Lawsuit: In Session EpicFought v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 19

[ko531]

The defense has 72 hours to post their opening statements

 

[SumoMC]

Your honor I request a 72 hour extension due to having mandatory 16.5 hour shifts at work the next 2 days

 

[ko531]

Your honor I request a 72 hour extension due to having mandatory 16.5 hour shifts at work the next 2 days

Granted

 

[SumoMC]

Opening Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

The Secretary of the Department of Justice, Former Solicitor General and the Redmont Bureau of Investigation got together and made a decision to terminate an employee that had violated the Employee Code of Conduct, admitted to using ChatGPT in his work, used his position within the department to try and assert some sort of superiority over another person, and just failure to maintain the trust of his superiors to be able to carry out his duties within the department.

On many occasions the plaintiff has asked the district court to overturn federal court precedent that both myself and the presiding officer of this case was involved in. Not only can that dont be done due to a higher court deciding on it, it would be morally unethical for this Magistrate to do due to him being the center of the case they are asking his honor to undo.

The facts of this case are simple and clear cut, EpicFought violated the Department of Justice Code of Conduct, but they also did so much more than that. They attempted to use their position to assert an unwarranted sense of superiority over the player, they have been caught using ChatGPT, admitting to it now they are changing their story, now their integrity has been called into question. The Department of Justice exercised its right to fire EpicFought not lightly, but due to too many infractions and instances where the DOJ can be called into question.

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@Freeze_Line @EpicFought and @Mask3D_WOLF are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Epicfought v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 19.

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.

 

[ko531]

Once all 3 witnesses are present the defense may begin questioning them

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Present, however I ask the court to please be flexible with response times from myself due to severe weather.

 

[Freeze_Line]

Present.

 

[EpicFought]

Present

 

[SumoMC]

Your Honor,

The defense will submit their questions to each of the witnesses in one post within 24 hours.

 

[SumoMC]

@Mask3D_WOLF

1.) What brought you to the conclusion that EpicFrought had displayed conduct unbecoming of a prosecutor.
2.) Why did you vote to terminate the employment of the plainitff.

@Freeze_Line
1.) Why did you ulitimantly decide termination was the best outcome in this situation?


@EpicFought
1.) Have you ever used ChatGPT/AI in your work at the DOJ?
2.) Did you read the Code of Conduct for the Department of Justice?
3.) Why did you tell the Secretary of Justice that you will accept your termination, if you indeed were not going to accept the termination?

@ko531 your honor i will have follow ups

 

[Freeze_Line]

1.) Why did you ultimately decide termination was the best outcome in this situation?
- The prosecutors, investigators, the Solicitor General, and I all represent the image of the DOJ. We can't have employees damaging that image to feed their own egos. Being a prosecutor isn't a position of power or a privilege that makes you better than anyone else. If someone can't grasp this simple principle, follow the code of conduct, do their work properly without AI assistance, and treat others with respect, they're not fit to be a prosecutor or hold any role in the DOJ.

 

[SumoMC]

1.) Why did you ultimately decide termination was the best outcome in this situation?
- The prosecutors, investigators, the Solicitor General, and I all represent the image of the DOJ. We can't have employees damaging that image to feed their own egos. Being a prosecutor isn't a position of power or a privilege that makes you better than anyone else. If someone can't grasp this simple principle, follow the code of conduct, do their work properly without AI assistance, and treat others with respect, they're not fit to be a prosecutor or hold any role in the DOJ.

Thank you

1.) what is the DOJ policy on the use of AI in their work?
2.) Do you hold everyone in the Department of Justice to the same standard?
3.) what purpose does the Code of Conduct Serve?
5.) How does the termination process for the DOJ work?

 

[Superwoops]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

1.) What brought you to the conclusion that EpicFrought had displayed conduct unbecoming of a prosecutor.

The question assumes that EpicFought displayed conduct unbecoming of a prosecutor. Opposing counsel has failed to provide evidence detailing that my client's conduct was unbecoming of a prosecutor.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, ARGUMENTATIVE

1.) Why did you ulitimantly decide termination was the best outcome in this situation?

