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

[RelaxedGV]

OBJECTION BREACH OF PROCEDURE

I will not move foward in this case and give my opening statements until my rights are no longer being violated and I get a ruling on my motion to recuse due to you clearing showing bias.

Do you wish to drop the case then?

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth is not only appalled by the plaintiff's conduct in this courtroom, but we are also perplexed by their intentions. Another judge has already ruled on the motion to recuse, yet they seem to be selectively pursuing a ruling in favor of the motion to recuse. This cherry-picking is evident and undermines the integrity of this proceeding.

We respectfully request that you hold them in contempt once more and grant the Commonwealth the opportunity to file our opening statement.

 

[ko531]

Do you wish to drop the case then?

I am not dropping the case but I will also not allow my rights to a fair trial to be violated. If you wish to have my opening statement then please rule on my motion to recuse based on your bias.

If you do not rule then by all means expect there to be an appeal when this case is done because you are bias against as you have shown and to continue to work on thsi case is a disgrace to the judiciary

 

[RelaxedGV]

I am not dropping the case but I will also not allow my rights to a fair trial to be violated. If you wish to have my opening statement then please rule on my motion to recuse based on your bias.

If you do not rule then by all means expect there to be an appeal when this case is done because you are bias against as you have shown and to continue to work on thsi case is a disgrace to the judiciary

The Motion to Recuse is already rejected. Your not going to continue down this road, your held in Contempt and at this point this is a waste of time.

You stated you were fine with Fluffy ruling on the Recusal and they did when they did not have to.
You are trying to pick your Judge which is not how the Court system works.

 

[ko531]

The Motion to Recuse is already rejected. Your not going to continue down this road, your held in Contempt and at this point this is a waste of time.

You stated you were fine with Fluffy ruling on the Recusal and they did when they did not have to.
You are trying to pick your Judge which is not how the Court system works.

OBJECTIO BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Again the first 2 were already ruled uppon but this one has not. This is based on statements you made AFTER the first 2 motions. This motion does not have the same facts or reasoning as the first 2 and therefore needs a new ruling

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Hello, I have returned.

Upon further thought and review of the new motion to recuse, Relaxed and I have agreed that he shall be recused and replaced with myself as the presiding officer. Although I do not believe that there is a bias in this case with the presiding officer, the case being in the Federal Court and given the conflict encountered thus far, this will be best for all parties involved.

I will remind the plaintiff that their opening statement deadline is still in effect.

 

[ko531]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor,

Before I move to Opening statements, I wish for you to reconsider the striking of my evidence now that relaxed has recused himself for bias.

I will be granting the Motion to Reconsider.

The statement from the Plaintiff regarding "Based on multiple cases, Multiple judges and Multiple levels of the court no one enforces rule 4.6 so to strike this evidenced based on rule 4.6 would be going against almost the entire Judiciary" while yes this has slipped, the Courts are also to expect that the lawyers submitting the evidence are to follow Court Rules and Procedures. While the name is not as vital to the evidence itself, they should be focused on.

I will be notifying the Judiciary as a reminder to enforce this Court Rule and to pay closer attention as this is something that the Judiciary has missed, as for the current cases the opposing counsel will have to object otherwise the evidence will stay.

I believe he made this decision with his bias. He realized that rule 4.6 was not being inforced and decided to derail my case in order to set precedent to help address this problem.

The Bias comes from the COI and the unequal rulings between my evidence and the defenses witness list. Rule 4.6 was created and implemented when Relaxed and the defense's representation Nacho were both in the Supreme court together. It is even hinted by the Defense in their response to my motion to reconsider.

In this case, by allowing the Plaintiff to have the evidence submitted to me, you are going against what the Supreme Court wanted originally.

Relaxed struck my evidence for having the incorrect PNG name but has allowed the Defense to provide half their witness list during their opening statements even after I brought up the concern that I might need to provide evidence for cross examination depending on the witnesses and this harms my ability to try this case. These decisions as you can see have been clearly one sided with strickness against me, harming my case and
leniency for the defense which also harms my case

I understand that rule 4.6 is a court rule but I am being punished when not a single other practicing attorney (Attorney General Included) has been following this rule since it was created. I fixed the issue when it was brought up to my attention but Relaxed still decided to strike it.

