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

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.

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

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.

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.

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….”

Click to expand...

“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.”

Click to expand...

Writ of Summons

@NotADoctor7819, @Argen and @MasterAshim are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of RaiTheGuy07 v. Department of Homeland Security [2025] FCR 21 as witnesses.

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.

Closing Statement

Your honour,
We have been brought different topics that are important to address here today. The first of these is the matter of consent. Our overall argument on this is that if it looks like a duck, then it's probably consent.
What does this mean? RaiTheGuy07 received verbal consent to kill two individuals. In fact, these two had expressly stated that they had turned on police consent through the plugin, which is the most common way of giving consent nowadays.
The matter of fact is, something went wrong, and the system registered the killings as without consent. Is this relevant?
No. It's not relevant because my client had previously received express verbal consent to kill these individuals. If you look at P-008, the DHS Secretary states that if someone kills someone and it's accidentally counted as murder, you must make sure to have evidence of the person killed giving consent to ensure it doesn't go on their criminal record (a.k.a. it is not counted as a murder). This validates our claim that verbal consent is valid, because as I explained in my opening statement, the plugin did not replace all types of consent. Things can fail. Stating that one has turned consent on implies that one is consenting to the murder (P-001, P-002, and witness testimony)
Furthermore, the plugin is useless if one doesn't want to consent to all murders. Verbal consent is useful (and valid) in these scenarios when one only wants to be killed by one specific individual, and not consent to all murders (P-011)
The third killing of Argen_Lee is different, but still not murder. He accidentally killed him in self defense, as they were having a fistfight and Argen_Lee (unbeknownst to RaiTheGuy) was low on health. Argen_Lee admitted this in the DHS ticket later on, as well as during the detective's interview.

The Constitution grants Secretaries the authority to hire and fire employees. This means that Secretaries are able, have the power, the ability, etc. to hire and fire them, but does not give them the ability to do so disregarding the law, specifically the Commercial Standards Act. They are able to do so, but must act within reasonable standards. The Court has sided against immunity in this specific case, too. The reason for my client's termination has been proven false, and Ko531 v. Department of Health showed that if a Department fails to handle a termination according to their statutory procedure for dismissal, then the dismissal is unjust.

The Commonwealth's claim that the termination was valid solely relies on the supposition that these killings were murders. Today, I've shown that they were not, therefore the termination was not justified. As a result of this unjustified termination, my client has suffered greatly. His job, which allowed him to fulfill his duty and his passion for putting the actual criminals behind bars, was violently taken from him. My client was known for his hard work while at the DHS, hard work that fulfilled him. This was taken from him, and for this, we ask the court to side with the Plaintiff. Thank you.

Closing Statement

Your Honor,
Allow me to address the arguments presented by the Plaintiff in these closing arguments. Firstly, regarding consent. We have already proven, and the defense has admitted, that murder consent was not enabled during these killings. Despite whatever intentions the victims may have had, their opinion does not matter in this scenario. Murder is murder. It is an unlawful action, one the plaintiff was already punished for, and this one he knew the consequences of. He chose to play fast and loose with the law, and lost.

The rationale behind these killings is also incredibly suspect. In the case of IAmJeb_, the plaintiff killed him for a bounty. In the case of Argan_Lee, the plaintiff employed excessive, lethal force in a situation which did not demand it. These are not qualities befitting a police officer, and the Secretary was well within their rights to fire the plaintiff.

Plaintiff's argument that they were an effective officer prior to this is also suspect. Plaintiff's counsel chose to retract a question regarding his job performance. This leads me to two conclusions: either plaintiff did not want this information on the record, or there was no information to share, good or bad. Either conclusion does not bode well for the plaintiff's claim that they were an exemplary officer.

Your Honor, this entire case has been nothing more than a disgruntled, disgraced ex-employee who, rather than own up to their criminal activities, instead decided to try and muddy the reputation of their former employer. They violated the Code of Conduct they willingly agreed to, and were punished for it. Nothing more. Nothing less. We humbly request you rule in favour of the Defense, and deny the plaintiff these frivolous claims for relief.

Thank you for your time.

Motion

MOTION TO RECUSE

This case has been in recess pending verdict for one month and 15 days.