Lawsuit: In Session Mask3d_WOLF v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 28

I would like to file an amicus brief.

Motion to Reject

Your Honor,
Matthew is currently a party in this case and is responsible for the direct firing of Mask3d_WOLF. Amicus Briefs allow the court to get an unbiased opinion from a third party. However, Matthew100x is neither a "friend of the court" nor an unbiased third party, hence this request to file an amicus brief should be denied.

The request to file an amicus brief is denied due to the petitioner being directly involved with the case.

Then permission to respond with a brief since I am a party to the case?

The state is present your honor.

Motion to Reject

Your Honor,
Matthew100x is a direct party to the case and is biased toward the defendant's goals. If Matthew100x needs to speak in this case, he must do so as a witness and can not file a brief. In addition, this type of brief is unprecedented. It will start a horrible precedent where government employees responsible for the lawsuit against the government can defend their actions without being cross-examined by the plaintiff.

Avaneesh2008 said:

Motion to Reject

Your Honor,
Matthew100x is a direct party to the case and is biased toward the defendant's goals. If Matthew100x needs to speak in this case, he must do so as a witness and can not file a brief. In addition, this type of brief is unprecedented. It will start a horrible precedent where government employees responsible for the lawsuit against the government can defend their actions without being cross-examined by the plaintiff.

Click to expand...

Counsel, you are the one who called me as a party to the case and not as a witness. If you wanted me as a witness, you should have called me as a witness in discovery and not named me as a direct party.

Neemfy said:

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the Mask3D_WOLF v. The 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.​

Click to expand...

Your Honor,
May I have an extra 24 hours to respond with an answer to the complaint. I have just gotten home from a funeral and I dont think I'll have time to file it before the deadline. Thank you your Honor. I appologize for the delay.

Matthew100x said:

Counsel, you are the one who called me as a party to the case and not as a witness. If you wanted me as a witness, you should have called me as a witness in discovery and not named me as a direct party.

Click to expand...

Objection: Breach of Procedure

Your Honor,
The court has not summoned Matthew100x and is not allowed to state arguments in it. This statement by Matthew100x was also filed in the improper format.

Your Honor, may I file an Amicus Brief? I believe on the subject of Mask3D_WOLF's firing I am the most impartial when it comes to the actual firing itself given I had no input on the decision. (For the record as well my input would not change the outcome as Chief Justice's opinion prevailed whether I agree or disagree). I am not going to give input on what side should win and merely just provide insight into where it was coming from even before it occurred.

Snowy_Heart said:

Your Honor,
May I have an extra 24 hours to respond with an answer to the complaint. I have just gotten home from a funeral and I dont think I'll have time to file it before the deadline. Thank you your Honor. I appologize for the delay.

Click to expand...

You may have an extra 24 hours.

Avaneesh2008 said:

Objection: Breach of Procedure

Your Honor,
The court has not summoned Matthew100x and is not allowed to state arguments in it. This statement by Matthew100x was also filed in the improper format.

Click to expand...

Sustained.

RelaxedGV said:

Your Honor, may I file an Amicus Brief? I believe on the subject of Mask3D_WOLF's firing I am the most impartial when it comes to the actual firing itself given I had no input on the decision. (For the record as well my input would not change the outcome as Chief Justice's opinion prevailed whether I agree or disagree). I am not going to give input on what side should win and merely just provide insight into where it was coming from even before it occurred.

Click to expand...

You may file an Amicus Brief.

Your Honor,
I would like to request a side bar.
Thank you,
Your Honor.

Firstly, thank you your honor for letting me file an Amicus Brief and I don't intend to change the arguments merely provide insight from an unbiased party that was in the Supreme Court when the event occurred.

To be blunt, the firing was not a decision done by just Matthew100x and was rather a decision that the previous Supreme Court was wanting to do. This was not a decision done by basically just Matthew100x is what I'm saying. The primary reasons were:

• Suing the Court as a Magistrate
• Entering an illegal investigation against the Court within the RBA
• Campaigning for a Political Candidate

These were the reasons that were listed by Former Justice Matthew100x after the former Chief Justice Drew_Hall and former Justice Dartanman left the Supreme Court. During the course of this trial, the Plaintiff while argue that they were not campaigning for a Polticial Candidate, didn't vote on the investigation and that suing is legally a viable option even as a Magistrate. While yes, the first reasoning is just unfound, the rest are not.