The only reason I am asking you to reconsider is because I believe the same bias that relaxed recused himself of is the same bias that caused him to strike my evidence.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor,

Before I move to Opening statements, I wish for you to reconsider the striking of my evidence now that relaxed has recused himself for bias.

I believe he made this decision with his bias. He realized that rule 4.6 was not being inforced and decided to derail my case in order to set precedent to help address this problem.

The Bias comes from the COI and the unequal rulings between my evidence and the defenses witness list. Rule 4.6 was created and implemented when Relaxed and the defense's representation Nacho were both in the Supreme court together. It is even hinted by the Defense in their response to my motion to reconsider.

Relaxed struck my evidence for having the incorrect PNG name but has allowed the Defense to provide half their witness list during their opening statements even after I brought up the concern that I might need to provide evidence for cross examination depending on the witnesses and this harms my ability to try this case. These decisions as you can see have been clearly one sided with strickness against me, harming my case and
leniency for the defense which also harms my case

I understand that rule 4.6 is a court rule but I am being punished when not a single other practicing attorney (Attorney General Included) has been following this rule since it was created. I fixed the issue when it was brought up to my attention but Relaxed still decided to strike it.

The only reason I am asking you to reconsider is because I believe the same bias that relaxed recused himself of is the same bias that caused him to strike my evidence.

The commonwealth shall be allowed 24 hours to respond.

 

[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 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 disagree with this, they were adequately notified of the reason for this dismissal as cited by the Secretary of Construction and Transportation; the Plaintiff was further allowed 24 hours to be able to context this termination with the department and choose to leave the discord and then return and file this suit.

As demonstrated within this thread, the Plaintiff is going on a witch hunt, as some may describe in their crusade, to attempt to gain monetarily from a simple dismissal. The Plaintiff is directly arguing against the chair in not liking how the case they brought before the court. The Plaintiff has further demonstrated that they have failed to understand the simple procedures of the court and intends to simply move to a different judge each time they don't get a ruling they like.

However, the facts of the case remain. The Commonwealth did, in fact, provide a reason for the dismissal within D-11. The Plaintiff was terminated for poor job performance. They also insinuate within their original complaint, which this court has determined to be false, that they were fired without reason from the Building Inspector. We further have proven that the Plaintiff was promoted from their position within the department, thus leaving the former role of Building Inspector altogether. This point alone removes the only claim they have of 'unfair dismissal' as the only one they mentioned being provided no reason for. When, in fact, they did not hold that position but rather was an Inspection Manager.

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 with prejudice.

 

[Nacho]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor,

Before I move to Opening statements, I wish for you to reconsider the striking of my evidence now that relaxed has recused himself for bias.

I believe he made this decision with his bias. He realized that rule 4.6 was not being inforced and decided to derail my case in order to set precedent to help address this problem.

The Bias comes from the COI and the unequal rulings between my evidence and the defenses witness list. Rule 4.6 was created and implemented when Relaxed and the defense's representation Nacho were both in the Supreme court together. It is even hinted by the Defense in their response to my motion to reconsider.

Relaxed struck my evidence for having the incorrect PNG name but has allowed the Defense to provide half their witness list during their opening statements even after I brought up the concern that I might need to provide evidence for cross examination depending on the witnesses and this harms my ability to try this case. These decisions as you can see have been clearly one sided with strickness against me, harming my case and
leniency for the defense which also harms my case

I understand that rule 4.6 is a court rule but I am being punished when not a single other practicing attorney (Attorney General Included) has been following this rule since it was created. I fixed the issue when it was brought up to my attention but Relaxed still decided to strike it.

The only reason I am asking you to reconsider is because I believe the same bias that relaxed recused himself of is the same bias that caused him to strike my evidence.

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff is attempting to regain their case, which is commendable. However, they just displayed within their thread that they don't recognize the authority of the chair of the case. They demonstrated they intend to bash and ignore the presiding judge regardless of what the presiding Judge determines.

