return dates for leave of absence notifications?

Is the Department’s policy on estimated return dates publicly available?

Requests for Production

1. All internal messages showing deliberation or justification for the Plaintiff’s dismissal, between Department Leadership and or the President/Vice President.

2. Provide the Department policy which describes how leave of absence requests, including how they must be submitted, and whether estimated return dates are mandatory.

3. Provide where the Secretary asked if the Plaintiff had completed their period of inactivity, as previously advised.

4. A list or anonymised summary of employees terminated for inactivity in the last 12 months, including length of inactivity and whether a warning was issued.

5. The date of D-001

Witnesses

1. Vroomba

Response

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES
What was the exact date the decision to terminate the Plaintiff was made?

April 22nd, as shown in the attached image, Interrogatory 1.
What was the reasoning relied upon at the time of the Plaintiff’s termination?

A mixture of inactivity and a shift in goals from the Defense and the Plaintiff.
What Department policy governs leave of absence requests?

Shown in DC-07
How must leave of absence requests be submitted according to Department policy?

Shown in DC-07
Does the Department policy require estimated return dates for leave of absence requests?

Shown in DC-07, they are not required but customary.

On what exact date did you first consider the Plaintiff inactive?

Around the time of March 12th, when no activity was garnered during the ping of DC-01.

Why did the Department not issue a warning at the time the Plaintiff was first considered inactive?
The Secretary is not be responsible for badgering their employee with their own activity, as personnel in a leadership role, theres an obligation to hold yourself to the same standard you hold the employees under you to, which includes being as foward as possible with any information regarding inactivity.

Why did the Department not make an inquiry at the time the Plaintiff was first considered inactive?
The Secretary is not responsible for pestering their HRs to meet standards of activity.

Did the Department ever formally request the Plaintiff to clarify their leave of absence?

No, as there was no official leave of absence.
.
Did the Department ever formally request the Plaintiff to revise their leave of absence?

No, as there was no official leave of absence.
Did the Department ever formally request the Plaintiff to withdraw their leave of absence?

No, as there was no official leave of absence.
Does the Department have a written policy requiring estimated return dates for leave of absence notifications?

No.

Is the Department’s policy on estimated return dates publicly available?

Not publicly available, but also not classified information, see DC-07.

Requests for Production:
​

1. All internal messages showing deliberation or justification for the Plaintiff’s dismissal, between Department Leadership and or the President/Vice President.,

Attached as Request 1. This is all the deliberation provided, as a reminder, the Secretary fired the entirety of the Construction Managers, as such, there wasn't anyone but the President and VP to deliberate with.

2. Provide the Department policy which describes how leave of absence requests, including how they must be submitted, and whether estimated return dates are mandatory.,

[D-07]

3.Provide where the Secretary asked if the Plaintiff had completed their period of inactivity, as previously advised.,

Not available as this did not happen. There was no official LoA for the period claimed by the plaintiff.

4. A list or anonymised summary of employees terminated for inactivity in the last 12 months, including length of inactivity and whether a warning was issued.,

Abstained until the objection has been decided on.

5. The date of D-001,

March 10th.

The Defense also motions to add Interrogatory 1 as evidence under the filing of DC-08.

 

[End]

Objection

OBJECTION

Relevance

The Secretary of the DCT has not been in office for 12 months, and policy and standards between then and now has changed. As such, terminations before that point would not have any relevance to the actions taken by Secretary Vroomba.

If the plaintiff wishes to amend their production to include only from the Secretaries induction, The defense would be more then happy with the compromise.

I will agree to 6 months, as the terminations made were based on activity prior to the leadership change as well.

 

[aubunny]

I will agree to 6 months, as the terminations made were based on activity prior to the leadership change as well.

If you can provide explanations as to how you have come to the conclusion that the terminations made were based on activity before 3 months ago, I will agree to this compromise. 3 months is a significant amount of time in terms of Democracy craft, as that is over 1 congressional term, and currently stands as 5% of the entire lifetime of this server's rich history.

 

[End]

The Secretary terminated people for several months of inactivity, some I estimate to be well beyond the Secretary's term. Noting the small amount of constructors I don't believe this will be too detrimental to your time.

 

[aubunny]

1) That is purely conjecture and estimation, and even so, the idea that "well beyond the secretary term" would mean double the time theyve been in office is a huge shift in scope.

2) You asked for all employees in your request for production, not just constructors.

I hold my previous objection and request the courts either modify it to only include past March 2nd [including any firing which processes happened during the transitional between the former DCT supervisor and current] or strike the request in its entirety.

 

[End]

Your honour, I've requested the last date that no more than 15 people did something in the last six months. This is a five minute job with the access that the Department has to the Discord.

If you feel it should be limited to Constructors and Construction Managers that's fine, but I stand by my request that six months is acceptable and reasonable.

The defence claims conjecture and estimation and won't provide me the evidence which would allow me to make an informed analysis.