Lawsuit: In Session Ko531 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 70

[ko531]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
CIVIL ACTION

Ko531
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
I was unjustly Fired as Inspections Manager of the DCT and as Building Inspector of the DCT. I was informed on May 8th that I was fired from the DCT for not doing various things in my role as Inspection Manager. This was not specific and no example of these "various things" were not provided. This also does not give excuse to fire me as a Building Inspector as this only talks about my role as Inspection Manager. This notice of being fired came only about 48 hours after DCT Secretary Vroomba told me that I along with 2 other Building Inspectors were "Carrying the Department." This makes me question what happened in 2 days that caused me to be fired from both Inspections Manager and Building Inspector


I. PARTIES
1. Ko531
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. Sometime around May 6th I was told by Vroomba that I along with 2 other Building Inspectors are Carrying the department
2. On May 8th, after almost 9 months as Inspections Manager, I was fired for not doing various things in my role as Inspections manager.
3. I was never given a reason why I was fired as Building Inspector
4. I tried doing a Freedom of Information request for the message that Vroomba said I was carrying the department but the DOJ said it was "Classified"

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Unfair Dismissal

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. Be Re-instated as Inspections Manager and Building Inspector

Or

2. $50,000 for Loss of Enjoyment as I have been inside the DCT for over a year and Inspections Manager for over 2/3 a year.

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: “Exhibit A"

Spoiler: Exhibit B

DATED: This 18th day of May, 2024

 

[ko531]

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

I wish for the DOJ to provide the short conversation between myself and Vroomba sometime around May 6th inside the Secretary channel in the DCT discord in which he stated I along with 2 other BIs are carrying the department

 

[RelaxedGV]

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

@Unseatedduke1 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont.

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 Information - Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[Unseatedduke1]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS​

The Commonwealth of Redmont moves to dismiss this case under Rule 5.5 for lack of claim due to insufficient evidence.

Your Honor, the plaintiff lists one claim for relief, which is unfair dismissal, but fails to provide any substantial facts demonstrating how the dismissal was unfair. The Department has the right to terminate employees at any time for failure to meet established standards, and that is clearly why they were fired in Exhibit A.

The Commercial Standards Act defines unfair dismissal as the unjust termination of an employee, such as when a position is made vacant without reason only to be immediately filled. In this case, no one was hired immediately to fill the position. As established in Steveshat v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 20 and Bardiya_King v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 22, this case should be dismissed.

Regarding the Freedom of Information request, the request was unreasonable because the channel the plaintiff seeks access to is classified.

For these reasons, we respectfully request that this case be dismissed.

Thank you.

 

[ko531]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS​

Your Honor, Someone was hired immediately after for Inspections Manager. The_Superior10 was hired at the same time I was fired as provided here.

I also do explain why my dismissal was unfair as my reason for being fired as inspections manager was extremely vague which was only 2 days after being told I was "carrying the department" and I was never given a reason as to why I was fired for Building Inspector.

Regarding the evidence I motioned to compel My request is reasonable as it would go to prove unfair dismissal. The Commonwealth has everything to gain for hiding it. If we must we can go to a closed court session if needed but the screenshot I am requesting is only 1 message sent directly to me by Vroomba. I have already seen it and its only important so you as the judge can make a fair ruling

 

[RelaxedGV]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS​

The Commonwealth of Redmont moves to dismiss this case under Rule 5.5 for lack of claim due to insufficient evidence.

Your Honor, the plaintiff lists one claim for relief, which is unfair dismissal, but fails to provide any substantial facts demonstrating how the dismissal was unfair. The Department has the right to terminate employees at any time for failure to meet established standards, and that is clearly why they were fired in Exhibit A.

The Commercial Standards Act defines unfair dismissal as the unjust termination of an employee, such as when a position is made vacant without reason only to be immediately filled. In this case, no one was hired immediately to fill the position. As established in Steveshat v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 20 and Bardiya_King v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 22, this case should be dismissed.

Regarding the Freedom of Information request, the request was unreasonable because the channel the plaintiff seeks access to is classified.

For these reasons, we respectfully request that this case be dismissed.

Thank you.

Before I rule on the Motion to Dismiss, I want a couple questions answered:

Why was The_Superior10 hired the same day before ko531's firing?
Why was The_Superior10 promoted in the first place?
Follow ups may be asked. Please answer these within 24 hours.

 

[RelaxedGV]

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

I wish for the DOJ to provide the short conversation between myself and Vroomba sometime around May 6th inside the Secretary channel in the DCT discord in which he stated I along with 2 other BIs are carrying the department

This however, is straight up rejected FOI is up to the discretion of the Presiding Officer of that body and the DOJ to determine if it should be released. If the DOJ or the Secretary determined for it to not be released, that is of their own volition.

 

[ko531]

Motion to Reconsider
You are opening a dangerous can of worms. If you refuse to compel the DOJ to provide evidence because they consider it classified. It could mean that the DOJ could consider almost all evidence against the commonwealth as classified. I know what this one message said and if nessesary we can move to a closed court to keep this evidence away from the public. The only person that needs to see this evidence is you Your Honor in order to rule fairly.

Before I rule on the Motion to Dismiss, I want a couple questions answered:

Why was The_Superior10 hired the same day before ko531's firing?
Why was The_Superior10 promoted in the first place?
Follow ups may be asked. Please answer these within 24 hours.

As for this one screenshot is from my timezone and the other is from Vroomba's timezone. But to clear it up for the record Superior was hired 17 minutes after I was fired.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Motion to Reconsider
You are opening a dangerous can of worms. If you refuse to compel the DOJ to provide evidence because they consider it classified. It could mean that the DOJ could consider almost all evidence against the commonwealth as classified. I know what this one message said and if nessesary we can move to a closed court to keep this evidence away from the public. The only person that needs to see this evidence is you Your Honor in order to rule fairly.