Again, there is no evidence that proves termination was the best outcome after my client's actions. The question is also presenting an argument.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - COMPOUND

1.) Have you ever used ChatGPT/AI in your work and attempt to use it in your job at the DOJ?

Compound question.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, LEADING

3.) Why did you tell the Secretary of Justice that you will accept your termination, if you indeed were not going to accept the termination?

It hasn't been proven that my client did not accept his termination. One cannot simply "deny" a termination. This question also attempts to undermine my client, by trying to contradict his past statements and his conduct.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NARRATIVE

If someone can't grasp this simple principle, follow the code of conduct, do their work properly without AI assistance, and treat others with respect, they're not fit to be a prosecutor or hold any role in the DOJ.

The second part of the answer is unnecessary. The witness had already answered the question.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

1.) what is the DOJ policy on the use of AI in their work?

The current policy is irrelevant; my client was terminated months ago. The DoJ policy for use of AI at the time of my client's employment and subsequent termination could be relevant, but the question is not asking that.

 

[SumoMC]

Objection​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

The question assumes that EpicFought displayed conduct unbecoming of a prosecutor. Opposing counsel has failed to provide evidence detailing that my client's conduct was unbecoming of a prosecutor.

Your Honor,

It is the assertion of the defense that the conduct displayed by the plainitff with members of the public and his use of AI in his work is the evidence for this claim therefore we ask this objection be overruled.

Objection​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, ARGUMENTATIVE
Again, there is no evidence that proves termination was the best outcome after my client's actions. The question is also presenting an argument.

Your honor,

This is objection is baseless, it was untimely decided that the best outcome was termination or it wouldn't have been done, we are asking for more clarification on why it was chosen over alternative options. This objection too should be overruled.

THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - COMPOUND
Compound question.

Your Honor,


This is one question, we are not seeking two different answers.

Objection​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, LEADING
It hasn't been proven that my client did not accept his termination. One cannot simply "deny" a termination. This question also attempts to undermine my client, by trying to contradict his past statements and his conduct.

Your Honor,

The defense asserts that the plaintiff accepted his termination when it was handed out, we are seeking clarification for the change of heart, clearly there was one due to the lawsuit being filed.

Objection​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NARRATIVE
The second part of the answer is unnecessary. The witness had already answered the question.

Your Honor,

Again this objection should be overruled, the witness was asked a question and they answered it fully, just because it dosnt look well on their client does not meant the testimony is any less valuable or needed.

Objection​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE
The current policy is irrelevant; my client was terminated months ago. The DoJ policy for use of AI at the time of my client's employment and subsequent termination could be relevant, but the question is not asking that.

Your Honor,

It builds onto a later question down the line

 

[ko531]

Objection #1: Assumes facts not in evidence
Overruled. The firing clearly seems to be the result of actions taken by the plaintiff.

Objection #2: Assumes facts not in evidence, argumentative
Overruled. This question is not asserting that firing the plaintiff was the best course of action, only asking for clarification why it was presumed as such by the department.

Objection #3: Compound question
Sustained. Please rephrase the question

Objection #4: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, LEADING
Overruled. There is evidence showing the plaintiff did accept the fact he was being terminated, and this lawsuit is evidence that he now has problems with the termination.

Objection #5: NARRATIVE
Overruled. The answer is on the longer side, but every sentence gives more necessary details.

Objection #6: Relevance
Sustained. Please rephrase the question.

 

[SumoMC]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your honor,

For the sake of a speedy trial, we ask that you compele @Mask3D_WOLF and @EpicFought to answer our questions within a timely manner.

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your honor,

For the sake of a speedy trial, we ask that you compele @Mask3D_WOLF and @EpicFought to answer our questions within a timely manner.

@Mask3D_WOLF and @EpicFought will be held in contempt if they do not answer the questions in the next 48 hours without notifying the court if they need more time.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

@Mask3D_WOLF and @EpicFought will be held in contempt if they do not answer the questions in the next 48 hours without notifying the court if they need more time.

