Lawsuit: Pending T04DS74 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 65

[ToadKing]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


T04DS74 (aka ToadKing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

I was minding my own business when I was suddenly fired from the Department of Justice (DOJ) as a State Prosecutor. This termination came without any prior warning whatsoever. Throughout my entire tenure at the Department of Justice, I had never received any previous warnings for misconduct or performance issues. The sudden dismissal was completely unexpected and without justification, leaving me shocked and confused about the basis for my termination. This arbitrary action has caused me significant harm both financially and personally.

I. PARTIES
1. T04DS74
2. Gribble19 (Attorney General)
3. Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. On or about 16th May, 2025, Plaintiff was hired as a State Prosecutor by then Attorney General, Juniperfig, who actively recruited Plaintiff, stating: "I'd want you as a prosecutor [...] you would be a total asset." (P-001)
2. During Plaintiff's employment in May 2025, Plaintiff received total compensation of $7,836, paid in three instalments (P-003):

• $3,500 on 18th May
• $3,500 on 30th May
• $836 on 31st May

3. Throughout Plaintiff's tenure, Plaintiff provided exemplary service, including legal input in numerous cases and investigations for the DOJ.
4. Plaintiff successfully helped defend the Commonwealth in the case of MrFluffy2U94 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 58, demonstrating competent legal representation.
5. Plaintiff consistently recused from cases that would cause conflicts of interest.
6. Throughout the month of June 2025, Plaintiff performed duties as State Prosecutor but received no compensation from the Defendant.
7. On June 26, 2025, at approximately 19:10:59 (UTC+1), Plaintiff was terminated from employment by "Gribble19" stating only "DOJ » You have been fired as a State Prosecutor!"(P-002)
8. Plaintiff received no prior notice, warning, explanation, or opportunity to respond to any allegations or performance concerns.
9. Plaintiff was given no opportunity to understand the basis for termination or to defend against any charges.
10. The termination was sudden, unexplained, and conducted without due process.
11. The Attorney General has the sole power to hire/fire people within the DOJ.
12. On 29th June, 2025, Plaintiff was paid $10,000 by the Department of Justice for duties performed during June 2025, representing Plaintiff's monthly salary and bonuses for completed cases.
13. On 1st July, 2025, five days after termination, Plaintiff was provided with the first and only explanation for the termination: "You seriously breached department policy which resulted in your immediate dismissal." and that "Ur dismissal was not unjust and was in line with department policy"
14. This explanation provided no details about which specific policy was allegedly breached, what conduct constituted the alleged breach, or when the alleged breach occurred.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Unfair Dismissal:
1. Defendant's termination of Plaintiff constitutes unfair dismissal in violation of Section 13(1) of the Commercial Standards Act.
2. The termination was unjust as it failed to meet the criteria established in Section 13(1)(a)-(d), specifically failing to demonstrate financial necessity, detriment to business operations, or legitimate cause.
3. The summary dismissal without notice or explanation violates fundamental principles of fair employment practices.

Constitutional Violation:
4. Defendant's actions violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights under Section 32(13) of the Constitution, which guarantees: "Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination"
5. The arbitrary and unexplained termination denied the Plaintiff due process and equal treatment under the law.
6. Defendant failed to afford Plaintiff the same procedural protections and fair treatment that would be expected for any government employee.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. Consequential Damages: Damages for Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont under Section 7(1)(III) of the Legal Damages Act, specifically for the loss of ability to practice law on behalf of the Commonwealth, capped at $50,000 as provided by law.

2. Punitive Damages: $100,000 in punitive damages under Section 5 of the Legal Damages Act for the DOJ's outrageous conduct in summarily terminating Plaintiff without warning, explanation, or due process, demonstrating a callous disregard for basic employment rights and constitutional protections.

3. A formal written apology from the Defendant, acknowledging the improper termination and violation of the Plaintiff's rights.

4. 30% legal fees as provided under Section 9 of the Legal Damages Act.

EVIDENCE:

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

WITNESSES:
1. Juniperfig
2. Gribble19

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 26th day of June 2025

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@gribble19 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of T04ds74 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 65

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.

