Lawsuit: Pending Sergecool v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 99

[dodrio3]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Sergecool(Lovely Law Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I. PARTIES
1. Sergecool - Plaintiff
2. Commonwealth of Redmont - Defendant
3. Nacho - DCT Secretary
4. Cjcroft - Witness
5. Reaperay - Witness
6. Simplyharci - Witness

II. FACTS
1. Sergecool worked on two projects for the DCT single-handedly and didn't receive any payment for his work despite requests made to the secretary.
2. Sergecool was unlawfully dismissed from the DCT while on an states leave of absence for the Department of construction of transport which was not denied and their for valid within the department
3. The DCT is obligated to compensate its employees for their work on DCT projects.
4. These proceedings caused stress for Sergecool while trying to resolve payment and employment issues with the DCT.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Department of Construction and Transport failed to pay Serge Cool for his work on the offshore projects and Chinatown totalling hundreds of hours.
2. The Department of Construction and Transport caused unnecessary stress to Serge Cool due to false removal and failure to compensate him for his work.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Commonwealth to paid $30,000 in Damages for the Manual labour performed by Serge Cool for the DCT where no payment was received.
2. $10,000 for the opportunity costs and interest Sergecool could have made with the $30,000 he never received
3. $10,000 in loss of enjoyment of Redmont due to the stress this cause Sergecool
4. 20% of the overall value of this case equalling $10,000 in legal fees which the Lovely Law Firm will charge

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 16 day of 11 2023

 

[RelaxedGV]

Before I issue summons, how long was Sergecool gone for and when did it start & end?

 

[dodrio3]

Approximately 2 months you're honor, my client became seriously ill.

 

[RelaxedGV]

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

@Neemfy is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Sergecool 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 Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honor,
I have been assigned this case. May I request an extension for our answer to the complaint.
Thank you.
Your Honor.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Extension granted, you have 24 hours to provide an Answer to Complaint.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Sergecool(Lovely Law Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. The defense AFFIRMS that Sergecool worked on two projects for the DCT
2. The defense DISPUTES that Sergecool was unlawfully dismissed from the DCT while on an states leave of absence for the Department of construction of transport which was not denied and their for valid within the department
3. The defense DISPUTES that The DCT is obligated to compensate its employees for their work on DCT projects.
4. The defense DISPUTES that these proceedings caused stress for Sergecool.

II Defenses

1. According to DCT policy in order to take a leave of absence an employee must announce a return by date. This allows the DCT to ensure each project has adequate help and keep tabs on who is currently active inside of the DCT. further more due to serge cools unauthorized leave some of the projects he complains he didn't get paid for were unfinished and had to be finished by other builders.
2. According to DCT policy it is up to the discretion of the DCT secretary to decide who gets paid and how much they get paid for each project. Since Sergcool left without proper permission, and got terminated before his projects were completed, his projects did not qualify for payment by the DCT.

III. witnesses

1. Nacholebraa (DCT Secretary)

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 20th day of November 2023

 

[RelaxedGV]

Thank you, we will move onto Opening Statements. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide an Opening Statement.

 

[dodrio3]

Objection

You're honour the projects that Sergecool was working on were canceled by the DCT while they were amidst construction.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Which part are you objecting to?

 

[dodrio3]

The projects weren't completed because of the Leave of Absence

 

[RelaxedGV]

The Defense has 24 hours to provide a response to the objection or declare they wish to not.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

The Defense has 24 hours to provide a response to the objection or declare they wish to not.

Objection

You're honour the projects that Sergecool was working on were canceled by the DCT while they were amidst construction.

The plaintiff has supplied no substantial proof that is the case. Further more the reason for the incompletion of the projects is irrelevant, what is relevent is that the projects were incomplete and therefor should not be paid for.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Apologies for the late response. The Objection is overruled. Given there was no evidence to support the Objection nor substantial reasoning to strike the statement.

We will now be moving onto Opening Statements, the Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide an Opening Statement.

