Lawsuit: Adjourned Aladeen22 v. The Department of Justice [2021] FCR 84

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aladeen

Citizen
State Department
Education & Commerce Department
Donator
Aladeen22
Aladeen22
economist
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Aladeen22
Plaintiff

v.

The Department of Justice
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
The Department of Justice fired Aladeen22. They gave 3 reasons: Sergeant Vote, 3 infractions, and finally Bad behavior/disrespect. 2 of those 3 infractions were done several months ago. The first one was Abuse of Police Equipment. This infraction was made by former secretary Dusty_3. The 2nd one says Ignoring Criminal Reports/Unproductive (When The Server Had around 70 players) Reason: He Didnt Send any Message in the Doj chat. We always need to tell him to handle the reports. He only did 2 reports during that time, around 30 criminal reports happened. Proofs in #doj⌨ 19th of March.'' This was also several months ago, at this point I was a trainee officer and didn't know how to do much. Since the 2nd infraction until the day I got terminated I had done more than 115 criminal records, meaning that not only I improved my lesson but that I've done more criminal records than the current secretary ElainaThomas29.


I. PARTIES
1. Aladeen22
2. The Department of Justice.

II. FACTS
1. I was fired from my position as Sergeant and as a whole from the Department of Justice.
2. The 3 reasons given are not real reasons to fire someone.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Sergeant vote doesn't mean anything when it comes to termination.
2. Several months between the first two infractions
3. Disrespect is not a real reason to fire someone as said in the verdict on this case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - Bubbarc vs. President krix [Case No. 03-2021-07-01]

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. My position as Sergeant to be given back.
2. A Formal and public apology from the Austin / Vanq Administration + another formal and public apology from the Department of Justice
3. 10k for all the inconvenience that this has caused.
4. implore the relevant authorities to explore the Secretary's conduct

Captura de Pantalla 2021-07-12 a la(s) 08.10.50.png

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 16 day of July of 2021
 

SumoMC

Citizen
Justice Department
Donator
RBA
xSumoMC
xSumoMC
traineeofficer
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Aldaeen23
Plaintiff

v.

The Department of Justice
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Department of Justice has the right to fire and hire employees at their own discretion.
2. The DOJ after noting more then one instance of misconduct committed by the Plaintiff, sufficiently informed Mr. Aladeen22 and then proceeded to terminate him from the department.

II. DEFENCES
1. Former SGT Aladeen22 has on multiple occasions broke the law, he committed murder, abused his tools as a police officer and he has been cited for failure to respond to crimes that have/are being committed.
2. The Department of Justice is under the direction of Secretary ElaniaThomas, police officers fill under that department. It is her responsibility to ensure that the officers she is in charge of are not abusing their powers and making sure they are protecting and defending the people they swore to serve, not harm them. Aladeen22 did not hold up his oath, he has decided he is above the law and now wants to sue the DOJ for his wrong doings.

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 12th day of July, 2021
 
PwFVDhr.png


IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The defendant, the Commonwealth of Redmont. is required to appear before the court in the case of the Aladeen22 v. The Department of Justice. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to familiarize themselves with and be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures. Please do not post when not summoned to this court.

The Plaintiff may begin with opening statements since the Defendant has already posted their opening arguments.​
 

Aladeen

Citizen
State Department
Education & Commerce Department
Donator
Aladeen22
Aladeen22
economist
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Aladeen22
Plaintiff

v.

The Department of Justice
Defendant

I. SHORTHAND REBUTTAL
1. The AG has completely ignored all evidence presented.

2. Several months have happened since the first 2 infractions.

II. COUNTERARGUMENT
1. Secretary ElainaThomas29 sent all the infractions in order, proof of it can be seen as in the 2nd infraction the date of were it happen appears.

