Lawsuit: In Session Saarthigaming v Government of Stratham

[Tokyosap]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 1st November 2024
Saarthigaming
TokyoSAP (Representing)

v.

Government of Stratham

I. Description of Case
The Plaintiff brings forth the following causes of action and alleges the following against the Defendant:
The unlawful and disproportionate punishment brought upon player Saarthigaming by Prime Minister DoubbleKerius and the refusal to reverse said punishment despite being presented with clear evidence from multiple members of related departments.

II. Parties
1. Saarthigaming
2. Government of Stratham
3. Witnesses (veryreal_alex, LobsterRoast, Wolfke)

III. Sequence of Events
1. Plaintiff Saarthigaming allegedly verbally harasses veryreal_alex on 2024-10-24 at 00:20:07 , and is punished accordingly with a 3 day ban. (Evidence 1, attached below)
2. Player LazyGraepe reports Saarthigaming for leaking information regarding his event.
3. After hearing this, Prime Minister DoubbleKerius breaks department policies and dismisses the Plaintiff on false charges.
4. The Plaintiff issues public apologies for his actions and expresses his sincere condolences to everyone involved. The Prime Minister continues his stance on related issues.

IV. Claims for Relief
1. In the absence of proper laws regarding employee mistreatment, I will be using real life laws regarding these issues to argue my case, as supported by case Blacksyth v Dwerpy.
2. The Employment Rights Act 1996 (UK Law) demonstrates that employees may not be dismissed on false grounds or trivially light charges. This is further shown in Sections 94 and 98, explicitly stating that “An employee has the right not to be unfairly dismissed by his employer.”
3. As shown in evidence 2, the charges brought up against Saarthigaming are harassment, disrespect, and leaking information.
4. For the charge of harassment, the law protects players against double jeopardy, or being punished for breaking rules by both staff and government. The plaintiff has already been punished for harassment, which means this charge is invalid.
5. For the charge of disrespect, this charge is invalid for two reasons. First, disrespect is a staff matter and unrelated to government matters. Second, the player was not given any warnings against these actions.
6. For the charge of leaking information, the plaintiff did indeed leak DoPA related information to various players. Yet when asked, DoPA minister veryreal_alex has asserted that official department policy should have only resulted in a warning for the Plaintiff, rather than a dismissal from all departments (evidence 3). While this charge may be true, the resulting punishment is disproportionate and unjust.
7. Regarding Saarthigaming’s dismissal from all departments, department members have said that the punishment is unfair. (Evidence 4, 5)

V. Damages
1. Reinstatement of all removed positions, including not but limited to General Practitioner, Senior Tour Guide, Tour Guide, and Community Coordinator.
2. Public Apology from the PM and DoH minister.
3. KR 4000 for lost income
4. KR 2000 for damage to reputation
5. KR 1000 for legal fees

Note: Evidence 5 (wolfke's statement is quite long so I have attached it in a document here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fpVAxmnWDlVkQ0-Y1qCCoOjTjogjMQ4HqfjGycjXPNY/edit

 

[Cherub54321]

@DoubbleKerius is hereby summoned to the court to acknowledge the case. If the Defendant, @DoubbleKerius , 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 Cherub54321 Bear in mind to not reply to court cases unless summoned by the Judge!

While I will listen to this case, I would like to clarify that the judiciary is only empowered to interpret the laws passed by the Parliament of Stratham. Therefor, when making my judgment, I shall only be considering the arguments presented based on said laws.

 

[Tokyosap]

Your honour, I would like to request a recess in court from Monday 4th November to Sunday 10th November due to unforeseen irl circumstances.

 

[Cherub54321]

Good Morning,

Request granted, the defendant is to continue to post their response, after which the court shall recess until Sunday the 10th of November.

 

[Nightmare98765]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 3rd November 2024
Saarthigaming
TokyoSAP (Representing)

v.

Government of Stratham



I. Motion to Dismiss

1. The Defendant motions to dismiss the case, respectfully based off the following:
The Plaintiff mentions the “The Employment Rights Act 1996 (UK Law)” because of the absence of proper laws regarding employee mistreatment. The Defense would like to dismiss the plaintiffs argument including the Employment Rights Act 1996 (UK Law). The reason for that is that if we use real life laws we could also argue that the At-Will Employment Doctrine of the United States could be taken into effect. In the United States, the principle of at-will employment serves as the foundational legal doctrine governing most employment relationships. Under this doctrine, an employer may terminate an employee at any time, for any reason, or indeed for no reason at all, without advance notice. This principle is based on the idea of mutual freedom: just as an employee is free to leave their job at any time without notice, the employer, too, retains the right to end the employment relationship with similar freedom.

