Lawsuit: Adjourned DoJ v. Government (Appeal)

[bharatj]

In the case of A1phaSniper v DoJ, we believe that the verdict provided was unjust for a couple of reasons.
The judge ruling on the case, Tree6DNoScope, in his verdict, claimed that A1phaSniper deserved to get fired due to his knowing ignorance of his PO duties, however due to the “retraining” statement, ruled that the DoJ should not have terminated A1phaSniper and ordered his reinstatement. This is not an attack on Tree nor is it a statement calling him a bad judge. When discussing the verdict, Tree claimed that the ruling was to make a point. “This had nothing to do with A1phaSniper and everything to do with the DoJ.” Ruling on a case to make a point rather than ruling based on the situation around the case itself is not a true representation of justice.

To address the retraining again, the retraining option was provided to A1phaSniper as yet another chance to change his ways. This option was provided to him at a time when he was supposed to be fired from the DoJ. Retraining was offered, and while I said that he would not be performing DoJ tasks initially, as our conversation progressed, he wanted to still do his job, so I agreed, saying that in that time he could continue to do his job as a police officer. However, A1phaSniper continued to neglect those duties along with the other things mentioned in the previous case. This led to me firing him before the retraining because he neglected such duties even after I agreed that he should be doing his job as he normally would. To set a precedent that flexibility is a negative thing in employment is dangerous and I urge the court not to allow that to happen.

I would like to mention that due to the newly implemented Judicial Backup Act, SpriteTropical and Tree6DNoScope may not handle this case, given that Sprite was A1phaSniper’s lawyer and Tree ruled on the previous case. I would like to also mention that Matty707 also has a direct link to A1phaSniper, given that A1phaSniper works as the COO of Matty’s company, however, I am unsure of their current friendship status, so if their friendship would influence the decision on this case, then I ask matty to honorably step away from this case, if not, I happily invite matty as a voting member on this appeal.

Thank you.

Attached pictures-
- Trees statement
- Trees claim of a verdict to make a point
- A1phaSniper being COO
- A1phaSniper and I discussing the fact that he’d still be doing his job

 

[Matt]

I, Matty707, BusinessCraft Judge, is reviewing this appeal statement for the time being. However, I'd like to make a comment based on the Plaintiff's statement involving myself and my relationship with the former Defendant regarding the court case related to this appeal. Yes. The Defendant does work for me privately, but the court case has nothing to do with the private sector. If I am correct in saying this, but the previous court case involving the Defendant was solely him versus the DoJ. We, the people on BC, play many roles, and have to honor such roles respective to our job duties. What I am trying to say, I *may* feel obligated to step in as an intermediary, since I do not know much about the current situation at this time, whereas some parties may feel that I am...

Thank you.

 

[Matthew100x]

Hello all, this will be our first appeals case in the BusinessCraft Courts. Due to the unusual nature of the case, the entire judicial system at the time of this suit's posting was unable to take the case. This is because an appeals case requires 3 judges to adjudicate. This became problematic because all the judges were in one way or another connected to the case or a person involved in the case, resulting in judicial gridlock for quite frankly far too long. In addition, we had no written guidelines on how to handle the case of an appeal. With the signing of the Appeals Process Guidelines Act, we now meet all requirements to take this case.

Today I will be invoking the Judicial Backup Act and bring on @_Info_, the Minister of the Economy, and @puppy_lover153, the Minister of Health, as temporary Judges for this case.

Since I am the senior-most Judge on the bench, I will be the Head-Judge of this case and be responsible for posting on this thread. The DoJ is making an appeal against the decision of Judge Tree60NoScope in the case of A1phaSniper v. Department of Justice. As such, I am calling upon the defense to make an argument as to why the decision of the court should stand versus the argument made here by the plaintiff.

@A1phaSniper is hereby summoned to the court to acknowledge the case. If the Defendant, @A1phaSniper, 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 Matthew100x Bear in mind to not reply to court cases unless summoned by the Judge!

 

[A1phaSniper]

Hello all, this will be our first appeals case in the BusinessCraft Courts. Due to the unusual nature of the case, the entire judicial system at the time of this suit's posting was unable to take the case. This is because an appeals case requires 3 judges to adjudicate. This became problematic because all the judges were in one way or another connected to the case or a person involved in the case, resulting in judicial gridlock for quite frankly far too long. In addition, we had no written guidelines on how to handle the case of an appeal. With the signing of the Appeals Process Guidelines Act, we now meet all requirements to take this case.

Today I will be invoking the Judicial Backup Act and bring on @_Info_, the Minister of the Economy, and @puppy_lover153, the Minister of Health, as temporary Judges for this case.

Since I am the senior-most Judge on the bench, I will be the Head-Judge of this case and be responsible for posting on this thread. The DoJ is making an appeal against the decision of Judge Tree60NoScope in the case of A1phaSniper v. Department of Justice. As such, I am calling upon the defense to make an argument as to why the decision of the court should stand versus the argument made here by the plaintiff.

@A1phaSniper is hereby summoned to the court to acknowledge the case. If the Defendant, @A1phaSniper, 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 Matthew100x Bear in mind to not reply to court cases unless summoned by the Judge!

I'm not sure how I relate to this case? From my point of view, this seems to only include the DoJ and the government to discuss the decision made by a judge.

 

[Matthew100x]

I'm not sure how I relate to this case? From my point of view, this seems to only include the DoJ and the government to discuss the decision made by a judge.