2. Several police officers have abused their equipment recently, many of them still work on the DOJ meaning that not everyone that has abused their equipment has been terminated


I would like to ask honorable judge Matthew100x to request the DOJ to provide all infractions from former Sergeant Aladeen22 and all the infractions that have occurred since ElainaThomas29 became Secretary. If possible also who did the infractions and the date of them.

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 18 day of July of 2021
 

SumoMC

Citizen
Justice Department
Donator
RBA
xSumoMC
xSumoMC
traineeofficer
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Aladeen22
Plaintiff

v.

The Department of Justice
Defendant

I. SHORTHAND REBUTTAL
1. The Attorney General did not ignore the evidence presented, simply used it to prove our point.

2. The distance between the infractions shouldn’t matter, you were an officer of the law and are held to a hire standard.

II. COUNTERARGUMENT
1. The Secretary of Justice is responsible for all of her officers and other employees within her department, she can’t have an Officer being negligent to his duties, abusing his equipment and killing the citizens that rely on him and his co workers the help them when they have been wronged. How is the public to trust the police when Officers like Aladeen22 are murdering them.

2. The Secretary of Justice has fired a few individuals since her tenure began as Justice Secretary, although a slow process of progress an attempt to reform the department is being made. The Secretary of Justice has been ensuring the department is running smoothly and can be trusted and in order to do that, she had to weed out the bad apples.

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 18 day of July of 2021
 
Thank you for your responses thus far.

I have questions for both the plaintiff and defendant. Please answer them within the next 48 hours with no objections given. You both have permission to speak.

First to the plaintiff, on what grounds are you seeking to be rehired? What is your standing, the law that you are basing your argument around?

Second, to the defendant, does the DoJ forgive strikes over time? If not, why does the DoJ implement this policy?

I would like to ask honorable judge Matthew100x to request the DOJ to provide all infractions from former Sergeant Aladeen22 and all the infractions that have occurred since ElainaThomas29 became Secretary. If possible also who did the infractions and the date of them.
Most of the information you are requesting is within the evidence that you submitted. You yourself stated when these infractions occurred and the DoJ has not denied your timeline. For the purposes of this case, I will be working off what you submitted, unless the DoJ denies the timeline you submitted in which case I will request the information you asked for.
 

Aladeen

Citizen
State Department
Education & Commerce Department
Donator
Aladeen22
Aladeen22
economist
First to the plaintiff, on what grounds are you seeking to be rehired? What is your standing, the law that you are basing your argument around?

Your honor, I am basing my argument around the “Employee Protection Act.” Specifically on the following clause:

4 - Unfair Dismissal
(1) Unfair dismissal is the unjust termination of an employee. (e.g. a position is made vacant without reason only to be immediately filled).
 

SumoMC

Citizen
Justice Department
Donator
RBA
xSumoMC
xSumoMC
traineeofficer
Second, to the defendant, does the DoJ forgive strikes over time? If not, why does the DoJ implement this policy?

The DOJ is as Lenient as it possibly can but at the end of the day they are Officers of the law, help to a higher standard then other citizens, he committed 3 infractions and this is unacceptable and will not be tolerated without the Department of Justice
 
Thank you, I'll allow an additional 48 hours for the Plaintiff and Defendant to decide if they would like to call any witnesses to this Court.
 

Aladeen

Citizen
State Department
Education & Commerce Department
Donator
Aladeen22
Aladeen22
economist
Your honor, more than 72 hours have passed and neither the defendant nor I have presented closing statements.
 

JoeGamer

Citizen
Judge
Public Affairs Department
Donator
RBA
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT



Aladeen22
Plaintiff

v.

The Department of Justice
Defendant

Your Honor,

The Department of Justice's goal is to protect the people of Redmont, but officers, constables, or sergeants who don’t show dedication to the job limit the productivity of the DOJ. The secretary of the DOJ provided three different infractions, one of which being ignoring criminal reports. Why would the secretary want inactive officers in the DOJ. To say that the secretary unjustly is factually wrong. One of the policies of the DOJ is “The Department of Justice is dedicated to protecting and serving the people,” and an officer can’t do this by ignoring their duties. The plaintiff had incidents, even if a couple of months ago, the Plaintiff has a history of breaking policy, and since this, the DOJ has every right to fire the Plaintiff.

