Lawsuit: Dismissed Cherub54321 vs Parliament of Stratham

[Cherub54321]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 09/24/21​

Cherub54321

v.

Parliament of Stratham


I. Description of Case
The Plaintiff brings forth the following causes of action and alleges the following against the Defendant:

On the 20th of September 2021 I was re-nominated by Prime Minister SlimeEmperor for the position of DoJ minister, a role that I had already been holding for the previous 4 months since the last DoJ minister Hotshot80915 resigned from his post. Parliament then proceeded to vote on my re-nomination for the position, and proceeded to deny it due to the fact that "the majority believe that a new minister is needed to accomplish desired DoJ reforms" (SlimeEmperor) despite the fact that during my time as minister I facilitated several DoJ RP reforms (such as the addition of more realistic Handcuffs and State emergency Protocol added (which were put into the cabinet meeting dated the 23.07.21), and as can be testified by multiple witnesses, I was planning on adding more reforms to the DoJ in the coming term (For example RP orientated searches of players for drugs and the possibility of bank robberies).

Because I was previously in this position and was re-nominated by PM SlimeEmperor, I believe that I was wrongfully dismissed by Parliament when they did not pass the vote on me. They are unable to provide any reason for this other than above, and as stated I have enough evidence that this reason is invalid.

I also have a witness who can testify that the MP vote did not have all members present at the time of the vote, and additionally there was not sufficient time given for citizens to ask MPs any questions about nominations, nor was there enough time for MPs to DM me with any questions that they or the public had about me and my nomination as DoJ minister (as per the ministerial nomination bill).


II. Parties
1. Cherub54321
2. Legislative Branch of Stratham Government

III. Sequence of Events
1. 14th May 2021 - Cherub54321 replaces Hotshot80915 as DoJ minister.
2. 19th June 2021 - First "Role Play" protection for an event organised by the DoJ at Stratham naming ceremony.
3. 9th August 2021 - More RP orientated handcuffs added which mean that DoJ members must click a player with the handcuffs in hand for them to be handcuffed. Additionally jailing can now only be done on DoJ property, so members must transport the player by car, bus or foot to be jailed.
4. 10th August 2021 - Trial exercise involving POs, APs and the general public to locate and arrest a dynmap hidden player (myself) without using /dynmap show, and a vote taken on the subject shows that the department was, and still is firmly against it.
5. 24th August 2021 - New RP emergency procedures added so that it would be possible to host training/events with them and more accessible to use in an emergency.
6. 20th September 2021 - Cherub54321 nominated as DoJ minister by PM SlimeEmperor.
7. 20th September 2021 - DoJ nomination rejected by parliament and replaced with Zzz_king, due to the reason that "the majority believe that a new minister is needed to accomplish desired DoJ reforms".



IV. Claims for Relief
1. The reason for Parliament not passing my nomination is because they "believe that a new minister is needed to accomplish desired DoJ reforms" As I already had been acting on reforms that the public have wanted such as handcuff improvements, as well as other projects, this reason is invalid.
2. Due to the fact that Parliament was unable to provide any other reasoning for me not passing the vote, and I believe that the reason they gave is invalid, I should have therefore passed the vote and be able to continue my job as DoJ minister, and so have been wrongfully dismissed.
3. Not all parliament members were present at the nomination votes, nor was there enough time given for members of the public or MPs to ask any questions.

V. Damages
1. Reinstatement as DoJ minister
2. 1000kr in legal fees for the advice given by members of Wright & CO. Law Office

VI. Witnesses and Evidence

Witnesses:

PinkPanda_ - Senior department member at the time, can testify to changes made within the DoJ and that we discussed the removal of /dynmap show.
MxZxPredatorZx - Department member (AP then PO), can testify to RP changes made to the department and was present at events where we provided RP security.
Austin_ATrain - Senior department member at the time, can testify to changes made within the DoJ and that we discussed the removal of /dynmap show.
Zzz_King - DoJ Minister, can testify that suggestions made by parliament and the public were discussed by the DoJ.
Kawaibab - Present at the trial arrest without /dynmap show, can testify that I brought suggestions forward and reviewed them.
Witness X - Can provide evidence that not all MPs were present at the vote on ministerial candidates. (reason for anonymity, see notes)
More witness can be provided for any statements made in this case that are not evidence based


Evidence:

Any evidence is attached below in order as followed:

1) Supporting evidence for quote "the majority believe that a new minister is needed to accomplish desired DoJ reforms".
2) Vote after trial arrest without /dynmap show on the removal of that feature.
3) Proof that before the vote I stated that I was for the removal of /dynmap show, provided that we get a replacement that it is practical for the department to use and does not significantly effect citizens
4) Qualification as lawyer

The record of addition of DoJ RP features can be found on the cabinet monthly reports located https://mcbusinesscraft.com/forum/forums/government-transparency-publications.103/ Reports June, July and August 2021

VII. Additional Notes

A) As this case is against the Legislative branch of Stratham, please ensure that is them who respond to this court case.
B) This case has the blessing of DoJ minister Zzz King, and of senior members within the DoJ.
C) Due to judge MxZxPredatorZx having conflicts of interest, especially being a witness in this case, I request that he is not the Judge for this case.
D) Witness X has asked to remain anonymous to all players apart from the judge, due to the fact that them testifying publicly may significantly effect their experience on the server.
E) For some reason the evidence attached back to front, please go by the numbers corresponding to each piece of
evidence


In advancing this form to the court, you acknowledge and concur with the rules of court which highlight the importance of honesty at all times. Moreover, you understand the punishments for breaking these rules and/or committing perjury and deception in the court.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

Before I get into the summons, I would like to make a note that although I am summoning the Speaker of Parliament to speak, I will allow for any other member of parliament to take their place. Additionally, I will allow for the prosecutor @_Info_ to represent parliament as well, given they are a government entity. As long as the respondent is a member of parliament and holds no conflict of interests, I will allow them to act as the defendant.
That is all for now.

​

@Topte is hereby summoned to the court to acknowledge the case. If the Defendant, @Topte , does not acknowledge the case as a reply in 2 days, the case will close in the Plaintiff's favor.

Court is in Session

This case is presided by Judge Cooleagles Bear in mind to not reply to court cases unless summoned by the Judge!

​

All Parties are reminded to follow proper rules and procedures whilst the court is in session. This includes responding in proper formatting as is laid out. Anyone who disobeys this can and will be found in contempt of court.
Thank you
​

 

[Topte]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
MOTION TO DISMISS
Date: 09/26/21​

Cherub54321

v.

Parliament of Stratham


I. Motion To Dismiss
The Defendant motions to dismiss the case, respectfully based off the following:
1. Parliament is not required to provide reasoning for the rejection of a nomination.
2. Cherub54321 was not dismissed, his nomination for DoJ minister was not approved.
3. Sufficient discussion from a majority of Parliament Members was conducted to reach an agreement on whether or not to approve Cherub54321's nomination for DoJ minister.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

I will save the precious time of everyone and get right into the midst of this case. Firstly, after being questioned by some very well-spoken people, I would like to speak on the idea of the plaintiff suing for wrongful dismissal. Although one can argue that the plaintiff was simply not accepted back into the position, I think it is fair to say that it is relatively similar to being dismissed. Especially, in this circumstance where the plaintiff was the previous minister and the fact that there is no specific definition for "dismissal" (one may correct me if I am wrong). If one were to search up for a common definition of dismissal the following appears,
1. "the act of ordering or allowing someone to leave."
1A. "the act of removing someone from employment or office; discharge."
2. "the act of treating something as unworthy of serious consideration; rejection."
These are the ones that pertain to the situation the most. So it is for the above that I considered the law for this case, to begin with. Anyone is more than welcome to DM with further questions on this.

Secondly, the reason I held onto this case until this very moment was mainly because of witness x's testimony. All of the other witnesses and evidence did not prove significant to me, but my main thought was that one little thing witness x said could shift this case very easily. It is my duty as a Judge to hear out all possibilities and evidence that I may find imperative to the case and a fair ruling. Now, I will not be revealing who said witness was but I did get the chance to speak with them. After hearing their testimony I have found that there is no exemplary evidence to support the plaintiff. Therefore, any legal merit that I thought could hold this case together is no longer there; furthermore, all of the points presented by the defense in their MTD are very good ones (skipping number 2 as I offered my opinion about that above). All of that plus the plaintiff's recent announcement of leaving the server leaves me with no choice but to sustain the motion to dismiss.

I thank both parties for their work and effort in this case.
That is all for now,

Case Dismissed

Court Dismissed

This case was presided by Judge Cooleagles