Matty and I had a conversation about this and I explained to him the nature of the appeals court. We're here today to review the decision made by Tree60NoScope. That does not mean we will be calling him here to review his decisions because he was acting in his capacity as a judge. Since the judgment was made in your favor, we are calling you, Alphasniper, as the defendant in this case to have a brief written in the defense of the judgment that Tree made.

To understand better, I urge all parties to read this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/appeal

In our server, almost all government decisions are appealable by right due to the wording of the Judicial Review Act and Extended Appeals Process Bill. In this situation, the DoJ filed the appeal, they are the appellant. They filed an appeal because they feel they were subject to bias judgment, a provision in the reasoning of the Extended Appeals Bill. The person defending the ruling would be the appellee. AlphaSniper since you won the case, you and the lawyer you choose will be trying to reaffirm the decision of the lower court, the decision made by Tree60NoScope. You can choose whether or not you would like to defend the decision that was made in your favor.

Again, I must make this clear, Tree was acting under official capacity making that decision. He made the decision with the full power vested in him by the power of his position. This Court will be reviewing his decision and could either reaffirm it or overrule it. This does not mean he will be brought to court to explain his decision-making process or to defend his decision.

Since there may be some lingering confusion I would suggest the defendant read over the Appeals Process Guidelines. We're not here to retry the case. The argument should be on the court's focus: Was the ruling on a case to make a point rather than ruling based on the situation around the case itself is not a true representation of justice? This is the legal question raised by the plaintiff which the appeals court is hearing. There will only be one accepted argument from the defense and then Info, Puppy, and I will decide the case.

I will grant the defendant, @A1phaSniper, another 24 hours to file a brief (argument) in defense of the decision, otherwise, the case will close in the plaintiff's favor.

 

[A1phaSniper]

Frankly, whatever I say will be one-sided. I am being asked to defend the judgment made by Tree even though it was explicitly stated that his decision was made from his official standpoint. I can say that he made a good call, but it means nothing. Anything I say will be biased.

 

[Matthew100x]

If that is how you feel and that's all you are submitting then the trial will move into deliberations. We'll reach a verdict in the next 24 hours.

 

[Matthew100x]

The court will need an extra 24 hours to gather the opinions of all the judges.

 

[Matthew100x]

Thank you all. After Deliberations between the judges, we have come to a verdict. In a 3:0 vote, the court has decided to overturn the decision made by Tree60NoScope. The case Write-up, Judge Opinion, Decision and Verdict is below.

===Case Write-up===
Plaintiff submitted an appeal to the court to overturn the decision made in A1phaSniper v. Department of Justice. After a long lull in the court, Head-Judge Matthew100x assisted by Temporary Judge Info and Temporary Judge Puppylover123 took the case on and called A1phaSniper as defendant/appellee. A1phaSniper decided to not give a defense against the appeal on grounds of a biased court. The Judges then deliberated after a minor delay, voted 3:0 in favor of the appeal, gave a verdict, and then closed the case.


===Judge Opinions===
Matthew100x: Tree60NoScope's decision runs against the decision made by then-Judge Info in NeilBuilder vs. Government in which the government's mistake in handling a situation cannot be held against it. While I believe that this decision is one that needs to be looked at, to overturn such a decision based on the ultimatum despite the evidence brought forth by the defendant in A1phaSniper v. Department of Justice was wrong. The biggest issue I get coming from this case is that we're arguing over whether or not the ultimatum/offer of retraining was a part of the Rules and Procedures of the DoJ. From the information gathered between the cases, especially since the defendant did not defend himself in this appeal, the answer to that is no. I am disappointed by the defendant's lack of response in this case and I was more than willing to hear a defense of the ruling since the precedent set by this case will protect the government in cases of wrongdoing. Ultimately I would like to see Ministers create an official Rules and Procedures document for their employees that can be called upon in court so that we can see whether or not someone was breaking policy and deserved to be fired.

Info: Personally I believe the reality of the situation is the judge who had presided over the case made his ruling in order to avoid a precedent being set that a minister can give an ultimatum. I do not believe this is enough to completely disregard all evidence provided of the plaintiff's wrongdoing while an employee, and I believe the termination was justified. Wrongful dismissal is a case by case problem and justice was not given.

Puppylover123: In my opinion, I'd have to say that the ruling was completely unjust in the sense that it was made clear to prove a point rather than the situation. While it is true that the DoJ should've provided training, but I believe that this situation is different. A1phasniper had been constantly fired and rehired from the PO position multiple times and for each time it was always a valid reason. This time, A1pha simply tried to gain his position back on a technicality. However, bh did say that he allowed a1pha to continue his duties until the time for retraining came, and a1pha failed to do so. If he had done something wrong, perhaps it would've fallen under the DoJ's fault. Although, in this case, A1pha simply didn't do his job which shows that he doesn't care about his position.


===Decision and Verdict===
In a 3:0 decision, the court has decided to overturn the decision made by former judge Tree60NoScope.

The Court's majority opinion is that the ultimatum given by Bharatj for retraining is not valid grounds for the decision made by Tree60NoScope to prevent A1phaSniper's termination. Judge Matthew100x and Judge Info concur in different ways that the Rules and Procedures of the DoJ could've been made clearer to both the court and to A1phaSniper.

Court Adjourned

This case was presided by Judge Matthew100x