I thank the judge and the plaintiff for the smooth transition with the changing of Attorney Generals, and with that the defence rests.
 

Verdict

Thank you all sides for the argument and for your patience in the deliberations of the verdict. I found this case to be difficult to decide because both sides offer arguments based on solid reasoning. I will be going over the positions of both the plaintiff and the defendant followed by The Court's Opinion and finishing with the Verdict.

Plaintiff:
- They were unfairly fired because of multiple infractions that happened over a long-standing period of time.
- They believe that their employer violated the Employee Protection Act in how they were dismissed.

Defendant:
- The plaintiff had three infractions and was subsequently fired from his position.
- The DoJ expects the best from its officers and does not forgive past abuses of power.

The Court's Opinion:
The Court understands the constitutionality of the situation and can confirm that the Secretary can dismiss their employees how they see fit. In accordance with the constitution, this court believes that no matter what, the Secretary does have the power to appoint and dismiss employees at will, as it is their constitutional power. This means that any decision on the dismissal of an employee is permissible.

However, the Employee Protection Act protects individual employees from being unjustly fired. While there is a paradox here, I see nothing wrong with this bill and do not believe that the constitutional right of secretaries to appoint and dismiss their employees is infringed by the Employee Protection Act. This is a legislative check on the executive power and does not necessarily prevent Secretaries from appointing and dismissing their employees. However, since the wording of Unfair Dismissal is left intentionally vague, this Court has deliberated on a definition for what "unjust termination" truly means.

This court believes that "unjust termination" means that any dismissal that is done outside of departmental procedure or contrary to established laws.

With that definition established, this court believes that the first part of the definition was satisfied by the DoJ. This Court does not see any violations in the DoJ departing from its policy in dismissing Aladeen. However, this court draws issue on the second part of the established definition of "unjust termination". This court has a procedure to allow criminals to expunge their criminal records after two months of good behavior via the Expungement Act. It would be unfair to players if their criminal records followed them even after they had a long-standing period of good behavior. Likewise, this court believes that the same respect should be given to employees of the government. Breaking departmental procedures is never good, however, not allowing good behavior to amend past mistakes sets people up for failure when they cannot or are not allowed to learn from their mistakes even after months of good behavior.

By not allowing the plaintiff to remove infractions against him despite months between the infractions made by several different DoJ Secretaries, I believe that he was unjustly fired from the DoJ. However, since the Constitution explicitly permits the Secretaries the power to hire and dismiss employees, this Court does not view itself as having the power to reinstate the Plaintiff back to his former position.

Verdict:
This court rules in favor of the plaintiff. This Court holds the view that the plaintiff faced Unfair Dismissal under the "Unjust Termination" definition established in The Court's Opinion. This is because the Employee had no possible way of having past transgressions forgiven despite being able to do so under normal circumstances for crimes through the Expungement Act. If a Secretary wishes to do an infraction point system for employee dismissal then they should have some mechanism to have past infractions removed for good behavior.

This Court also asserts the view that the Employee Protection Act does not violate the constitution because the Secretaries have the constitutional power of hiring and dismissing employees. Thus, the Secretary has every right to fire the plaintiff and this Court does not have the power to reinstate employees dismissed by the Secretary. However, we can offer monetary relief for Unfair Dismissal under the Employee Protection Act.

Therefore the Court grants a limited prayer for relief to the plaintiff.

1. All Departments that use an infraction point system review their procedure to make sure that the procedure includes a mechanism to remove past infractions.
2. That $1,500 dollars be paid to the plaintiff as one month's pay for the Unfair Dismissal.

This court is hereby adjourned.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top