2. The Plaintiff mentions: “For the charge of harassment, the law protects players against double jeopardy, or being punished for breaking rules by both staff and government. The plaintiff has already been punished for harassment, which means this charge is invalid.” The Plaintiff asserts, in relation to the charge of harassment, that the principle of **double jeopardy** protects players from being punished for the same offense by both the Staff Team and the Government, thereby rendering the current charge invalid. Plaintiff argues that, as Saarthigaming has already faced staff-imposed consequences for harassment, any further charges would constitute impermissible double jeopardy. The Defense respectfully submits that this argument is without merit under the governing legal framework of the “Constitution of the Republic of Stratham”. The Constitution’s protections, including those against double jeopardy, apply solely within the purview of the Government and its judicial and administrative processes. This limitation is explicitly supported by the principle of “Separation of Staff and Government”. “The Staff Team and Government remain separated in responsibilities and powers. The Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, and Judicial Branch are the three branches of government. The Owner remains the only connection between the branches of government to the Staff Team.” This means that while the Owner serves as the single point of connection between the government and staff, this role does not confer constitutional authority upon the Staff Team. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim that Saarthigaming is immune to further action under the principle of double jeopardy is unfounded, as the Staff Team’s disciplinary actions do not carry the constitutional protections reserved for government-imposed penalties. Consequently, the Defense asserts that Plaintiff’s argument for immunity on these grounds is invalid and respectfully requests that it be dismissed from consideration.

3. “For the charge of leaking information, the plaintiff did indeed leak DoPA related information to various players. Yet when asked, DoPA minister veryreal_alex has asserted that official department policy should have only resulted in a warning for the Plaintiff, rather than a dismissal from all departments. While this charge may be true, the resulting punishment is disproportionate and unjust.”
Subsequent to the publication of the case, veryreal_alex provided clarification regarding his prior statements during questioning by Tokyo, asserting that he had misunderstood the question, which can be seen in the evidence provided. He later affirmed that a strike had, in fact, been issued to Saarthigaming prior to the him being fired.

4. Although certain department members may have expressed opinions that the punishment is unfair, such opinions hold no weight in this case. The Constitution explicitly provides as follows: Section 1.4(a): "Ministers are the heads of their Executive Departments and serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. Ministers are subject to the direction, authority, and control of the Prime Minister. Ministers derive their power from the Prime Minister." Section 1.4(b): "Ministers have the authority to create, amend, and repeal Departmental policy. They shall have the power to appoint and dismiss employees of their Departments. They may create, amend, and remove positions within their department." Given these constitutional provisions, Ministers retain full discretion to hire or dismiss personnel within their departments, regardless of the opinions of other department members.

5. With respect to the damages proposed by the Plaintiff, several claims appear to be excessive. For instance, the request for 4000kr in lost income lacks substantiation. The Deputy Minister of the Department of Economy (LazyGraepe) has provided the following statement (as evidenced): "No, I think 4000kr is way too much. He completed one tour between the 18th and 25th, for which he was compensated 400kr. For the event he was developing, he would have earned 500kr, provided he completed and hosted it within the specified timeframe. As for his role as a General Practitioner, I see no indication of income loss since, to my knowledge, he has retained his university position as a Doctor, from which he receives additional income." Further, regarding the Plaintiff's request for the reinstatement of all previous positions, it should be noted that there are already plans underway to address this matter. The Minister of the Department of Public Affairs (veryreal_alex) has confirmed that Saarthigaming has been rehired in the Department as a Tour Guide and Community Coordinator. While this rehiring is on a trial basis to assess his commitment to improvement, it is evident that efforts are being made to reach a constructive resolution. The Plaintiff, Saarthigaming, has also acknowledged this arrangement, stating, "Yes, I was rehired as a trial Community Coordinator, which means the Minister will decide after the event whether I remain or am dismissed."
This demonstrates that constructive efforts are being made to address the Plaintiff's concerns within the Departments.

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

 

[Cherub54321]

Good Evening,

The court is now in recess until Sunday the 10th of November, after which the plaintiff may proceed, within 48 hours, with their response to the motion to dismiss. If the plaintiff is able to return and continue prior to this date, they are to notify me directly either via forum or discord in order for me to confirm an earlier recommencement of this case.