- Joined
- Jan 7, 2025
- Messages
- 44
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
rotcepsnI
Plaintiff
v.
Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
I. PARTIES
1. rotcepsnI
2. Commonwealth of Redmont
II. FACTS
1. On the 14th of February 2026, Plaintiff was appointed to the Agricultural Commission by President Multiman155. (P-001)
2. Members of the Agricultural Commission are appointed by the President for a term of 4 months and those individuals may only be dismissed by joint consent of the President and the Secretary of the Interior.
3. Due to joint consent of the President and Secretary of th Interior required, any termination of Commission Members requires for the DOI Code of Conduct to be followed.
4. On or about the 14th of February 2026, Plaintiff was removed from the relevant Discord server. (P-002)
5. Being removed from the relevant Discord server effectively means termination.
6. Two days later, Plaintiff contacted Technofied, at the time the President. (P-002)
7. President Technofied did not respond adequately. (P-002)
8. On the 7th of March 2026 Plaintiff opened a DOI Ticket. (P-003)
9. In the Ticket, Plaintiff was sent an invite to the Discord server back. (P-003)
10. Plaintiff was not given any roles in the Discord server and could only see the Press Releases channel. (P-004)
11. Plaintiff reminded President Technofied of not having any roles in the same Ticket. (P-005)
12. President Technofied did not or tried not or the DOI did not or tried not to resolve the issue. (P-005)
13. Plaintiff exhausted all available options to remedy the issue with the executive branch.
14. Plaintiff's removal from the Discord server and subsequent failure of the executive branch to resolve the issue constitutes unfair dismissal.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Unfair Dismissal
The removal of the Plaintiff from the Discord server effectively constitutes Unfair Dismissal under the RCCA's Part VIII § 1. The statute establishes the following:
In our arguments, we will prove that:
a) Being kicked off the Discord server is the same as being terminated;
b) The termination was unjust, made no financial sense for the Commonwealth; and
c) There was no redundancy or misconduct reported by the Defendant; nor any warnings or reprimands issued.
A. Being kicked off the Discord server is the same as being terminated
The Agricultural Commission primarily operates together as a body, a primary server for communication is central to its operations. Since the Plaintiff was kicked off the Server, his primary method of communication, and thus fulfilling his duties, was gone. Even if he was invited back, he was not given any roles and can only access the Press Releases Channel.
Thus, by effect, the only way to fulfill his duties as an Agricultural Commissioner was cut and he was effectively terminated.
B. DOI did not follow procedure; nor did it document any misconduct
The DOI did not follow its own procedure, did not issue any warnings, strikes or any precautionary measures against the Plaintiff and did not inform him of the dismissal in the first place. As established in RaiTheGuy07 v. Department of Homeland Security [2025] FCR 21, Codes of Conduct issued by departments are binding documents.
Specifically, the Court remarks that "but recall the ruling on the motion to dismiss earlier, that this is subject to further regulation outside of the Constitution. The Department made their own regulation to follow."
The DOI's own Code of Conduct states:
Since the Agricultural Commission members "shall not be removed except by joint consent of the President and the Secretary of the Interior." (EO – 29/24), all terminations must be consented to by the Secretary of the Interior and thus must follow the handbook. For termination to be issued, the employee must have been issued multiple reminders or warnings. No such warning has been received by the Plaintiff and thus the Code of Conduct was not followed.
C. The Commonwealth knew harm would arise from its conduct
Since the Violation Type of the statute is intentional, the violator "acts with the purpose of causing harm or with substantial certainty that harm will result from their conduct." (RCCA Part II § 7(2)), we'll prove that the defendant knew, that by ignoring the issues raised by the Plaintiff and effectively doing nothing to mitigate damages would cause harm to the Plaintiff. The Defendant proves this by effectively ignoring the issue presented by the Plaintiff in the DOI Ticket. They did not reinstate his roles after being informed of it.
In the Ticket, we can see that Plaintiff informs the DOI that he was kicked off the server. He was then invited back but in the server received no meaningful response. On the 21st of March, winterwolf even tried to close the Ticket without adressing any of the issues.
This shows a clear case of ignoring the issue, thus the Defendant knew that harm would arise from its conduct.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Reinstatement to the position of Agricultural Commissioner.
or
2. $15,000 for Loss of Enjoyment in Consequential Damages
3. $15,000 in Punitive Damages
4. 30% of the relief granted in Legal Fees.
Witnesses:
rotcepsnI
winterwolf
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 24th day of March 2026