As for this one screenshot is from my timezone and the other is from Vroomba's timezone. But to clear it up for the record Superior was hired 17 minutes after I was fired.

This Motion to Reconsider is still rejected. The Commonwealth has the ability to deny an FOI request and going beyond that, you have provided evidence that you currently need, unless those channels will state they did the firing in a malicious way, I see no need for the Motion to Compel.

I'd also like to remind you that I did not ask you to answer the questions, I asked the Commonwealth.
Thus the response is struck.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Before I rule on the Motion to Dismiss, I want a couple questions answered:

Why was The_Superior10 hired the same day before ko531's firing?
Why was The_Superior10 promoted in the first place?
Follow ups may be asked. Please answer these within 24 hours.

Your Honor, I apologize for the delay. I have been in discussions with the DCT.

Question: Why was The_Superior10 hired on the same day before ko531's firing?
The_Superior10 was hired due to his extensive experience. The DCT needed to fill a role, as there are multiple building inspectors needing to be hired. This hire was aimed at improving workflow. The DCT secretary had been frustrated with other employees' performance, which was causing inefficiencies.

Question: Why was The_Superior10 promoted in the first place?
He was promoted to revamp a specific area of the DCT. The department acted within its legal rights to restructure and improve its operations.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Your Honor, I apologize for the delay. I have been in discussions with the DCT.

Question: Why was The_Superior10 hired on the same day before ko531's firing?
The_Superior10 was hired due to his extensive experience. The DCT needed to fill a role, as there are multiple building inspectors needing to be hired. This hire was aimed at improving workflow. The DCT secretary had been frustrated with other employees' performance, which was causing inefficiencies.

Question: Why was The_Superior10 promoted in the first place?
He was promoted to revamp a specific area of the DCT. The department acted within its legal rights to restructure and improve its operations.

I have one follow up, can you provide screenshots of the firing of ko531 and the promotion of Superior in your time zone to the Court. That way no arguments can be made regarding time zone esq issues.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Your Honor, I have attached the requested images. Please note that the firing message for Ko is no longer available. However, I have included an image taken by the secretary, who is in CST (one hour behind me). The attached image shows The_Superior10's promotion, which is in EST. According to EST, The_Superior10 was promoted at 12:24 PM, and Ko was fired the same day at 7:07 PM. He was fired 6 hours and 43 minutes AFTER The_Superior was promoted.

Spoiler: Promotion Message EST

Spoiler: Firing Message CST

 

[ko531]

Objection Improper Evidence

I know for a fact I was not fired at 7:04 PM EST or 6:04Pm CST (My time) As I woke up to being fired around 11am-12pm (CST) and I left the DCT discord as soon as I read the message. I was not even in the DCT discord by 7:04 PM EST to be fired even if this was the case.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Objection Improper Evidence

I know for a fact I was not fired at 7:04 PM EST or 6:04Pm CST (My time) As I woke up to being fired around 11am-12pm (CST) and I left the DCT discord as soon as I read the message. I was not even in the DCT discord by 7:04 PM EST to be fired even if this was the case.

Objection is overruled as the evidence is plainly there. Unless you can provide proof otherwise, I see no reason to grant this Objection.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Your Honor, It has been brought to my attention by the DCT secretary that events may have been put together wrongly, and I would like to correct the timeline you asked for. With your permission, of course.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Your Honor, It has been brought to my attention by the DCT secretary that events may have been put together wrongly, and I would like to correct the timeline you asked for. With your permission, of course.

You may, please do so within the next 48 hours.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Your Honor,

When I first contacted the DCT secretary, I was informed that they operated in CST. This is where the initial statements originated. However, after reviewing the case, the DCT secretary realized they were referring to CEST.

Therefore, the correct timeline is as follows:

- Ko was fired at 5:07 PM CEST.
- The superior was promoted at 5:24 PM CEST.

While we acknowledge that the promotion occurred after Ko was let go, we still request that our motion be considered. The Plaintiff failed to provide any claim of damage. The Secretary was merely filling a position that became vacant following the termination of an employee. We maintain that Ko was let go after a performance review.

 

[RelaxedGV]

I am going to preface this ruling by stating this was not an easy decision to make.
This case is arguing definition and practicality over real concrete law (beside CSA).

The Motion to Dismiss however is rejected as the definition provided within the Commercial Standards Act (CSA) states fulfilling the role. Whether this be a promotion position or a hired position, the act of fulfilling the role immediately after dismissal is illegal.

The Commonwealth has also failed to provide a reason this case should be dismissed beyond a lack of explanation which although should be provided by the Plaintiff in the complaint, we still have Opening Statements and Closing Statements we can use to expand on the Complaint some more.

With that we will be moving into Discovery, this shall last a period of 7 days.

 

[ko531]

Your Honor,

I would like to challenge the classified status for the messages I previously requested up for question as it states in the Classification act section 4.12 it states:

"The classifier may declare at any time that future messages in the channel will no longer be classified. This occurs by default at the specific institution's end of term. The classifier may additionally declare previous information they classified, to now be public."

Nothing about the #secretary channel in the DCT has changed since the end of the Layzur administration and nothing about reclassifying it was ever talked about. This means that by default all future messages at the start of Gold's Administation are unclassified including the messages I am requesting.

 

[ko531]

(and if you still deem those messages to be classifed)

MOTION FOR CLOSED COURT SESSION
As the evidence I am trying to compel is "classified" I am requesting a Closed Court Session. This evidence is cruicial for my case as I was fired for basically poor job performance but yet if I was told by the DCT secretary 2 days prior that I was doing great and "carrying the department" it puts in to question how poor was my job performance and by doing so would help to prove an unfair dismissal. Why would someone fire an employee who is carrying the department?