Your Honor, I did not receive a notification that any questions were posted. I can provide proof if needed.

 

[ko531]

Your Honor, I did not receive a notification that any questions were posted. I can provide proof if needed.

No need to prove the lack of notification, just answer the questions since you are now aware of them

 

[EpicFought]

Your honor,
Due to my personal time schedule with school and work, I would like to request an time period of 24 hours from now to answer to the questions.

 

[ko531]

Your honor,
Due to my personal time schedule with school and work, I would like to request an time period of 24 hours from now to answer to the questions.

You have about 39 hours from now to answer the questions.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

1. I saw the plaintiff flouting their title to less experienced lawyers, making me question their maturity, and saw that there were strong indications that plaintiff used ChatGPT or other AI in their writing, indicating that their dedication to the job was not enough to even write their own arguments (among many other things)
2. I voted to terminate for the reasons listed above -- lack of maturity, lack of dedication, etc., and not out of personal bias or any other superficial reasons, which I thoroughly examined in myself when voting aye

 

[Superwoops]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

indicating that their dedication to the job was not enough to even write their own arguments (among many other things)

This part of the answer is speculative and is not factual testimony, only an assumption. P-003 and P-004 convey that the great majority of my client's work was his own. The fact that he used AI to aid him in this process does not mean he didn't write most of his own arguments.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Your Honor, I will be unavailable for the next 10 days starting in approx. an hour, and therefore will not be able to answer any follow-up questions until I return.

 

[SumoMC]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

This part of the answer is speculative and is not factual testimony, only an assumption. P-003 and P-004 convey that the great majority of my client's work was his own. The fact that he used AI to aid him in this process does not mean he didn't write most of his own arguments.

Your Honor,

He clearly used AI in his work and went as far as apologizing for it, we ask this objection be overruled

 

[EpicFought]

2. Yes, I did read the code of conduct. But I would like to point out that there were no training procedures in the DOJ to train trainees and explain them about the code of conduct and no training was given to me when I joined DOJ.
3. I believe that accepting a termination and challenging a termination are two completely different words. As per the Cambridge dictionary, definition of a termination is "the act of ending something or the end of something" which means they ended the term of my employment and rejecting it will not be possible as even if I did reject, I would still be fired.

 

[ko531]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

This part of the answer is speculative and is not factual testimony, only an assumption. P-003 and P-004 convey that the great majority of my client's work was his own. The fact that he used AI to aid him in this process does not mean he didn't write most of his own arguments.

Overruled. The question was about how mask3d came to a conclusion. Mask3d is just explaining what they thought that brought them there.

 

[SumoMC]

Your Honor,

The defense has no further questions.

 

[ko531]

The plaintiff may cross examine the witnesses. Please either ask your questions or inform the court if you have no questions in the next 72 hours

 

[Superwoops]

EpicFought (Devaculous)
1. In the Employee Handbook from the time you were employed at the Department of Justice, was there any mention of AI not being permitted in your work?
2. Did you write the majority of your arguments yourself?
3. After your employer informed you that you should not use AI, did you continue to do so?
4. Were you trained by your employer on how to be a good lawyer?

Freeze_Line
1. Has Nacholebraa been employed simultaneously as a Public Defender and a Prosecutor?
2. Does the Department of Justice hire incompetent people?
3. If the Department of Justice follows its departmental policies in all matters, without exception, and all DOJ employees are subject to the same standards of accountability, why was Nacholebraa retained as a Prosecutor when he was hired as a PD?


Mask3D_WOLF
1. Are you aware RealTV was never a lawyer?
2. Would an attorney that was hired by the Department of Justice know more about law than a person that is not a lawyer?

​

Your honour, we may have follow-ups.

 

[EpicFought]

1. No, there was nothing mentioned about AI being/not being permitted in our works.
2. Yes.
3. No.
4. No, there wasn't even a training procedure at the DOJ. Hence, they did not train me. When I made a case draft, the Attorney General had a look in it and told me to change some things and phrases which isn't a training.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

1. I am
2. Not inherently

 

[Freeze_Line]

1. Has Nacholebraa been employed simultaneously as a Public Defender and a Prosecutor?

I believe he joined the Public Defender program after working for months at the DOJ.