 

[gribble19]

Your Honor, the Commonwealth is present.

 

[ko531]

Your Honor, the Commonwealth is present.

You have 48 hours to provide your answer to complaint.

 

[gribble19]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

T04DS74
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defendant AFFIRMS that Plaintiff was hired as a State Prosecutor by then Attorney General, Juniperfig, on May 16 2025.
2. The Defendant lacks information or knowledge to form a belief about the truth of Juniperfig actively recruiting Plaintiff by stating “I’d want you as a prosecutor [...] you would be a total asset.” and therefore DENIES this.
3. The Defendant AFFIRMS that Plaintiff received total compensation of $7,836 from the Department of Justice during May 2025, in the three installments as specified in the Complaint.
4.The Defendant AFFIRMS that Plaintiff provided legal input in numerous cases and investigations for the DOJ during their tenure.
5. Whether this provided legal input was “exemplary” is an opinion rather than a fact. Defendant therefore DENIES this.
6. The Defendant AFFIRMS that Plaintiff consistently recused from cases that would cause conflicts of interest.
7. The Defendant AFFIRMS that Plaintiff successfully helped defend the Commonwealth in FCR 58.
8. Whether this defense demonstrates competent legal representation is an opinion rather than a fact. Defendant therefore DENIES this.
9. The Defendant DENIES that Plaintiff received no compensation from the Defendant for their duties performed during June 2025. The Plaintiff was paid their monthly salary, as well as their bonus for their completed cases on the 29th of June 2025. This is the same date on which all other employees and former employees, who left the department during the month of June 2025 and were still owed compensation, of the Department of Justice were paid their monthly salaries as well as their bonuses for the month of June 2025. The Plaintiff was paid a total sum of $10,000 by the Department of Justice for their duties performed during June 2025.
10. The Defendant AFFIRMS that Plaintiff was terminated from Employment on June 26th 2025 at approximately 19:10:59 (UTC+1) by Gribble19.
11. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the automated message sent by the plugin upon firing stated “DOJ » You have been fired as a State Prosecutor!”
12. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the Plaintiff received no prior notice, warning, explanation or opportunity to respond to any allegations or performance concerns.
13. The Defendant DENIES that the Plaintiff was given no opportunity to understand the basis for termination, as the Plaintiff could have either reached out to the Attorney General privately or have opened a ticket with the Department of Justice to ask for the basis of their termination.
14. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the Plaintiff was not given the opportunity to defend against any charges, as no formal charges have currently been laid against Plaintiff.
15. The Defendant AFFIRMS that Plaintiff’s termination was sudden and unexplained.
16. The Defendant DENIES that Plaintiff’s termination was conducted without due process, as there was no due process to be had as of yet, since no formal civil or criminal charges have currently been laid against the Plaintiff.
17. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the Attorney General has the sole power to hire and fire people within the Department of Justice.

II. DEFENCES
1. Plaintiff breached DOJ policy as written and available to all DOJ employees.
2. Plaintiff’s termination was in line with DOJ policy as written and available to all DOJ employees.
3. Plaintiff’s continued employment after the level to which they breached DOJ policy would have been a detriment to the workflow and reputation of the Department of Justice, as well as lead to security concerns for the Government of the Commonwealth of Redmont.
4. Plaintiff’s termination did not constitute an unfair dismissal pursuant to Commercial Standards Act § 13.(1).(b) and considering Plaintiff’s breach of employer’s policy.

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 third day of July 2025

 

[ko531]

We will know be entering discovery. Discovery will last 5 days starting now.

 

[ToadKing]

Pursuant to Rule 3.3 (Amendment to Complaint), the Plaintiff amends the Complaint as follows:

II. FACTS
12. On 29th June, 2025, Plaintiff was paid $10,000 by the Department of Justice for duties performed during June 2025, representing Plaintiff's monthly salary and bonuses for completed cases.