Your honor you stated "unless those channels will state they did the firing in a malicious way, I see no need for the Motion to Compel." Im sorry but your opinion on the value of the evidence as you are not the one representing me, especially since you havent seen it. This evidence is crucial for my case as it goes hand in hand with proving unfair dismissal and there should be no reason to deny this evidence in a closed court session if the only reason stopping you is that its classified.

I must also mention that you are setting terrible precedent for any worker of the government as according to the classification law any message not excessable to the public can just be made classified which can be used against people like me suing for unfair dimissal like it is right now. It is your job as a member of the judiciary to make sure no one is above the law including the government but it seems you are letting the abuse the law in order to be above it

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth would like the opportunity to respond to the plaintiffs off the wall remarks. If granted we can provide it tomorrow evening once I am home from work.

(I have been assigned as the State Representation of the case)

 

[RelaxedGV]

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth would like the opportunity to respond to the plaintiffs off the wall remarks. If granted we can provide it tomorrow evening once I am home from work.

(I have been assigned as the State Representation of the case)

You may, please provide your response within 24 hours.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

I would like to challenge the classified status for the messages I previously requested up for question as it states in the Classification act section 4.12 it states:

"The classifier may declare at any time that future messages in the channel will no longer be classified. This occurs by default at the specific institution's end of term. The classifier may additionally declare previous information they classified, to now be public."

Nothing about the #secretary channel in the DCT has changed since the end of the Layzur administration and nothing about reclassifying it was ever talked about. This means that by default all future messages at the start of Gold's Administation are unclassified including the messages I am requesting.

Your Honor,

The plaintiff's remarks are highly discredited. The Classification of Cabinet was applied to the channel when the Secretary took office because the #Secretary channel contains information from cabinet meetings released to the senior staff within the department by the President. Department leadership is awarded the ability to obtain and review classified materials released to them and confidential discussions of employee performance. While it might not seem as if anything in the channel changed to the former Deputy Secretary, the security clearance was renewed from the previous term.

The renewal of this classification was actioned under 4(10) of the Classification Act. Outlined as the following:

"(10) Classification is officially done in a channel by writing the classification level in all caps. Unless otherwise specified, the classification applies only to future messages but can be made to classify a specific previous message in a channel and onwards."

Under the Classification Act, the classification renewal is not required to be announced. In this instance, the Secretary renewed previous protections and restrictions and continued with a status quo directive within the department.

 

[Nacho]

(and if you still deem those messages to be classifed)

MOTION FOR CLOSED COURT SESSION
As the evidence I am trying to compel is "classified" I am requesting a Closed Court Session. This evidence is cruicial for my case as I was fired for basically poor job performance but yet if I was told by the DCT secretary 2 days prior that I was doing great and "carrying the department" it puts in to question how poor was my job performance and by doing so would help to prove an unfair dismissal. Why would someone fire an employee who is carrying the department?

Your honor you stated "unless those channels will state they did the firing in a malicious way, I see no need for the Motion to Compel." Im sorry but your opinion on the value of the evidence as you are not the one representing me, especially since you havent seen it. This evidence is crucial for my case as it goes hand in hand with proving unfair dismissal and there should be no reason to deny this evidence in a closed court session if the only reason stopping you is that its classified.

I must also mention that you are setting terrible precedent for any worker of the government as according to the classification law any message not excessable to the public can just be made classified which can be used against people like me suing for unfair dimissal like it is right now. It is your job as a member of the judiciary to make sure no one is above the law including the government but it seems you are letting the abuse the law in order to be above it

Your Honor,

The state refutes the idea of wishing to hash this argument out behind closed doors. The court is designed to provide clarity on the public stage. The Plaintiff has made off-the-wall remarks challenging the reputation of the current Secretary of Construction and Transportation.

The Plaintiff wishes to have a closed court proceeding around the basic understanding of "Unfair Dismissal" to prove that the former Deputy Secretary was, in fact, fired for their lack of care of the job, which is easily able to be done publicly, which the government has no problem doing publicly. The Plaintiff wishes to go on a fishing expedition for potential future suits against the state. It is clear in the filing of the case that they are disgruntled with the filing of their case. However, it is apparent the requirements of 'Unfair Dismissal' are not met due to the nature that the Plaintiff themselves provided the message from the Department for the termination. This case is around 'Unfair Dismissal," not "Classified Materials." - Classified material is classified for a reason: to ensure the integrity of the government institutions.

We ask that the court disregard this blatant showboat of semantics being drawn out by the Plaintiff in their horrible attempt at Judicial Intimidation. Let's face it... what is the purpose of the last paragraph of the Plaintiff's motion for a close court other than to intimidate the bench with false fears to control this? What we very much have here is a disgruntled former employee who wishes to make a quick buck at the expense of the government.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide a response.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Your Honor,

I would like to challenge the classified status for the messages I previously requested up for question as it states in the Classification act section 4.12 it states:

"The classifier may declare at any time that future messages in the channel will no longer be classified. This occurs by default at the specific institution's end of term. The classifier may additionally declare previous information they classified, to now be public."

Nothing about the #secretary channel in the DCT has changed since the end of the Layzur administration and nothing about reclassifying it was ever talked about. This means that by default all future messages at the start of Gold's Administation are unclassified including the messages I am requesting.

This is struck due to failure of specifying whether it is an objection or motion and on what grounds.

(and if you still deem those messages to be classifed)

MOTION FOR CLOSED COURT SESSION
As the evidence I am trying to compel is "classified" I am requesting a Closed Court Session. This evidence is cruicial for my case as I was fired for basically poor job performance but yet if I was told by the DCT secretary 2 days prior that I was doing great and "carrying the department" it puts in to question how poor was my job performance and by doing so would help to prove an unfair dismissal. Why would someone fire an employee who is carrying the department?