2. Does the Department of Justice hire incompetent people?

Yes, we do sometimes hire incompetent people. That’s why it's part of our duty to ensure that only competent employees remain employed, for the sake of the Commonwealth.

Objection

OBJECTION - LEADING QUESTION

3. If the Department of Justice follows its departmental policies in all matters, without exception, and all DOJ employees are subject to the same standards of accountability, why was Nacholebraa retained as a Prosecutor when he was hired as a PD?

 

[ko531]

I believe he joined the Public Defender program after working for months at the DOJ.


Yes, we do sometimes hire incompetent people. That’s why it's part of our duty to ensure that only competent employees remain employed, for the sake of the Commonwealth.

Objection

OBJECTION - LEADING QUESTION

Objection Sustained. Please rephrase the question

 

[Superwoops]

Objection Sustained. Please rephrase the question

Question withdrawn.

For Freeze_Line:
Was my client’s time of employment at the DOJ enough to train him and assess his competence?

 

[Freeze_Line]

Was my client’s time of employment at the DOJ enough to train him and assess his competence?

The prosecutor training is very straightforward, and I believe he picked it up fairly quickly. I also believe we had enough time to assess his competence, legal reasoning, ego, mindset, and overall ability to work as a prosecutor.

 

[SumoMC]

Your Honor,

It has been 72 hours, if the spirit of a speedy trial, we request we move to closing statements

 

[Superwoops]

Agreed, apologies, no further questions your honour

 

[ko531]

The plaintiff now has 72 hours to post their closing statement

 

[Superwoops]

Your honour, I’d like to request a 24hr extension as I have current IRL commitments that I can’t postpone

 

[SumoMC]

Defense has no objection to the extension

 

[ko531]

Your honour, I’d like to request a 24hr extension as I have current IRL commitments that I can’t postpone

Because I am late to granting this, I will give you an additional 12 hours from this message to provide your closing statement

 

[Superwoops]

Closing Statement

Your honour, the narrative of this case has been that EpicFought was an in-training employee who was learning the ropes of being a federal prosecutor. Witness testimony, along with the presented evidence, only reinforces this narrative.

It was not clear before if use of AI was mentioned in the Code of Conduct during the time my client was employed at the Department of Justice, as the aforementioned document was edited a few weeks after my client's termination. However, witness testimony revealed that there was no mention of AI in the Code of Conduct when my client worked there. We believe it is probable that the DOJ realised there was nothing in their Code of Conduct against AI, but since they didn't agree with my client's sparing use of these tools, decided to forbid it after my client's termination. His use of AI was only to aid him in the creation of sound arguments, not for writing them entirely. EpicFought has testified that he wrote his own arguments. Evidence of this was presented, showing the low percentages of AI-generated content. And even though use of AI was not forbidden, when asked to stop using it by his superiors, he did.

It has also been established by witness testimony that the DOJ did not train my client. If the DOJ's end goal was to not train my client, then he was competent enough to begin with.

My client tried to educate a citizen (someone who was not ever a lawyer) on the law, and the DOJ was angry at the way he handled the situation, however it clearly overstepped its bounds. If my client did not mention his employment status, he would not have been reprimanded. This goes to show that the DOJ didn't care that EpicFought had supposedly been disrespectful. They only cared that their name was mentioned.

Inconsistencies have also come up as to who gets special treatment in the DOJ. It appears more experienced people do, as Nacholebraa has retained employment as a PD and a Prosecutor simultaneously, or Razorsharpbread who does not meet the minimum playtime requirements. Both of these are strictly prohibited, yet the DOJ let them slide.

To close, the issue is quite simple. My client did not do anything during his time at the DOJ in bad faith. We ask that the court rights these wrongs, because the Commonwealth and the DOJ have failed their employees.