13. On 1st July, 2025, five days after termination, Plaintiff was provided with the first and only explanation for the termination: "You seriously breached department policy which resulted in your immediate dismissal." and that "Ur dismissal was not unjust and was in line with department policy"

14. This explanation provided no details about which specific policy was allegedly breached, what conduct constituted the alleged breach, or when the alleged breach occurred.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. Compensatory Damages: Payment of unpaid wages for June 2025 services as State Prosecutor, in an amount not less than the monthly equivalent of the May 2025 compensation.


The Plaintiff seeks to amend their complaint to reflect new facts that occurred before the discovery process began.



Pursuant to Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Plaintiff requests the Defendant to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

NOTE: The term "documents" includes all materials in any form, including but not limited to:
written documents, digital files, electronic communications, Discord messages, memoranda, reports, notes, minutes, transcripts, recordings (audio and video), screenshots, policies, procedures, handbooks, manuals, training materials, presentations, spreadsheets, logs, personnel files, disciplinary records, investigation materials, legal documents, correspondence, contracts, agreements, organizational charts, decision trees, classification documents, security protocols, meeting agendas, meeting minutes, meeting recordings, and any other materials regardless of format, location, or medium of storage.

1. Any documents showing exactly which DOJ policy Plaintiff allegedly breached.

2. Any documents showing what specific conduct Plaintiff did that breached this policy.

3. Any documents showing when this alleged breach occurred.

4. Any evidence that supports the claim Plaintiff breached any policy.

5. Any communications about Plaintiff's termination between any government officials.

6. Any records of meetings or discussions where Plaintiff's termination was decided.

7. Any documents showing who made the final decision to fire Plaintiff.

8. Any documents showing what alternatives to firing Plaintiff were considered.

9. Any documents showing why immediate termination was chosen instead of warnings or other discipline.

10. Any DOJ policies about how to discipline employees for policy violations.

11. Any documents showing the standard steps DOJ takes before firing someone.

12. Any documents showing when employees must be given notice before being fired.

13. Any documents showing when employees get opportunities to respond to accusations.

14. Any documents about progressive discipline (warnings before termination).

15. Any records of other DOJ employees disciplined for policy violations since January 1, 2025.

16. Any documents showing what procedures were followed for other employee discipline cases.

17. Any records showing which employees got warnings instead of immediate firing.

18. Any documents showing how other policy violation cases were handled differently than Plaintiff's.

19. Any DOJ policies requiring investigation before employee termination.

20. Any documents about employee rights during disciplinary proceedings.

21. Any policies requiring employees to be told why they are being disciplined.

22. Any documents showing when employees must be given chances to defend themselves.

23. Any documents defining the Attorney General's power to fire employees.

24. Any policies limiting or controlling how the Attorney General can terminate employees.

25. Any documents showing what procedures the Attorney General must follow before firing someone.

26. Any records of the Attorney General's training on proper termination procedures.

27. Any policies requiring fired employees to ask why they were terminated.

28. Any documents showing it's the employee's responsibility to find out why they were fired.

29. Any communications about whether to tell Plaintiff why he was fired.

30. Any policies about whether employers must explain termination reasons.

31. Any CABINET classified discussions about Plaintiff's termination.

32. Any other classified or confidential communications about firing Plaintiff.

33. Any government official communications about Plaintiff between 01/05/25 - 03/06/25

34. Any documents showing political considerations in Plaintiff's firing.

35. Any versions of the DOJ Policy Handbook in effect during Plaintiff's employment.

36. Any documents showing how the handbook was distributed to employees.

37. Any training materials about DOJ policies given to employees.

38. Any amendments or changes to DOJ policies during Plaintiff's employment.



Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Plaintiff submits the following interrogatories, which the Defendant must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability:

1. Describe in detail how Plaintiff's continued employment would have been "a detriment to the workflow and reputation of the Department of Justice," including examples of how Plaintiff's work performance, conduct, or presence would have negatively impacted department operations.

2. Explain the legal basis for your position that government employment termination requires no due process, and identify any law, policy, or court decision supporting the claim that due process is only required when "formal civil or criminal charges" are filed.

3. Identify the specific legal authority, DOJ policy, or established precedent that places the burden on a terminated employee to "reach out privately" or "open a ticket" to learn the basis for their termination, rather than requiring the employer to provide this information at the time of termination.

