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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 

Motion


MOTION TO RECUSE

This case has been in recess pending verdict for one month and 15 days.

 
Superwoops said:

Motion


MOTION TO RECUSE

This case has been in recess pending verdict for one month and 15 days.

Click to expand...
The Defense concurs with the motion.
 
Hello all, I have taken over this case.

Court is still in recess pending verdict.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
RaiTheGuy07 v. Department of Homeland Security - [2025] FCR 21
Civil Action

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION

  1. The Plaintiff was terminated unjustly by the department.
  2. This termination did not follow department policy, thus it was unjust under the law.
  3. The Plaintiff was unjustly arrested for consented killings.
  4. The termination and arrest damaged the Plaintiff’s reputation.
II. DEFENDANT’S POSITION
  1. The Constitution allows Secretaries the right to appoint and dismiss at their pleasure.
  2. Consent to murder was not given as /police consent was not run.
  3. The statements by the department were in fact true, so they could not have been defamatory.
  4. The Plaintiff’s reputation was not harmed, and could have actually been enhanced by the termination.
III. THE COURT OPINION
First we must unpack the legality of the murders, as this determines the arrest and termination.
  • The Plaintiff has made a persuasive argument that the consent to murder can happen verbally, and indeed in 2023 - FCR 63 while it is a slander case, both parties and the court agreed that consent was given verbally. Given that the killings in this case were given verbal consent, along with the evidence provided - namely P-008 - this court agrees with the Plaintiff that these killings were indeed legal and does not count as murder.
  • If the killings were legal, then the arrest was unjustified.
Next, on defamation. I have seen no evidence that shows that the reputation or public image was harmed by the actions of the department. Just because something is public knowledge (whether accurate or not) does not automatically make it defamatory.

Finally onto the termination. This court agrees that Secretaries have the right to appoint or dismiss their employees, but recall the ruling on the motion to dismiss earlier, that this is subject to further regulation outside of the Constitution. The Department made their own regulation to follow. Specifically in the Department Homeland Security’s Code of Conduct it states:
The Secretary has a right to terminate any employee as they see fit, as long as the termination is done fairly, justly, properly, and without bias.
Click to expand...
As the reason for the termination was the legal killings, the termination is indeed unjust by policy and law.

IV. DECISION
  1. I hereby rule in favor of the Plaintiff and grant the following relief:
    1. RaiTheGuy07 is found not guilty for the murders of Doc, IamJeb_, and Argen_Lee, and the associated criminal records are expunged.
    2. $1,500 in compensatory damages to the Plaintiff for time spent in jail.
    3. $20,000 in punitive damages for the wrongful termination.
    4. $6,450 in legal fees awarded to the counsel of the Plaintiff.
    5. Reinstatement of the Plaintiff as a Recruit, unless rejected by the Plaintiff.
    6. This court shall not grant any emotional or loss of enjoyment damages.
    7. This court shall not grant any sort of public apology as they did not defame the Plaintiff.

The Federal Court thanks all involved. This Court is now Adjourned.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top