Your honor you stated "unless those channels will state they did the firing in a malicious way, I see no need for the Motion to Compel." Im sorry but your opinion on the value of the evidence as you are not the one representing me, especially since you havent seen it. This evidence is crucial for my case as it goes hand in hand with proving unfair dismissal and there should be no reason to deny this evidence in a closed court session if the only reason stopping you is that its classified.

I must also mention that you are setting terrible precedent for any worker of the government as according to the classification law any message not excessable to the public can just be made classified which can be used against people like me suing for unfair dimissal like it is right now. It is your job as a member of the judiciary to make sure no one is above the law including the government but it seems you are letting the abuse the law in order to be above it

This is also rejected for a variety of reasons however the simple version is as follows:

This case is not whether the classification is warranted. This is a case based on simple principle of whether you were unfairly fired which you have failed to not only prove but provide reasonable suspicion as to why the evidence you need would be within those channels.

As for the last paragraph of your Motion, as Nacholebraa has stated Judicial Intimidation is not how the Courts work. I interpret the law and rule on the law as written unless not plain. You are not to tell me my responsibilities as a member of the Courts.

 

[ko531]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor, You stated:

"you have failed to not only prove but provide reasonable suspicion as to why the evidence you need would be within those channels."

I was apart of the conversation in which Vroomba directly told me that I was "carrying the department" which to any person would mean doing a good job. I know where the conversation took place and what was said because I was apart of it. How would this not be reasonable suspicion when I was only one of two member in this conversation?

You also stated that "This case is not whether the classification is warranted" I understand that and that is why it is a motion for a Closed Court Session so the evidence stays classified. I am not asking a lot as the conversation between me and my former employer Vroomba was not a long one. Im only requesting a screenshot of about 5-7 messages

 

[Nacho]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor, You stated:

"you have failed to not only prove but provide reasonable suspicion as to why the evidence you need would be within those channels."

I was apart of the conversation in which Vroomba directly told me that I was "carrying the department" which to any person would mean doing a good job. I know where the conversation took place and what was said because I was apart of it. How would this not be reasonable suspicion when I was only one of two member in this conversation?

You also stated that "This case is not whether the classification is warranted" I understand that and that is why it is a motion for a Closed Court Session so the evidence stays classified. I am not asking a lot as the conversation between me and my former employer Vroomba was not a long one. Im only requesting a screenshot of about 5-7 messages

Your Honor,

If I may, Your Honor, I would like to provide a response by the state to this motion. I understand that I did not formally request this, but I believe it could save the court some valuable time and energy. If you do not wish to accept the response, you may strike it and I will not insist on reconsideration, as I respect your ability to facilitate this case.

However.....

The state still stands by our original position that this case is about Unfair Dismissal, not this classified information phishing expedition the Plaintiff intends to make it out to be. I know I did not bring my fishing pole or my fishing hat, so I would like to keep it to the facts and not allow the Plaintiff to make a mockery of this court, which he has already tried to do. The Plaintiff has filed this case and has failed to provide substance and wishes to have this case closed off from the public view. The burden of proof falls to that of the accuser in this situation.

 

[ko531]

Your Honor,

If I may, Your Honor, I would like to provide a response by the state to this motion. I understand that I did not formally request this, but I believe it could save the court some valuable time and energy. If you do not wish to accept the response, you may strike it and I will not insist on reconsideration, as I respect your ability to facilitate this case.

However.....

The state still stands by our original position that this case is about Unfair Dismissal, not this classified information phishing expedition the Plaintiff intends to make it out to be. I know I did not bring my fishing pole or my fishing hat, so I would like to keep it to the facts and not allow the Plaintiff to make a mockery of this court, which he has already tried to do. The Plaintiff has filed this case and has failed to provide substance and wishes to have this case closed off from the public view. The burden of proof falls to that of the accuser in this situation.

This case is about Unfair Dimissal. I am trying to provide the court important evidence about how within 2 days my employer went from telling me I am doing a great job to firing me for poor job performance which goes hand in hand in proving unfair dismissal. I am not on a fishing expedition as I know what I am requesting and exactly where it is. This evidence I am requesting is a short conversation between me and Vroomba around May 6th in the Secertary Channel in the DCT Discord.

I am only requesting a Closed Court Session because the state is so adamant on keeping the information classified. If the state would wish to keep this public then I encourage them to provide this evidence. The state is trying to have their cake and eat it too by keeping the information classified and not going to a closed court session. If the roles were reverse and I refused to provide the Commonwealth evidence then I could be charged with crimes like Obstruction of Justice or Accessory to a crime so why isnt the Commonwealth held to the same standard?

 

[Nacho]

This case is about Unfair Dimissal. I am trying to provide the court important evidence about how within 2 days my employer went from telling me I am doing a great job to firing me for poor job performance which goes hand in hand in proving unfair dismissal. I am not on a fishing expedition as I know what I am requesting and exactly where it is. This evidence I am requesting is a short conversation between me and Vroomba around May 6th in the Secertary Channel in the DCT Discord.

I am only requesting a Closed Court Session because the state is so adamant on keeping the information classified. If the state would wish to keep this public then I encourage them to provide this evidence. The state is trying to have their cake and eat it too by keeping the information classified and not going to a closed court session. If the roles were reverse and I refused to provide the Commonwealth evidence then I could be charged with crimes like Obstruction of Justice or Accessory to a crime so why isnt the Commonwealth held to the same standard?

Objection - Breach of Procedure

Your honor the plaintiff was not instructed to speak and was not given the ability to respond to a response. The state requests the blatant disregard for the court rooms decorum to be struck.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

We respectfully file the following to the plaintiff within Discovery.