4. In the Defence's view, would a reasonable person consider it "unfair dismissal" for a government employee to be terminated without being provided any warning, prior notice, explanation of the reason for termination, or opportunity to respond to allegations, either before or after the termination occurred?

5. Explain why Plaintiff was not provided any warning, written notice, or opportunity to correct the alleged policy violation before termination, and describe whether providing such warning is standard DOJ practice for policy violations before resorting to immediate termination.



Pursuant to Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol), the Plaintiff submits the following list of additional witnesses:

1. ameslap
2. AmityBlamity
3. AsexualDinosaur
4. Dearev
5. JimmyGamer0911
6. JunkCereal
7. Kaiserin_
8. Malka
9. Mask3D_WOLF
10. pricelessAgrari
11. Rubilubi55
12. Sir_Dogeington
13. xDarkkex

 

[ToadKing]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR CLOSED COURT SESSION

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff is requesting a Closed Court Session on the basis that certain evidence relevant to this case is classified to a CABINET level, specifically relating to the Discord server titled "[CLASSIFIED: CABINET] NEXALIN IS F*CKED."

This server includes communications among senior government officials, including the President, Vice President, Cabinet Secretaries, and members of Congress. The existence and participants of this server have already been disclosed in T04DS74 v. Gribble19 [2025] FCR 66 (see Facts 3-4) and have a direct bearing on the events leading to the Plaintiff’s termination.

The Plaintiff believes this server contains key evidence surrounding the Defendant’s decision-making process, discussions about the Plaintiff, and other material directly relevant to the claim of unfair dismissal.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Pursuant to Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol), the Plaintiff submits the following list of additional witnesses:

1. ameslap
2. AmityBlamity
3. AsexualDinosaur
4. Dearev
5. JimmyGamer0911
6. JunkCereal
7. Kaiserin_
8. Malka
9. Mask3D_WOLF
10. pricelessAgrari
11. Rubilubi55
12. Sir_Dogeington
13. xDarkkex

Objection

OBJECTION - Relevance

Plaintiff has resorted to calling every single member of the department, whether ever even having an interaction with him or not, as witnesses. Defense requests that it be ordered that plaintiff's witness list be consolidated, or that the specific relevance of every witness is stated.

 

[ToadKing]

Objection

OBJECTION - Relevance

Plaintiff has resorted to calling every single member of the department, whether ever even having an interaction with him or not, as witnesses. Defense requests that it be ordered that plaintiff's witness list be consolidated, or that the specific relevance of every witness is stated.

Response

TO OBJECTION

1. All listed witnesses are DOJ employees who worked with Plaintiff during his employment period and can provide relevant testimony about his work performance and character.
   
   
2. The Defendant has specifically DENIED in their Answer (8) that Plaintiff's legal work was "exemplary", making witness testimony about Plaintiff's work quality directly relevant to the case.
   
   
3. These witnesses are relevant to Plaintiff's claims under Commercial Standards Act Section 13(1)(b), as they can testify whether Plaintiff's continued employment would have been "a detriment to the workflow and reputation" of the DOJ, which is the Defence's core argument.

 

[gribble19]

The Defendant enters the following evidence, pursuant to Rule 4.6:

 

[gribble19]

Pursuant to Rule 4.7, the Defendant requests the Plaintiff to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

Any and all messages sent by the Plaintiff, during or after Plaintiff's employment at the Department of Justice and sent anywhere other than in the Department of Justice discord server, that:

1. directly or indirectly reference Plaintiff's employment at the Department of Justice and the accompanying level of access to classified information;
   
   
2. directly or indirectly reference any non-public evidence shared in the Department of Justice server for any case;
   
   
3. directly or indirectly reference any classified messages sent within the Department of Justice server;
   
   
4. contain knowledge or information only available to the Plaintiff through non-public evidence shared in the Department of Justice server for any case;
   
   
5. contain knowledge or information only available to the Plaintiff through classified messages sent within the Department of Justice server;
   
   
6. contain direct or indirect requests to leak classified information or information that Plaintiff could reasonably expect may be classified;

as well as the context of any and all such messages.