However, the Commonwealth remains steadfast in its belief that the rules were created for a specific reason. The rule being enforced by the previous presiding Judge was designed by the Supreme Court to ensure clarity within the evidence presentation. The Commonwealth frames this situation if a person fails to respond on time. The court would hold them in contempt and fine them accordingly. In that instance, no one would second guess the court's authority. However, now we have a situation where the opposing council has completely ignored the court directive and wishes to change the narrative further. They have flooded the case thread with nonsense interfering with the Commonwealth's right to a fair and speedy trial. The Plaintiff has not provided their opening statement after being given two extensions and has made an absolute mockery of this institution.

Rules and Laws define this institution's power to ensure the rights of all citizens are upheld and enforced. It's not the Commonwealth's fault for the lack of enforcement of this rule. However, it is a published rule for the court to enforce. We merely request that the court implement a straightforward rule. As the Commonwealth indicated previously, regardless of whether the Plaintiff changed the name AFTER the Commonwealth brought it to the attention of the court, the plaintiff still, in fact, violated court rules and procedures.

The Plaintiff even indicates within their motion to reconsider that they firmly think a bias was present. Even when you stated, "Although I do not believe that there is a bias in this case with the presiding officer, the case being in the Federal Court and given the conflict encountered thus far, this will be best for all parties involved." Yet, the Plaintiff still wishes to bang this drum and attempt to continue to draw out this case.

 

[ko531]

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

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.

This case is to talk abot how I as fired from 2 seperate positions one without reason. I know I was charge with perjury about this fact but if you read you can see that the Perjury Charge was based in assumptions which were false as myself and the defense has agreed the previous 3 inspections managers before me got to continue in the department as Constructors and Building Inspectors but I was never afforded this chance and never told why. I was also never afforded the chance to improve. You will see if my evidence is allowed and after I question witnesses I only received praise. I never had one conversation with anyone about my under performing. How can I as an employee prevent myself from underperforming when I am only being told "Good Job".

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 being justified. The Plaintiff failed in their role outlined within defense exhibit (d-11).

If you look at d-11 you will see that the reasoning was very vauge in which they could not directly tell me exactly what I did wrong just that I didnt do what was ask. The problem is not from me under performing in my job but the managements reactions to this. Again I only received praise for doing a good job but was fired for under performing. Why would they be contradicting themselves?

They also insinuate within their original complaint, which this court has determined to be false, that they were fired without reason from the Building Inspector. We further have proven that the Plaintiff was promoted from their position within the department, thus leaving the former role of Building Inspector altogether.

Again myself and the defense agreed to the fact that the previous 3 inspections managers had jobs to return to when they were fired as inspections manager but they can not give a reason as to why I was fired from the department all together. Why was I so different? Clearly it must be big but yet the commonwealth has only said poor job performance.

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.

This is by all means not a cash run. I would much rather have the job I slaved at for 9 months then have a penny. The only reason I asked for money is because I know asking the court for my job back is a long shot and money is the only other thing I can ask for.

The commonwealth talks about providing a reason but that does not mean the dismissal was fair. I was never given a chance to succeed in that department when being told I was doing great to being let go for poor job performance. Why would any reasonable person believe they are not performing well enough when they are told multiple time they are doing a great job. I was inspections manager for 9 months, inorder to be around for that long I most likely was under performing the entire time so why wasnt I at the very least told that I had started to under perform before my firing?

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor,

Before I move to Opening statements, I wish for you to reconsider the striking of my evidence now that relaxed has recused himself for bias.

I believe he made this decision with his bias. He realized that rule 4.6 was not being inforced and decided to derail my case in order to set precedent to help address this problem.

The Bias comes from the COI and the unequal rulings between my evidence and the defenses witness list. Rule 4.6 was created and implemented when Relaxed and the defense's representation Nacho were both in the Supreme court together. It is even hinted by the Defense in their response to my motion to reconsider.

Relaxed struck my evidence for having the incorrect PNG name but has allowed the Defense to provide half their witness list during their opening statements even after I brought up the concern that I might need to provide evidence for cross examination depending on the witnesses and this harms my ability to try this case. These decisions as you can see have been clearly one sided with strickness against me, harming my case and
leniency for the defense which also harms my case

I understand that rule 4.6 is a court rule but I am being punished when not a single other practicing attorney (Attorney General Included) has been following this rule since it was created. I fixed the issue when it was brought up to my attention but Relaxed still decided to strike it.