Interrogatories

• Did you leave the DCT discord without challenging the termination?
• Did you contact the DCT within 24 hours of the termination message being sent to you?
• Please list the individuals you have messaged within the Department of Construction and Transportation following your termination.
• Have you ever failed in your Department of Construction and Transportation roles? (This is a yes or no question)

We want to reserve the right to ask the remaining single question within discovery.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

We would like to submit this list of witnesses to the court.

1. Ko531 (Former Inspection Manager)
2. TheSuperior (Inspection Manager)
3. AlexanderLove (Building Inspector)
4. SomeHumanOnEarth (Expert Witness)
5. Unseatedduke1 (Character Witness)
6. Adam_The_Warrior (Expert Witness)
7. BoopingBerry (Character Witness)

 

[RelaxedGV]

This case is about Unfair Dimissal. I am trying to provide the court important evidence about how within 2 days my employer went from telling me I am doing a great job to firing me for poor job performance which goes hand in hand in proving unfair dismissal. I am not on a fishing expedition as I know what I am requesting and exactly where it is. This evidence I am requesting is a short conversation between me and Vroomba around May 6th in the Secertary Channel in the DCT Discord.

I am only requesting a Closed Court Session because the state is so adamant on keeping the information classified. If the state would wish to keep this public then I encourage them to provide this evidence. The state is trying to have their cake and eat it too by keeping the information classified and not going to a closed court session. If the roles were reverse and I refused to provide the Commonwealth evidence then I could be charged with crimes like Obstruction of Justice or Accessory to a crime so why isnt the Commonwealth held to the same standard?

Before I rule on the Motion to Reconsider, this is struck as you cannot rebuttal a rebuttal. Thus the Objection for Breach of Procedure is sustained.

Your Honor,

If I may, Your Honor, I would like to provide a response by the state to this motion. I understand that I did not formally request this, but I believe it could save the court some valuable time and energy. If you do not wish to accept the response, you may strike it and I will not insist on reconsideration, as I respect your ability to facilitate this case.

However.....

The state still stands by our original position that this case is about Unfair Dismissal, not this classified information phishing expedition the Plaintiff intends to make it out to be. I know I did not bring my fishing pole or my fishing hat, so I would like to keep it to the facts and not allow the Plaintiff to make a mockery of this court, which he has already tried to do. The Plaintiff has filed this case and has failed to provide substance and wishes to have this case closed off from the public view. The burden of proof falls to that of the accuser in this situation.

As for this, while I do wish that a request was submitted prior to posting this, I will still allow it to save the entire Court time.

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor, You stated:

"you have failed to not only prove but provide reasonable suspicion as to why the evidence you need would be within those channels."

I was apart of the conversation in which Vroomba directly told me that I was "carrying the department" which to any person would mean doing a good job. I know where the conversation took place and what was said because I was apart of it. How would this not be reasonable suspicion when I was only one of two member in this conversation?

You also stated that "This case is not whether the classification is warranted" I understand that and that is why it is a motion for a Closed Court Session so the evidence stays classified. I am not asking a lot as the conversation between me and my former employer Vroomba was not a long one. Im only requesting a screenshot of about 5-7 messages

This Motion to Reconsider is still rejected as you haven't provided a time frame, reasoning as to why specifically those channels must be seen beyond just simple stating it is critical to your case. While I understand that the time frame between being praised and fired is odd, a lot can still happen within 2 days.

You have the message regarding fire and the Commonwealth has corroberated your story regarding being praised two days prior. If that is all the evidence you need I see no need to go as the Commonwealth has stated a phishing expedition.

Your Honor,

We respectfully file the following to the plaintiff within Discovery.

Interrogatories

• Did you leave the DCT discord without challenging the termination?
• Did you contact the DCT within 24 hours of the termination message being sent to you?
• Please list the individuals you have messaged within the Department of Construction and Transportation following your termination.
• Have you ever failed in your Department of Construction and Transportation roles? (This is a yes or no question)

We want to reserve the right to ask the remaining single question within discovery.

With that out of the way, the Plaintiff has 48 hours to respond to the Interrogatories.

 

[ko531]

Your Honor,

We would like to submit this list of witnesses to the court.

1. Ko531 (Former Inspection Manager)
2. TheSuperior (Inspection Manager)
3. AlexanderLove (Building Inspector)
4. SomeHumanOnEarth (Expert Witness)
5. Unseatedduke1 (Character Witness)
6. Adam_The_Warrior (Expert Witness)
7. BoopingBerry (Character Witness)

OBJECTION RELEVANCE
As for witnesses 4 and 6, what are they experts of? They have never been inside or apart of the DCT. They have never practice law to my knowledge. Is the Commonwealth claiming they are experts in employeement law because they have been Secretaries?

As for Witnesses 5 and 7, Whose Character are they here to talk about? They again have never been inside or apart of the DCT so I would find it hard to see them speak on my character as a Inspections Manager nor Vroomba's character as a Secretary.

Witnesses 1, 2 and 3 I do not object to

 

[ko531]

Your Honor,

We respectfully file the following to the plaintiff within Discovery.

Interrogatories

• Did you leave the DCT discord without challenging the termination?
• Did you contact the DCT within 24 hours of the termination message being sent to you?
• Please list the individuals you have messaged within the Department of Construction and Transportation following your termination.
• Have you ever failed in your Department of Construction and Transportation roles? (This is a yes or no question)

We want to reserve the right to ask the remaining single question within discovery.