 

[ToadKing]

Pursuant to Rule 4.7, the Defendant requests the Plaintiff to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

Any and all messages sent by the Plaintiff, during or after Plaintiff's employment at the Department of Justice and sent anywhere other than in the Department of Justice discord server, that:

1. directly or indirectly reference Plaintiff's employment at the Department of Justice and the accompanying level of access to classified information;
   
   
2. directly or indirectly reference any non-public evidence shared in the Department of Justice server for any case;
   
   
3. directly or indirectly reference any classified messages sent within the Department of Justice server;
   
   
4. contain knowledge or information only available to the Plaintiff through non-public evidence shared in the Department of Justice server for any case;
   
   
5. contain knowledge or information only available to the Plaintiff through classified messages sent within the Department of Justice server;
   
   
6. contain direct or indirect requests to leak classified information or information that Plaintiff could reasonably expect may be classified;

as well as the context of any and all such messages.

Response

All requested messages are protected by Attorney-Client Privilege, as defined in Section (8)(4) Modern Legal Reform Act, as they may have occurred between Plaintiff and clients in private Discord DMs, MZLD retainer channels, and consultation tickets. These communications are legally privileged and not subject to discovery.

 

[ToadKing]

Pursuant to Rule 3.3 (Amendment to Complaint), the Plaintiff amends the Complaint as follows:

II. FACTS
12. On 29th June, 2025, Plaintiff was paid $10,000 by the Department of Justice for duties performed during June 2025, representing Plaintiff's monthly salary and bonuses for completed cases.

13. On 1st July, 2025, five days after termination, Plaintiff was provided with the first and only explanation for the termination: "You seriously breached department policy which resulted in your immediate dismissal." and that "Ur dismissal was not unjust and was in line with department policy"

14. This explanation provided no details about which specific policy was allegedly breached, what conduct constituted the alleged breach, or when the alleged breach occurred.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. Compensatory Damages: Payment of unpaid wages for June 2025 services as State Prosecutor, in an amount not less than the monthly equivalent of the May 2025 compensation.


The Plaintiff seeks to amend their complaint to reflect new facts that occurred before the discovery process began.



Pursuant to Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Plaintiff requests the Defendant to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

NOTE: The term "documents" includes all materials in any form, including but not limited to:
written documents, digital files, electronic communications, Discord messages, memoranda, reports, notes, minutes, transcripts, recordings (audio and video), screenshots, policies, procedures, handbooks, manuals, training materials, presentations, spreadsheets, logs, personnel files, disciplinary records, investigation materials, legal documents, correspondence, contracts, agreements, organizational charts, decision trees, classification documents, security protocols, meeting agendas, meeting minutes, meeting recordings, and any other materials regardless of format, location, or medium of storage.