The only reason I am asking you to reconsider is because I believe the same bias that relaxed recused himself of is the same bias that caused him to strike my evidence.

Upon review of this motion, I will deny the request to un-strike the previously stricken evidence. The evidence seen in the screenshot below is stricken and will remain stricken from the case.

I do this for 3 reasons.

1- Firstly, it would undermine the previous presiding officers authority to reverse their decision this far down the road in this case and would arguably be grounds for a mistrial.

2- There is no denying that the law is black and white on this matter. The evidence was submitted in a format that does not meet the requirements laid out plain as day in the law, regardless of how this has been administered previously in other cases. I cannot attest to the other cases but in my courtroom the law will be obeyed.

3- However that being said, I will allow this additional evidence to remain unstricken from the record as seen here.

As you can see, the plaintiff did upload this evidence with the proper formatting.

Per rule 4.2 “All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission. Material must have been included within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible and the argument can be voided by the presiding judge.”

Normally, I would rule to strike the evidence if it were provided in a response to a motion as that is not a listed area in which to include evidence, however this was not labeled as a response to a motion, it was simply a response in the case and therefore will be accepted as a discovery submission.

Furthermore rule 4.6 (A) says “

• At any point and anytime during discovery, either party is allowed to make a material submission of discovery and enter it into the case.”

As this post was made prior to the expiration of discovery, and in the proper format, this evidence will be allowed to remain and be used in legal arguments.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

The state would like to request clarification as to where we are at within the case. Currently I am of the understanding that the Plaintiff has missed their deadline extension given by the previous presiding officer.

However, did not note a formal notice for us to present our opening statements. Could the state be provided with an update as to who is currently needing to draft their opening statements.

 

[ko531]

Your Honor,

I am just waiting on a ruling for the Defense's Motion to Dismiss. Once a ruling has been made I will have my Opening Statements posted ASAP.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

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 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 disagree with this, they were adequately notified of the reason for this dismissal as cited by the Secretary of Construction and Transportation; the Plaintiff was further allowed 24 hours to be able to context this termination with the department and choose to leave the discord and then return and file this suit.

As demonstrated within this thread, the Plaintiff is going on a witch hunt, as some may describe in their crusade, to attempt to gain monetarily from a simple dismissal. The Plaintiff is directly arguing against the chair in not liking how the case they brought before the court. The Plaintiff has further demonstrated that they have failed to understand the simple procedures of the court and intends to simply move to a different judge each time they don't get a ruling they like.

However, the facts of the case remain. The Commonwealth did, in fact, provide a reason for the dismissal within D-11. The Plaintiff was terminated for poor job performance. They also insinuate within their original complaint, which this court has determined to be false, that they were fired without reason from the Building Inspector. We further have proven that the Plaintiff was promoted from their position within the department, thus leaving the former role of Building Inspector altogether. This point alone removes the only claim they have of 'unfair dismissal' as the only one they mentioned being provided no reason for. When, in fact, they did not hold that position but rather was an Inspection Manager.

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 with prejudice.

This motion to dismiss is denied. I see the point that you are trying to make, however according to rule 5.5 "A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against a claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge". There was a proper claim for relief made, and the plaintiff has provided evidence to support their claims. Seeing as how both sides have provided evidence to support their side of the case, I believe that this should come down to a verdict, and not a dismissal. In times where it is at the very least arguable that the plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence to support their claim, I lean towards a verdict over a dismissal.

Furthermore, the previous presiding officer has already ruled on several motions to dismiss for similar reasons and recognized that the case has merits, and I tend to agree. Seeing as how it is not as cut and dry as there was, or was not a notification with a reason for dismissal, this case is arguing whether or not that notification and reasoning is sufficient to meet the requirements of "unfair dismissal".

That being said, this case is moving forward. The plaintiff's time for an opening statement has expired, however considering the multiple contempt charges that have already been applied and the changing of the presiding officer, I feel it is not out of line to allow another 2-hour extension if both parties agree. Along with my request that the plaintiff provide their opening statements ASAP if possible. Is this agreeable?