1. Yes as I was angry and had no use of the discord server at that time.
2. Yes
3. The_Superior and Vroomba
4. Please be more specific in this question, I was in the DCT for over a year so its a lot of time to cover and try to remember. For now Ill just answer Not that I recall

 

[ko531]

Your Honor,

I would like to submit this list of witnesses to the court.
1. Vroomba

 

[Nacho]

1. Yes as I was angry and had no use of the discord server at that time.
2. Yes
3. The_Superior and Vroomba
4. Please be more specific in this question, I was in the DCT for over a year so its a lot of time to cover and try to remember. For now Ill just answer Not that I recall

Objection - Nothing Pending
This objection is being filed against the plaintiff's answer to question 1. The state did not request that he have access to speak simply if he left the discord. We ask the response be struck, and the court compels the Plaintiff to provide a yes or no answer to the question.

Objection - Nothing Pending
This objection is being filed against the plaintiff's answer to question 4. It was indicated within the question as a yes or no response as that is the information we are seeking. We request the response be struck and the court compel the Plaintiff to provide a yes or no answer to the question.

Motion to Compel
The state requests that the court compel the plaintiff to provide a yes or no response to questions 1 and 4.

 

[Nacho]

OBJECTION RELEVANCE
As for witnesses 4 and 6, what are they experts of? They have never been inside or apart of the DCT. They have never practice law to my knowledge. Is the Commonwealth claiming they are experts in employeement law because they have been Secretaries?

As for Witnesses 5 and 7, Whose Character are they here to talk about? They again have never been inside or apart of the DCT so I would find it hard to see them speak on my character as a Inspections Manager nor Vroomba's character as a Secretary.

Witnesses 1, 2 and 3 I do not object to

Response to Objection

Witness 4 is an expert witness regarding the number of times they have been fired within the public office or a department. They also have an extensive record as a Secretary managing the day-to-day operations of a department. Within the role of the Secretary, the witness would be able to provide insight into how a different department handles the terminations of unproductive employees.

Witness 6 is an expert witness in regards to the Them having an extensive record as a Secretary managing day-to-day operations of a department. Within the role of the Secretary, the witness would be able to provide insight into how a different department handles the terminations of unproductive employees.

Witnesses 4 & 6 have a degree in understanding employment law as they were senate-confirmed Secretaries and have training/understanding within this realm of law. You don't need to be a lawyer arguing the law to be able to practice the law, such as a driving instructor who doesn't have to be an accident attorney to teach those the law of driving a car.

Witness 5 - Can provide the character of Secretary Vroomba as a respectable member of public office. The Attorney General works directly with or around the Secretary of Construction and Transportation.

Witness 5 - Can provide the character of the Plaintiff based on their previous working relationship with them. The witness can give insight into the perspective others think of the Plaintiff as a colleague and leader within a department.


Your Honor,

We wish to provide perspective to the court on the grounds that the plaintiff was a horrible person to work with, performed poorly on the job, and has a record of it. We strongly request and urge the court to consider these responses to the plaintiff's objections and allow our witnesses to represent the character and issues of the case properly.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Objection - Nothing Pending
This objection is being filed against the plaintiff's answer to question 1. The state did not request that he have access to speak simply if he left the discord. We ask the response be struck, and the court compels the Plaintiff to provide a yes or no answer to the question.

Objection - Nothing Pending
This objection is being filed against the plaintiff's answer to question 4. It was indicated within the question as a yes or no response as that is the information we are seeking. We request the response be struck and the court compel the Plaintiff to provide a yes or no answer to the question.

Motion to Compel
The state requests that the court compel the plaintiff to provide a yes or no response to questions 1 and 4.

The Plaintiff has 24 hours to post their respond to the Motion and Objections, I'll rule on the Objection pertaining to the questions after a response is filed on these current Motion and Objections.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

The state wishes to enter the following evidence before the court within discovery.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

Respectfully, it is a disgrace that the plaintiff who initiated this complaint against the Commonwealth has failed to meet a basic 24-hour window. We request that the court rule on the motion and objection.

We further request that the court sanction the Plaintiff for wasting the court's time.

 

[ko531]

Response to Objection

Witness 4 is an expert witness regarding the number of times they have been fired within the public office or a department. They also have an extensive record as a Secretary managing the day-to-day operations of a department. Within the role of the Secretary, the witness would be able to provide insight into how a different department handles the terminations of unproductive employees.

Witness 6 is an expert witness in regards to the Them having an extensive record as a Secretary managing day-to-day operations of a department. Within the role of the Secretary, the witness would be able to provide insight into how a different department handles the terminations of unproductive employees.

Witnesses 4 & 6 have a degree in understanding employment law as they were senate-confirmed Secretaries and have training/understanding within this realm of law. You don't need to be a lawyer arguing the law to be able to practice the law, such as a driving instructor who doesn't have to be an accident attorney to teach those the law of driving a car.

Witness 5 - Can provide the character of Secretary Vroomba as a respectable member of public office. The Attorney General works directly with or around the Secretary of Construction and Transportation.

Witness 5 - Can provide the character of the Plaintiff based on their previous working relationship with them. The witness can give insight into the perspective others think of the Plaintiff as a colleague and leader within a department.


Your Honor,

We wish to provide perspective to the court on the grounds that the plaintiff was a horrible person to work with, performed poorly on the job, and has a record of it. We strongly request and urge the court to consider these responses to the plaintiff's objections and allow our witnesses to represent the character and issues of the case properly.

Sorry Your Honor for the late response today was memorial day and I have been busy with real life events


The Commonwealth is claiming that Witness 4 is an expert because they have been fired so much. That
would not be an expert that would just be someone who a bad employee. This brings into question why they have been fired so much. if they have been fired for the same reasons this brings into question why the havent learn from their mistakes.

For Witness 4 and 6, they talked about their experience as Secretary but as I already said they have never worked for the DCT. The DCT is not like every department as usually there are more then one Deputy Secretary and there are 2 distinct department (Construction and Inspection). This lawsuit is not about every other department but about Vroomba and my dismissal inside the DCT.