The remaining reasons, we will explore. The illegal investigation, although they did not vote, the argument can be made that even just being within the Council and not voting nay or stating the RBA does not have the power would show compliance with the investigation which none of the Supreme Court members took part of. Within the Constitution itself the Legislative body is shown to be the only overseeing body of the Judiciary. Thus making the motion of an investigation illegal in of itself.

Campaigning for a Political Candidate, although yes, they merely were a Campaign Manager, this can still be seen as campaigning. Whether or not they wrote ads, supported the candidate, etc. Is not entirely relevant to the argument that warranted the firing, the firing itself was done on the fact that they were a Campaign Manager for a campaign which although not illegal, is also a reason that they can be fired by the Supreme Court.

The argument at hand is whether the firing is illegal or not, its solely up to interpretation on whether the firing was just or not, while yes, I do approve of the firing of Mask3D_WOLF, my opinion was not taken into consideration and even if firing, the firing would still have happened. While my interpretation is that the firing was completely legal, that is up to your Honor to decide.

I'd also like to state that while the Plaintiff may attempt to strike this Amicus Brief, it provides insight more than it is using arguments against/for thus it has done what an Amicus Brief is meant to do, provide insight.

Mask3d_wolf
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. The defense Affirms That RBA Councillor SumoMC filed a motion to investigate the Supreme Court of Redmont for their handling of Krix V. Commonwealth and of Redmont [2024] SCR 8, however, Mask3d_WOLF did not vote on the motion.
2. The defense Affirms Mask3d_WOLF filed a lawsuit against the Judiciary of the Commonwealth of Redmont in the Supreme Court over the temporary appointment of Judge RelaxedGV
3. The defense Affirms RBA Councillor SumoMC motioned to end the investigation in the Supreme Court on February 22nd, 2023. However this time, Mask3d_WOLF voted for ending the investigation.
4. The defense can neither affirm nor dispute that Mask3d_WOLF was approached by Chief Justice Matthew100x and was fired from his role as Magistrate for filing a lawsuit against the Supreme Court, conducting an illegal investigation against the Supreme Court, and campaigning for a political candidate
5. the defense can neither affirm nor dispute Mask3d_WOLF has never campaigned for a political candidate while as a Magistrate.

II. DEFENCES
1. The plaintiff claims that they have been has been wrongly fired for incorrect facts and that according to the Commercial Standards Act, employees are protected from unjust termination. Although Employees are protected under that act we deny that the plaintiff is considered an employee. A magistrate is a public official and judicial officer. according to the judicial standards act "judicial officers will serve at the pleasure of the Supreme Court and can be removed at any time." As chief justice of the supreme court Mathew100x was 100 percent in his right to fire a magistrate.

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 8th day of March 2024

Snowy_Heart said:

Your Honor,
I would like to request a side bar.
Thank you,
Your Honor.

Click to expand...

Request for a side bar is granted. A channel will be made and the plaintiff and defendant will be invited.

Neemfy said:

Request for a side bar is granted. A channel will be made and the plaintiff and defendant will be invited.

Click to expand...

Sorry your Honor,
A side bar will no longer be needed in this case.
Thank you for your time your Honor.

We will now move onto Discovery. The Plaintiff and the Defendant have 7 days to provide a list of witnesses and any evidence.

Witnesses
Your honor, the plaintiff would like to call the following witnesses

• Dartanman | Legal Expert
• Alexanderlove | Former RBA Chairperson

Discovery Submission
Your honor, the plaintiff would like to tender the attached screenshots as evidence

Witnesses
Your honor, the plaintiff would like to call xendeavour as an additional witness.

We will now move on to Opening Statements. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide an Opening Statement.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

While Mask3d_Wolf was the magistrate of the district court of Redmont, he is still entitled to the many rights and privileges afforded to the normal citizen. This firing is political as he was fired from his job for his political beliefs that the Supreme Court has broken the law. This unjust termination is against the law and our defense and witnesses throughout the rest of the case will show this.