 

[dodrio3]

Opening Statement

Your Honour,

The Department of Construction and Transport failed to pay for all of the hours upon hours of work Sergecool did working on multiple of their projects which were cancelled by the secretary at the time. The defence claims that the claim was false. We have written proof from a past secretary that this is not a valid argument and that the defence are making facts up to support their side of the case (Exhibit A). The defence also states that the project that Sergecool didn't complete were due to Sergecool leaving the Department of Construction and Transport but the Department of Construction and Transport cancelled the project which he has put work into not due to him being unlawfully fired from the Department of Construction and Transport. Even if the projects were left unfinished by Sergecool, the Department still owes Sergecool payment for the work that he did put into the projects and for the foundation he laid on the projects which would allow someone else to come and take over the project.

Exhibit A

 

[RelaxedGV]

Thank you, the Defendant has 72 hours to provide their Opening Statement.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honor,
Opposing counsel,
This is simply a case of following rules.
When we look at the facts layed before us we can see the following:

1. The plaintiff did not follow the rules set by the dct in terms of proper leave of absense

2. The plaintiff did not follow the dct's rules on project completion

3. The plaintiff is not privy to the rules of dct's payment.

Throughout his entire tenure at the dct the plaintiff has demonstrated a lack of awareness and appreciation of the rules and guidlines set in place by the dct leadership.

While working for the dct payment is given at the discretion of the DCT secretary

The plaintiffs lack of rule following mixed incompletion of their builds would warrent the leaderships discretion of nonpayment.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Thank you, we will move onto Opening Statements. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide theirs.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Apologies, I mean witnesses.

 

[dodrio3]

I wish to call cjcroft to the stand

 

[Snowy_Heart]

I wish to call nacholebraa up to the stand.

 

[RelaxedGV]

@Nacho @cjcroft is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Sergecool v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 99 as a witness.

Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions and may also be cross-examined.

The Court asks that all questions be provided to witnesses in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. Once the witnesses have declared themselves present, the Plaintiff may begin with questions to their witnesses.
(Read the highlighted part thoroughly, as it is often misunderstood)

I am hereby informing each witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies, subject to the penalties of perjury.

The Witnesses are to identify themselves in this case thread in the next 72 hours. Failure to comply with this summons may result in being held in Contempt of Court.​

 

[cjcroft]

Present, your honour.

 

[Nacho]

Present

 

[RelaxedGV]

Alright, the Plaintiff may start questioning cjcroft. Please provide questions within 72 hours.

 

[dodrio3]

cjcroft

1. Can you confirm that you were a previous security of the DCT?

2. should be payed for anymore that you do government or not?

3. What was the policy of LOA of the DCT while you were DCT Secretary

4. What was the payment policy for projects while you were Secretary

5. Can you confirm that the offshore projects Sergecool worked on were canceled and he didn't receive payment

Nacholebraa

1. should be payed for anymore that you do government or not?



2. State the policy of LOA of the DCT current if thier isn't one express it


3. What is the exact policy for payment for constructors in the DCT

4. Would you expect payment if you worked on a DCT project for hundreds of hours

5. Can you confirm that the offshore projects Sergecool worked on were canceled and he didn't receive payment

 

[RelaxedGV]

Nacholebraa's questions will be stricken from the record given they are the Defendant's Witness. You may ask them once cross examination of Nacholebraa begins.

 

[cjcroft]

My answers to the questions asked:

1. Yes I was indeed the DCT Secretary for a few months.

2. I am assuming this question refers to project payments in which case yes, project payments have been separate to the standard government wage.

3. To be completely honest with you, i can’t recall as I have since moved on from both the DCT and the server. However, what I do remember is that during a leave of absence the employee should not be fired for a lack of activity on projects, hence why it is called a leave of absence and that it exists.

4. Payment policy at my time for projects was under the discretion of the Secretary; while the defence is indeed correct with this point, I invite Nacho and the DCT to question their motives of firing an employee WITHOUT paying them for their progress, is this moral to do?

5. I no longer have access to DCT construction project channels so I am unaware to confirm that they were cancelled, however what I can confirm is that he had worked on the Chinatown project during my leadership; while evidence would be present of his involvement in construction projects,

during my time of absence evidence with each constructor’s project completion figure were strangely removed as seen with the screenshot I have provided.

 

[cjcroft]

Screenshot referenced from the 5th August 2023