 

[Nacho]

Objection - Breach of Procedure

Your Honor,

We believe the previous Presiding Judge's extension to the Plaintiff has come and gone. The state would like to request that we skip the Plaintiff's opening statement and move on to our opening statement. This is a clear-cut disregard for the court's directive and granted time frame to post their opening statement. The Plaintiff also noted that, on multiple occasions, they refused to post their opening statements. It's approaching the 4-day mark of pending an opening statement by the Plaintiff.

 

[ko531]

OPENING STATEMENTS

In this case you will see evidence and hear witness testimony and you should come to the conclusion that My Dismissal was unfair. Why you may ask? Because I was never given the opportunity to succeed. My reason for my dismissal was vague in the fact that they never gave any details as to their reason, only stating“you weren't doing what was asked”. This along with the conversations or lack of conversations with my former employer and the dissimilarity between my dismissal and ones of the past. you should see that my dismissal is unfair.

First let's talk about what “you weren't doing what was asked” means. The Defense and I have both agreed so far in this case that it means Poor Job Performance. Now no employee is perfect, they can't always see what they are doing right or wrong which is why communication is important between an employee and their boss. What were my conversations like when talking about job performance with my boss Vroomba? They were all high praise as you can see in P-2 and P-3 including enough confidence in me to replace him as Secretary. That is about the highest praise you can receive from a boss. What you won't find is a conversation prior to my dismissal telling me that I am under performing. As someone who was in the position for about 9 months serving under 5 different Secretaries you would think I had earned the courtesy to have this conversation if I were to under perform.

You can see in P-2 about a month before I was fired I was doing so much in my job that DCT Secretary Vroomba wanted to reduce my workload. Somehow within a month's time I went from doing too much to doing too little. Again when I was doing a good job I was told on multiple occasions yet when I started, in Vroomba’s eyes, to underperform I was never even given a heads up.

You will also see that this firing was harsher than any other firing of a Inspections Manager in the past calendar year. The previous 3 inspections managers (Galavance, Sergecool and SimplyHarci) all had jobs to return to inside the department. Galavance and Sergecool went back to constructors and SimplyHarci went back to being a Building Inspector but I was fired completely out of the department. Now I cant confirm for sure but I believe that I am the longest standing Inspections Manager in department history which you can’t do by under performing the entire time so it’s safe to assume that I was doing a great job. So why would the DCT not want to keep one of the better Inspections Managers in department history in the department?

As I move forward with this case you will see that the constant praise and zero informing of under performing along with both the vagueness of the reason and the questionableness of my firing compared to the previous inspections managers that I had no chance to stay in the DCT. It almost seems They were waiting to fire me. How can a person stop under performing when they are only told “Good Job”? And why was my dismissal harsher than any in recent history? These are the questions that if left unanswered would leave any reasonable person to believe my dismissal was unfair.

 

[ko531]

Objection - Breach of Procedure

Your Honor,

We believe the previous Presiding Judge's extension to the Plaintiff has come and gone. The state would like to request that we skip the Plaintiff's opening statement and move on to our opening statement. This is a clear-cut disregard for the court's directive and granted time frame to post their opening statement. The Plaintiff also noted that, on multiple occasions, they refused to post their opening statements. It's approaching the 4-day mark of pending an opening statement by the Plaintiff.

RESPONSE TO MOTION

Your Honor, even though the extension has ended I can not properly write an opening statement when there is evidence being considered. I should not be punished for the time it takes the commonwealth to respond to my motion and for the time it takes you to rule on said Motion. It is important to understand what evidence I can use in my opening statement and by forcing me to write my opening statement while there is an active motion on evidence would harm my ability to try my case.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Objection - Breach of Procedure

Your Honor,

We believe the previous Presiding Judge's extension to the Plaintiff has come and gone. The state would like to request that we skip the Plaintiff's opening statement and move on to our opening statement. This is a clear-cut disregard for the court's directive and granted time frame to post their opening statement. The Plaintiff also noted that, on multiple occasions, they refused to post their opening statements. It's approaching the 4-day mark of pending an opening statement by the Plaintiff.

Seeing as how the opening statements have already been posted, I will deny this motion.

