Lawsuit: In Session RaiTheGuy07 v. Department of Homeland Security [2025] FCR 21

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER OF THE COURT

The defendant may now submit their cross-examination questions for the witness, @MasterAshim. Both parties are bound by the following timelines:

1. The defendant must submit their questions within 48 hours of the issuance of this order if an extension is not granted.
2. The witness listed above must answer these questions within 48 hours of their submitting to the court.

Dated this 28th of April, 2025.

@AmityBlamity
 
Greetings. Following the resignation of the Honourable ColonelKai, I will be taking over this case.

As the Defendant has not submitted their cross-examination for the witness, and the Defendant has not requested any witnesses, we shall move on to closing statements.

Plaintiff, you have 72 hours to submit your closing statement to the Court.
 
juniperfig said:
Greetings. Following the resignation of the Honourable ColonelKai, I will be taking over this case.

As the Defendant has not submitted their cross-examination for the witness, and the Defendant has not requested any witnesses, we shall move on to closing statements.

Plaintiff, you have 72 hours to submit your closing statement to the Court.
Click to expand...
Your honour, may I request a 5-hour extension?
 

Closing Statement



Your honour,
We have been brought different topics that are important to address here today. The first of these is the matter of consent. Our overall argument on this is that if it looks like a duck, then it's probably consent.
What does this mean? RaiTheGuy07 received verbal consent to kill two individuals. In fact, these two had expressly stated that they had turned on police consent through the plugin, which is the most common way of giving consent nowadays.
The matter of fact is, something went wrong, and the system registered the killings as without consent. Is this relevant?
No. It's not relevant because my client had previously received express verbal consent to kill these individuals. If you look at P-008, the DHS Secretary states that if someone kills someone and it's accidentally counted as murder, you must make sure to have evidence of the person killed giving consent to ensure it doesn't go on their criminal record (a.k.a. it is not counted as a murder). This validates our claim that verbal consent is valid, because as I explained in my opening statement, the plugin did not replace all types of consent. Things can fail. Stating that one has turned consent on implies that one is consenting to the murder (P-001, P-002, and witness testimony)
Furthermore, the plugin is useless if one doesn't want to consent to all murders. Verbal consent is useful (and valid) in these scenarios when one only wants to be killed by one specific individual, and not consent to all murders (P-011)
The third killing of Argen_Lee is different, but still not murder. He accidentally killed him in self defense, as they were having a fistfight and Argen_Lee (unbeknownst to RaiTheGuy) was low on health. Argen_Lee admitted this in the DHS ticket later on, as well as during the detective's interview.

The Constitution grants Secretaries the authority to hire and fire employees. This means that Secretaries are able, have the power, the ability, etc. to hire and fire them, but does not give them the ability to do so disregarding the law, specifically the Commercial Standards Act. They are able to do so, but must act within reasonable standards. The Court has sided against immunity in this specific case, too. The reason for my client's termination has been proven false, and Ko531 v. Department of Health showed that if a Department fails to handle a termination according to their statutory procedure for dismissal, then the dismissal is unjust.

The Commonwealth's claim that the termination was valid solely relies on the supposition that these killings were murders. Today, I've shown that they were not, therefore the termination was not justified. As a result of this unjustified termination, my client has suffered greatly. His job, which allowed him to fulfill his duty and his passion for putting the actual criminals behind bars, was violently taken from him. My client was known for his hard work while at the DHS, hard work that fulfilled him. This was taken from him, and for this, we ask the court to side with the Plaintiff. Thank you.

 
The Defendant has 72 hours to submit their closing statement to the court.
 
I will be taking over this case following the (Frmr.) Honourable Judge juniperfig's untimely resignation. All deadlines will remain in effect.
 
Dr_Eksplosive said:
I will be taking over this case following the (Frmr.) Honourable Judge juniperfig's untimely resignation. All deadlines will remain in effect.
Click to expand...
Respectfully requesting a 24 hour extension due to unexpected real-life issues.
 

Closing Statement


Your Honor,
Allow me to address the arguments presented by the Plaintiff in these closing arguments. Firstly, regarding consent. We have already proven, and the defense has admitted, that murder consent was not enabled during these killings. Despite whatever intentions the victims may have had, their opinion does not matter in this scenario. Murder is murder. It is an unlawful action, one the plaintiff was already punished for, and this one he knew the consequences of. He chose to play fast and loose with the law, and lost.

The rationale behind these killings is also incredibly suspect. In the case of IAmJeb_, the plaintiff killed him for a bounty. In the case of Argan_Lee, the plaintiff employed excessive, lethal force in a situation which did not demand it. These are not qualities befitting a police officer, and the Secretary was well within their rights to fire the plaintiff.

Plaintiff's argument that they were an effective officer prior to this is also suspect. Plaintiff's counsel chose to retract a question regarding his job performance. This leads me to two conclusions: either plaintiff did not want this information on the record, or there was no information to share, good or bad. Either conclusion does not bode well for the plaintiff's claim that they were an exemplary officer.

Your Honor, this entire case has been nothing more than a disgruntled, disgraced ex-employee who, rather than own up to their criminal activities, instead decided to try and muddy the reputation of their former employer. They violated the Code of Conduct they willingly agreed to, and were punished for it. Nothing more. Nothing less. We humbly request you rule in favour of the Defense, and deny the plaintiff these frivolous claims for relief.

Thank you for your time.

 
Thank you. Court is hereby in recess pending verdict.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top