Matthew100x had three main reasons for unfairly and unjustly firing our client Mask3d_wolf. The first of which was filing a lawsuit against the supreme court for conduct that our client thought was unlawful. This discriminated against our client’s right to not be discriminated against by political belief which is protected in the Constitution. Firing someone for filing a lawsuit is discriminating against them from their activities or their jobs for their political belief that the Supreme court wrongfully did something.

Mask3d_Wolf was also blamed for two other actions that they have not done. Mask3d_Wolf did not vote for nor against the investigation against the supreme court in his position as RBA council member. This means he did not have any say in launching the investigation hearing against the Supreme court and is an unjust reason for his removal as Magistrate. Another reason he was unjustly fired was political campaigning for a candidate. However, he has not campaigned for anyone since becoming a magistrate.

Mask3d_Wolf was a magistrate and by definition, an employee of the courts of redmont unlike what the defense argues. An employee by definition from the Oxford dictionary “a person employed for wages or a salary”. A magistrate is hired by the supreme court to rule over district court cases and is paid per case that they preside upon. This meets the definition of an employee. This means that he is subject to the Commercial Standard Act which states that employees may not be fired for unjust reasons.

Throughout the rest of this case, we will show the court how these three reasons are unjustified to fire Mask3d_Wolf and how it caused many problems for him since his firing.

Thank you. The Defendant has 72 hours to post an Opening Statement.

The Commonwealth is hereby held in Contempt of Court. Witness summons will be issued shortly.

Neemfy said:

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
The witnesses @Dartanman, @Alexander P. Love, and @End are required to appear before the court in the case of the Mask3D_WOLF v. The Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a Contempt of Court Charge.

​

Click to expand...

Present, your honor.

Present. Please ping me if you would like me to reply otherwise I will not see the questions.

Present

The Plaintiff has 72 hours to ask any questions to the witnesses.

Witness Questions
AlexanderLove:

1. Were you the RBA chairperson in February of 2024?
2. Did Mask3d_Wolf vote on Motion 01/2024 to look at an investigation into the courts? Yes or No.

Dartanman:

1. Are Magistrates appointed by the Supreme Court?
2. What is the definition of an employee?
3. Would you say Magistrates are employees?

xEndeavour:

1. Did you run in the February 2024 presidential election?
2. Did Mask3d_wolf campaign for your party to your knowledge during the February 2024 presidential election?

Your honor,
We wish to ask followup questions based on the answers given by the witnesses.

Avaneesh2008 said:

Witness Questions
AlexanderLove:

1. Were you the RBA chairperson in February of 2024?
2. Did Mask3d_Wolf vote on Motion 01/2024 to look at an investigation into the courts? Yes or No.

Dartanman:

1. Are Magistrates appointed by the Supreme Court?
2. What is the definition of an employee?
3. Would you say Magistrates are employees?

xEndeavour:

1. Did you run in the February 2024 presidential election?
2. Did Mask3d_wolf campaign for your party to your knowledge during the February 2024 presidential election?

Your honor,
We wish to ask followup questions based on the answers given by the witnesses.

Click to expand...

1. I was RBA Chairman in February 2024 (most of it).
2. The vote was called before Mask3D_WOLF entered a vote, so no he did not vote on that motion.

Avaneesh2008 said:

Witness Questions
AlexanderLove:

1. Were you the RBA chairperson in February of 2024?
2. Did Mask3d_Wolf vote on Motion 01/2024 to look at an investigation into the courts? Yes or No.

Dartanman:

1. Are Magistrates appointed by the Supreme Court?
2. What is the definition of an employee?
3. Would you say Magistrates are employees?

xEndeavour:

1. Did you run in the February 2024 presidential election?
2. Did Mask3d_wolf campaign for your party to your knowledge during the February 2024 presidential election?

Your honor,
We wish to ask followup questions based on the answers given by the witnesses.

Click to expand...

1. Are Magistrates appointed by the Supreme Court?
Yes.

2. What is the definition of an employee?
There are many definitions of "employee." Which do you want?

3. Would you say Magistrates are employees>
Under most definitions, Magistrates are probably employees.

Alexander P. Love said:

1. I was RBA Chairman in February 2024 (most of it).
2. The vote was called before Mask3D_WOLF entered a vote, so no he did not vote on that motion.

Click to expand...