I am sure that the Commonwealth will agree that the priority here is making sure that the correct judgment is made on any and all cases, and that given the turbulence this case has had, that a minor delay is worth it to ensure the case is heard in its entirety.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

OPENING STATEMENTS

In this case you will see evidence and hear witness testimony and you should come to the conclusion that My Dismissal was unfair. Why you may ask? Because I was never given the opportunity to succeed. My reason for my dismissal was vague in the fact that they never gave any details as to their reason, only stating“you weren't doing what was asked”. This along with the conversations or lack of conversations with my former employer and the dissimilarity between my dismissal and ones of the past. you should see that my dismissal is unfair.

First let's talk about what “you weren't doing what was asked” means. The Defense and I have both agreed so far in this case that it means Poor Job Performance. Now no employee is perfect, they can't always see what they are doing right or wrong which is why communication is important between an employee and their boss. What were my conversations like when talking about job performance with my boss Vroomba? They were all high praise as you can see in P-2 and P-3 including enough confidence in me to replace him as Secretary. That is about the highest praise you can receive from a boss. What you won't find is a conversation prior to my dismissal telling me that I am under performing. As someone who was in the position for about 9 months serving under 5 different Secretaries you would think I had earned the courtesy to have this conversation if I were to under perform.

You can see in P-2 about a month before I was fired I was doing so much in my job that DCT Secretary Vroomba wanted to reduce my workload. Somehow within a month's time I went from doing too much to doing too little. Again when I was doing a good job I was told on multiple occasions yet when I started, in Vroomba’s eyes, to underperform I was never even given a heads up.

You will also see that this firing was harsher than any other firing of a Inspections Manager in the past calendar year. The previous 3 inspections managers (Galavance, Sergecool and SimplyHarci) all had jobs to return to inside the department. Galavance and Sergecool went back to constructors and SimplyHarci went back to being a Building Inspector but I was fired completely out of the department. Now I cant confirm for sure but I believe that I am the longest standing Inspections Manager in department history which you can’t do by under performing the entire time so it’s safe to assume that I was doing a great job. So why would the DCT not want to keep one of the better Inspections Managers in department history in the department?

As I move forward with this case you will see that the constant praise and zero informing of under performing along with both the vagueness of the reason and the questionableness of my firing compared to the previous inspections managers that I had no chance to stay in the DCT. It almost seems They were waiting to fire me. How can a person stop under performing when they are only told “Good Job”? And why was my dismissal harsher than any in recent history? These are the questions that if left unanswered would leave any reasonable person to believe my dismissal was unfair.

Thank you,

We will now move to the defendants opening statement.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Defense will have 72 hours to post their opening statements.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

The state will have to request a 12-hour extension due to scheduling conflicts with personal matters happening IRL.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Your Honor,

The state will have to request a 12-hour extension due to scheduling conflicts with personal matters happening IRL.

Seeing as how we have granted extensions for the plaintiff, we will allow this one as well.

Thanks.

 

[Nacho]

OPENING STATEMENTS

Your Honor,

In this case, the plaintiff presented a narrative suggesting their dismissal was unfair, primarily due to a lack of communication and vague reasoning. However, the facts paint a different picture. The plaintiff claims they were dismissed without a clear explanation and were only told, "you weren't doing what was asked." Yet, the evidence will show that this statement is not as vague as the plaintiff suggests. It directly addresses their failure to meet job expectations.

Furthermore, the plaintiff references past conversations with their former boss, Vroomba, indicating high praise. We do not dispute that the plaintiff sometimes received praise for their work. However, performance can vary over time, and occasional praise does not negate ongoing performance issues. The plaintiff served under five different Secretaries within nine months, which suggests instability and potential difficulties in maintaining consistent performance standards.

The claim that the plaintiff was doing too much and then suddenly too little is also misleading. Changes in workload and performance expectations are common in dynamic work environments. Vroomba's workload adjustments were an attempt to optimize departmental efficiency, not an indication of the plaintiff's success or failure.

The plaintiff also asserts that their dismissal was harsher than their predecessors, who were reassigned within the department. However, the specifics of each case are unique, and the decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment was based on their performance and conduct.