Witness 5 has never worked for the DCT so how can they talk as a character witness for my managerial style or me as a leader in the department. Also saying that witness 5 has a working relationship with Vroomba is weak at best. Last lawsuit filed which was DCT related (before this lawsuit) was Luxor Casinos & Resorts v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 57 which was filed before both Vroomba and UnseatedDuke were secretaries.

​

 

[ko531]

Your Honor,

I wish to enter the following evidence before the court within discovery.

 

[Nacho]

Sorry Your Honor for the late response today was memorial day and I have been busy with real life events


The Commonwealth is claiming that Witness 4 is an expert because they have been fired so much. That
would not be an expert that would just be someone who a bad employee. This brings into question why they have been fired so much. if they have been fired for the same reasons this brings into question why the havent learn from their mistakes.

For Witness 4 and 6, they talked about their experience as Secretary but as I already said they have never worked for the DCT. The DCT is not like every department as usually there are more then one Deputy Secretary and there are 2 distinct department (Construction and Inspection). This lawsuit is not about every other department but about Vroomba and my dismissal inside the DCT.

Witness 5 has never worked for the DCT so how can they talk as a character witness for my managerial style or me as a leader in the department. Also saying that witness 5 has a working relationship with Vroomba is weak at best. Last lawsuit filed which was DCT related (before this lawsuit) was Luxor Casinos & Resorts v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 57 which was filed before both Vroomba and UnseatedDuke were secretaries.

​

Objection - Breach of procedure

The court allowed for the Plaintiff to submit a response to an objection not a response to the response of an objection.

The Plaintiff is continuing to waste this courts time by failing to follow simple directions. Such as following timeframes and providing a response to an objection/motion.

The state requests the comment be struck and not considered.

 

[ko531]

Objection - Nothing Pending
This objection is being filed against the plaintiff's answer to question 1. The state did not request that he have access to speak simply if he left the discord. We ask the response be struck, and the court compels the Plaintiff to provide a yes or no answer to the question.

Objection - Nothing Pending
This objection is being filed against the plaintiff's answer to question 4. It was indicated within the question as a yes or no response as that is the information we are seeking. We request the response be struck and the court compel the Plaintiff to provide a yes or no answer to the question.

Motion to Compel
The state requests that the court compel the plaintiff to provide a yes or no response to questions 1 and 4.

Sorry you honor, I missed these objections and thought you wanted me to respond to his answer to objection. I was busy all yesterday on memorial day and only got a chance to answer it late last night while I was tired. I wish to retract my response to their response to my objections.


ANSWER TO OBJECTION
For question 4 I can not answer that broad of a question when I was in the DCT for over a year and can not remember everything. By me answering the question with a definitive yes or no could open me up to Perjury for something I may be forgetting so that is why I asked for the question to be more specific and answered with "Not that I recall"

For question 1 I provided that context so the commonwealth doesnt start taking my answer and shaping it into something its not. Context is everything which is why answering some questions with only Yes or No can do more harm then good for either side. but I still answered this question with a Yes or No like they asked.

By making me answer with Only yes or no to both questions could open me up to Perjury and could allow the prosecution to mishape facts with the lack of context by trying to apply their own context. I still answered both questions to the best of my ability.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Sorry Your Honor for the late response today was memorial day and I have been busy with real life events


The Commonwealth is claiming that Witness 4 is an expert because they have been fired so much. That
would not be an expert that would just be someone who a bad employee. This brings into question why they have been fired so much. if they have been fired for the same reasons this brings into question why the havent learn from their mistakes.

For Witness 4 and 6, they talked about their experience as Secretary but as I already said they have never worked for the DCT. The DCT is not like every department as usually there are more then one Deputy Secretary and there are 2 distinct department (Construction and Inspection). This lawsuit is not about every other department but about Vroomba and my dismissal inside the DCT.

Witness 5 has never worked for the DCT so how can they talk as a character witness for my managerial style or me as a leader in the department. Also saying that witness 5 has a working relationship with Vroomba is weak at best. Last lawsuit filed which was DCT related (before this lawsuit) was Luxor Casinos & Resorts v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 57 which was filed before both Vroomba and UnseatedDuke were secretaries.

​

This response is struck as you are unable to rebuttal to a rebuttal.

Your Honor,

Respectfully, it is a disgrace that the plaintiff who initiated this complaint against the Commonwealth has failed to meet a basic 24-hour window. We request that the court rule on the motion and objection.

We further request that the court sanction the Plaintiff for wasting the court's time.

I will also be granting this as the Plaintiff is only awarded 24 hours to provide responses to Objections thus the response above will be struck.

OBJECTION RELEVANCE
As for witnesses 4 and 6, what are they experts of? They have never been inside or apart of the DCT. They have never practice law to my knowledge. Is the Commonwealth claiming they are experts in employeement law because they have been Secretaries?

As for Witnesses 5 and 7, Whose Character are they here to talk about? They again have never been inside or apart of the DCT so I would find it hard to see them speak on my character as a Inspections Manager nor Vroomba's character as a Secretary.

Witnesses 1, 2 and 3 I do not object to

I will be breaking up this Objection a little bit. This Objection is still granted however the Defense is to pick one witness out of 4 and 6 and one witness from 5 and 7. They are to notify which they will be keeping in their Opening Statement (to prevent clutter).

Objection - Nothing Pending
This objection is being filed against the plaintiff's answer to question 1. The state did not request that he have access to speak simply if he left the discord. We ask the response be struck, and the court compels the Plaintiff to provide a yes or no answer to the question.