Follow up Questions for Witness AlexanderLove

1. If a council member fails to vote on a motion, does that mean they support the motion?

Avaneesh2008 said:

Follow up Questions for Witness AlexanderLove

1. If a council member fails to vote on a motion, does that mean they support the motion?

Click to expand...

While I cannot glean their support based on a vote, a councilman that fails to vote does not have their opinion, if any, on the record. They can be considered abstained or neutral for all official purposes. A failure to vote indicates no official support nor contempt for a motion.

Dartanman said:

1. Are Magistrates appointed by the Supreme Court?
Yes.

2. What is the definition of an employee?
There are many definitions of "employee." Which do you want?

3. Would you say Magistrates are employees>
Under most definitions, Magistrates are probably employees.

Click to expand...

Follow up Questions for Witness Dartanman

1. To clarify question #2, please use any legal dictionary and with a definition that relates to the case.
2. Are employees regulated by the Commercial Standards Act?

With the Resignation of Associate Justice neemfy, i will be taking over as the Presiding Judge.

The witness has 48 Hours to answer the questions before we move on.

Avaneesh2008 said:

Follow up Questions for Witness Dartanman

1. To clarify question #2, please use any legal dictionary and with a definition that relates to the case.
2. Are employees regulated by the Commercial Standards Act?

Click to expand...

1. Currently, the Oxford Dictionary is the only legal dictionary. It defines an employee as "a person who is paid to work for somebody"

2. I am under the impression that employees are regulated by the CSA.

Dartanman said:

1. Currently, the Oxford Dictionary is the only legal dictionary. It defines an employee as "a person who is paid to work for somebody"

2. I am under the impression that employees are regulated by the CSA.

Click to expand...

Follow up Questions for Dartanman

1. As employees are regulated by the CSA and Magistrates are employees, is it safe to assume that Magistrates are regulated by the CSA?
2. Would you classify being fired from your job for reasons that are false and out of your control unjust?

Your honor,

Can the court please remind xEndeavour to respond to the questions asked?

@End ensure we are answering the questions in a timely manner

Avaneesh2008 said:

1. As employees are regulated by the CSA and Magistrates are employees, is it safe to assume that Magistrates are regulated by the CSA?

Click to expand...

Your honor @SumoMC

I believe this may be a Leading Question. Am I required to answer?

Avaneesh2008 said:

2. Would you classify being fired from your job for reasons that are false and out of your control unjust?

Click to expand...

I think it is socially unjust. Legally, I am not certain.

Dartanman said:

Your honor @SumoMC

I believe this may be a Leading Question. Am I required to answer?


I think it is socially unjust. Legally, I am not certain.

Click to expand...

Question 1 is stuck and is not required to be answered

All party’s are advised to answer the remainder of the questions pending within the next 24 hours. After that time the court will be moving on.

1. Did you run in the February 2024 presidential election?
Yes

2. Did Mask3d_wolf campaign for your party to your knowledge during the February 2024 presidential election?
I don't recall masked doing any campaigning for us.

Your honor,
The plaintiff has no more questions for any of the witnesses.

Seeing as there are no more witnesses or outstanding questions, we will move onto closing statements.

The plaintiff has 72 Hours to submit their closing statement.

Your honor,

As shown through our witnesses AlexanderLove and xEndeavour, Mask3d_Wolf has not committed any actions that directly attacked the Judicial system nor has he done the actions claimed in reasons 2 and 3 by Matthew to warrant his firing. Matthew also fired him for filing a lawsuit against the Judiciary of Redmont (Mask3d_Wolf vs. Judiciary of Redmont) for actions that Matthew100x committed. This has clear bias towards the political motivation of Matthew100x to get rid of an employee that may not follow his beliefs. With the two false reasonings he has given, this firing can be seen as unjust. As shown by witness testimony from Dartanman, that Magistrates by legal definition are employees. As employees are regulated by the Commercials Standards act, Magistrates are protected against unjust firings from the Judiciary of Redmont.

Due to Matthew100x's unjustified firing of Mask3d_Wolf, it caused humiliation and emotional damages due to the nature of the accusations such as politically campaigning for candidates as a Magistrates. In addition, Mask3d_Wolf lost a large amount of paychecks that was supposed to be received from the courts for his work but has yet to receive them and get paid for the work he has done as a magistrate.

We wish the courts will find Mask3d_Wolf's firing unjustified.