The plaintiff has suggested that their right to fair treatment was violated, implying a lack of due process in their dismissal. Understanding that the Commonwealth of Redmont operates under clear employment laws protecting employees and employers is essential. According to the Constitution, a Secretary can terminate employment based on poor job performance.

The law (Commercial Standards Act) does not mandate that every instance of underperformance must be preceded by a formal warning, especially in cases where the overall performance pattern is unsatisfactory. While open communication is encouraged, it is not legally required to provide multiple warnings if the employer determines that the employee's performance is detrimental to the department’s function.

In this case, the decision to dismiss the plaintiff was made following a comprehensive evaluation of their performance. The action was executed by the Secretary of Construction and Transportation, and notice was provided.

During this trial, we will present you with clear evidence and witness testimony that demonstrates the actions taken by the Commonwealth of Redmont were both justified and necessary. We will show performance records indicating the plaintiff's failure to fulfill their responsibilities effectively. Witnesses, including former colleagues and Secretaries, will testify about the plaintiff's inconsistent performance and its impact on the department. We will further provide the reason and rationale behind the termination.

In conclusion, we ask you to consider the evidence impartially and recognize that the decision to terminate the plaintiff’s employment was made in the department's best interest and in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Redmont. We are confident that you will see the rationale behind this decision and understand that it was neither unjust nor unfounded.

 

[Nacho]

Seeing as how we have granted extensions for the plaintiff, we will allow this one as well.

Thanks.

Your Honor,

I had not seen your message and rushed to get this put together and finalized, as I didn't wish to be late for a response.

 

[ko531]

MOTION TO STRIKE

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).

The Defense was allowed to provide 2 members of their witness list during their opening statements which they has failed to do so I motion to strike theses witnesses.

I am already being harmed by the defense being allowed to submit their witnesses this late as I can not provide evidence for cross examination and the longer I have to wait the less amount of time I have to properly prepare for these witnesses. The defense has already been given so much leniency by having the ability to submit their witness list during opening statements which they havent done. In order to avoid my ability to try this case to be further harmed these witnesses must be struck.

 

[Nacho]

MOTION TO STRIKE

The Defense was allowed to provide 2 members of their witness list during their opening statements which they has failed to do so I motion to strike theses witnesses.

I am already being harmed by the defense being allowed to submit their witnesses this late as I can not provide evidence for cross examination and the longer I have to wait the less amount of time I have to properly prepare for these witnesses. The defense has already been given so much leniency by having the ability to submit their witness list during opening statements which they havent done. In order to avoid my ability to try this case to be further harmed these witnesses must be struck.

Your Honor,

We didn't submit the witnesses because we didn't need them, so there is nothing to strike. We did not submit the witness out of care and consideration for the Plaintiff, who we knew would just complain the whole time about it.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

MOTION TO STRIKE

The Defense was allowed to provide 2 members of their witness list during their opening statements which they has failed to do so I motion to strike theses witnesses.

I am already being harmed by the defense being allowed to submit their witnesses this late as I can not provide evidence for cross examination and the longer I have to wait the less amount of time I have to properly prepare for these witnesses. The defense has already been given so much leniency by having the ability to submit their witness list during opening statements which they havent done. In order to avoid my ability to try this case to be further harmed these witnesses must be struck.

As the defense stated, they opted not to call those witnesses, therefore there is nothing to strike. Overruled.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

That being said, we will move onto witness testimony.

I will issue summons shortly starting with the plaintiffs witness.

Just to confirm I am not missing anything, the plaintiff is only calling Vroomba as a witness?

And the defense is not calling witnesses 4-7, just 1, 2 and 3?

 

[ko531]

Yes Your Honor. I only called Vroomba

 

[Nacho]

That being said, we will move onto witness testimony.

I will issue summons shortly starting with the plaintiffs witness.

Just to confirm I am not missing anything, the plaintiff is only calling Vroomba as a witness?

And the defense is not calling witnesses 4-7, just 1, 2 and 3?

Yes, your honor, that is correct. I did not realize you were asking a clarifying question.

 

[Dartanboy]

By 3-0 SCR decision, this case has been declared a mistrial as Magistrates are not permitted to rule in FCR cases.

I believe the Plaintiff has already re-filed.