Objection - Nothing Pending
This objection is being filed against the plaintiff's answer to question 4. It was indicated within the question as a yes or no response as that is the information we are seeking. We request the response be struck and the court compel the Plaintiff to provide a yes or no answer to the question.

Motion to Compel
The state requests that the court compel the plaintiff to provide a yes or no response to questions 1 and 4.

Objection one is overruled due to the fact that it still provides information regarding the event.

Objection two is granted however the Defense is to reword the question for better understanding of the Plaintiff.

With all of that done, we will now be moving into Opening Statements, the Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide their Opening Statement.

 

[Nacho]

Motion to Strike

Your Honor,

The plaintiff has failed to follow the defined naming conventions outlined within the court rules (Rule 4.6) mandated by the court. Evidence submitted within Discord and/or being used within the case must be appropriately labeled. I've attached the defined rule we cite to the court (Rule 4.6 - Submission of Discovery, Voluntarily).

The Plaintiff has a history of disregarding the rules and restrictions placed by this court. The Plaintiff also has a history of arguing and working on this very court to uphold the rules of the court. They are rather familiar with the rules and restrictions the court has. This is a blatant disregard for those very rules that maintain decorum within the courtroom.

The state requests that evidence submitted by the plaintiff within discovery be struck for the reason of improper evidence. We further stipulate that the cited evidence by the plaintiff within the original complaint should also be struck as improper evidence; however, we understand if the court wishes to maintain the original complaint evidence filed as it was done within the complaint, not within discovery.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Motion to Strike

Your Honor,

The plaintiff has failed to follow the defined naming conventions outlined within the court rules (Rule 4.6) mandated by the court. Evidence submitted within Discord and/or being used within the case must be appropriately labeled. I've attached the defined rule we cite to the court (Rule 4.6 - Submission of Discovery, Voluntarily).

The Plaintiff has a history of disregarding the rules and restrictions placed by this court. The Plaintiff also has a history of arguing and working on this very court to uphold the rules of the court. They are rather familiar with the rules and restrictions the court has. This is a blatant disregard for those very rules that maintain decorum within the courtroom.

The state requests that evidence submitted by the plaintiff within discovery be struck for the reason of improper evidence. We further stipulate that the cited evidence by the plaintiff within the original complaint should also be struck as improper evidence; however, we understand if the court wishes to maintain the original complaint evidence filed as it was done within the complaint, not within discovery.

The Plaintiff has 24 hours to respond to the Motion.

 

[Nacho]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS​

The Commonwealth of Redmont moves to dismiss this case under Rule 5.5 for lack of a claim.

Your Honor, the plaintiff lists one claim for relief, which is unfair dismissal, but fails to provide any substantial facts demonstrating how the dismissal was unfair. Government Departments can terminate employees at any time to ensure proper department management.

The Commercial Standards Act provides a cut-and-dry definition of Unfair Dismissal: "The unjust termination of an employee." This definition provides a simple, straightforward response to the question of being justified. The Plaintiff failed in their role outlined within defense exhibit (d-11). A reason was provided to the Plaintiff. While the defendant may not agree with this, they were adequately notified of the reason for this dismissal as cited by the Secretary of Construction and Transportation.

Should the court allow this case to remain active it would be making the automatic change in the precedent established within [2024] FCR 22 - Where the court more specifically you your honor cited the following:

The argument for an unjust firing is vague and given the Plaintiff who was fired is now arguing as such, if I were to let this case continue I would be allowing anyone who believes they were unjustly fired to sue the Commonwealth over vague terms. Yes there is warrant to sue over unjust firing however not when the arguments are unfounded within law.

The defendant stated themselves previously within this very case:

I also do explain why my dismissal was unfair as my reason for being fired as inspections manager was extremely vague

It is clear here that we merely have a disgruntled former employee wishing to attempt to make a cash run. The Plaintiff fails to connect what in the law the commonwealth broke. We provided a reason for dismissal, which is straightforward in saying they failed in their roles. They further have admitted within discovery for leaving the discord instead of contesting the termination or asking clarifying questions on their dismissal.

For these reasons, we respectfully request that this case be dismissed.

 

[ko531]

Motion to Strike

Your Honor,

The plaintiff has failed to follow the defined naming conventions outlined within the court rules (Rule 4.6) mandated by the court. Evidence submitted within Discord and/or being used within the case must be appropriately labeled. I've attached the defined rule we cite to the court (Rule 4.6 - Submission of Discovery, Voluntarily).

The Plaintiff has a history of disregarding the rules and restrictions placed by this court. The Plaintiff also has a history of arguing and working on this very court to uphold the rules of the court. They are rather familiar with the rules and restrictions the court has. This is a blatant disregard for those very rules that maintain decorum within the courtroom.

The state requests that evidence submitted by the plaintiff within discovery be struck for the reason of improper evidence. We further stipulate that the cited evidence by the plaintiff within the original complaint should also be struck as improper evidence; however, we understand if the court wishes to maintain the original complaint evidence filed as it was done within the complaint, not within discovery.

Your Honor,
There is no need to strike and throw away important evidence because of the PNG name. The value of evidence and determening whether it should be struck should be base on the evidence itself and not the PNG name that no one pays any attention to. But just so everyone is happy I have renamed the exact piece of evidence.

 

[ko531]

I will be breaking up this Objection a little bit. This Objection is still granted however the Defense is to pick one witness out of 4 and 6 and one witness from 5 and 7. They are to notify which they will be keeping in their Opening Statement (to prevent clutter).

OBJECTION IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honor, Allowing the Prosection to provide their witnesses this late harms my ability to represent myself. Discovery is meant for preparation for the other sides arguements and witnesses and depending on who they choice as their witness I may need to file addtional evidence but I would be unable to do that if they are allowed to provide their witnesses during their opening statements and after discovery has ended.