1. Any documents showing exactly which DOJ policy Plaintiff allegedly breached.

2. Any documents showing what specific conduct Plaintiff did that breached this policy.

3. Any documents showing when this alleged breach occurred.

4. Any evidence that supports the claim Plaintiff breached any policy.

5. Any communications about Plaintiff's termination between any government officials.

6. Any records of meetings or discussions where Plaintiff's termination was decided.

7. Any documents showing who made the final decision to fire Plaintiff.

8. Any documents showing what alternatives to firing Plaintiff were considered.

9. Any documents showing why immediate termination was chosen instead of warnings or other discipline.

10. Any DOJ policies about how to discipline employees for policy violations.

11. Any documents showing the standard steps DOJ takes before firing someone.

12. Any documents showing when employees must be given notice before being fired.

13. Any documents showing when employees get opportunities to respond to accusations.

14. Any documents about progressive discipline (warnings before termination).

15. Any records of other DOJ employees disciplined for policy violations since January 1, 2025.

16. Any documents showing what procedures were followed for other employee discipline cases.

17. Any records showing which employees got warnings instead of immediate firing.

18. Any documents showing how other policy violation cases were handled differently than Plaintiff's.

19. Any DOJ policies requiring investigation before employee termination.

20. Any documents about employee rights during disciplinary proceedings.

21. Any policies requiring employees to be told why they are being disciplined.

22. Any documents showing when employees must be given chances to defend themselves.

23. Any documents defining the Attorney General's power to fire employees.

24. Any policies limiting or controlling how the Attorney General can terminate employees.

25. Any documents showing what procedures the Attorney General must follow before firing someone.

26. Any records of the Attorney General's training on proper termination procedures.

27. Any policies requiring fired employees to ask why they were terminated.

28. Any documents showing it's the employee's responsibility to find out why they were fired.

29. Any communications about whether to tell Plaintiff why he was fired.

30. Any policies about whether employers must explain termination reasons.

31. Any CABINET classified discussions about Plaintiff's termination.

32. Any other classified or confidential communications about firing Plaintiff.

33. Any government official communications about Plaintiff between 01/05/25 - 03/06/25

34. Any documents showing political considerations in Plaintiff's firing.

35. Any versions of the DOJ Policy Handbook in effect during Plaintiff's employment.

36. Any documents showing how the handbook was distributed to employees.

37. Any training materials about DOJ policies given to employees.

38. Any amendments or changes to DOJ policies during Plaintiff's employment.



Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Plaintiff submits the following interrogatories, which the Defendant must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability:

1. Describe in detail how Plaintiff's continued employment would have been "a detriment to the workflow and reputation of the Department of Justice," including examples of how Plaintiff's work performance, conduct, or presence would have negatively impacted department operations.

2. Explain the legal basis for your position that government employment termination requires no due process, and identify any law, policy, or court decision supporting the claim that due process is only required when "formal civil or criminal charges" are filed.

3. Identify the specific legal authority, DOJ policy, or established precedent that places the burden on a terminated employee to "reach out privately" or "open a ticket" to learn the basis for their termination, rather than requiring the employer to provide this information at the time of termination.

4. In the Defence's view, would a reasonable person consider it "unfair dismissal" for a government employee to be terminated without being provided any warning, prior notice, explanation of the reason for termination, or opportunity to respond to allegations, either before or after the termination occurred?

5. Explain why Plaintiff was not provided any warning, written notice, or opportunity to correct the alleged policy violation before termination, and describe whether providing such warning is standard DOJ practice for policy violations before resorting to immediate termination.



Pursuant to Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol), the Plaintiff submits the following list of additional witnesses:

1. ameslap
2. AmityBlamity
3. AsexualDinosaur
4. Dearev
5. JimmyGamer0911
6. JunkCereal
7. Kaiserin_
8. Malka
9. Mask3D_WOLF
10. pricelessAgrari
11. Rubilubi55
12. Sir_Dogeington
13. xDarkkex

As has been rightfully pointed out, this document request was perhaps overly excessive.

Pursuant to Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Plaintiff updates the initial discovery request and asks the Defendant to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

1. Any documents showing exactly which DOJ policy Plaintiff allegedly breached, what specific conduct constituted the breach, when it occurred, and any evidence supporting the breach claim.

2. Any communications about Plaintiff's termination between government officials and any records of meetings or discussions where Plaintiff's termination was decided.

3. Any documents showing what alternatives to firing Plaintiff were considered and why immediate termination was chosen instead of warnings or progressive discipline.

4. Any DOJ policies about employee discipline, standard steps taken before termination, progressive discipline requirements, and when employees must receive notice or opportunities to respond.

5. Any records of other DOJ employees disciplined for policy violations since January 1, 2025, including what procedures were followed and which employees received warnings instead of immediate termination.

6. Any documents defining the Attorney General's power to terminate employees, policies limiting termination authority, and required procedures the Attorney General must follow before firing someone.

7. Any CABINET classified discussions about Plaintiff's termination and any other classified or confidential communications about firing Plaintiff.

8. Any communications about whether to tell Plaintiff why he was fired and any policies about whether employers must explain termination reasons to fired employees.

9. Any documents showing political considerations, motivations, or factors in Plaintiff's firing decision.

10. Any government communications about Plaintiff between 01/05/25 - 03/07/25, insofar as the topic of said communication was related to criminal acts committed by the Plaintiff in a foreign nation, related to the Plaintiff's acquisition of the Exchange, and the Plaintiff's management of MZLD.