Lawsuit: Dismissed Saarthigaming v Government of Stratham

[Evachu]

Yes, the DoH does use a strikes system for the dismissals of people.

 

[TokyoSAP]

Right. And how many strikes did the defendant have prior to his dismissal?

 

[Evachu]

Right. And how many strikes did the defendant have prior to his dismissal?

He had 2 strikes prior to the dismissal.

 

[TokyoSAP]

For what charges?

 

[TokyoSAP]

Please the answer the question

 

[Evachu]

For what charges?

So sorry for the late reply,
1. Stealing from the emergency chest after told not to
2. Toxicity in the DoH discord

 

[TokyoSAP]

Thank you. Did the Defendant ask you about the Plaintiff’s DoH misconduct record prior to dismissing the Plaintiff? If so could you please provide evidence?

 

[Nightmare98765]

Your Honor,

The defence wishes to make a quick statement regarding the witness.

 

[Cherub54321]

Good evening,

You may make your statement. The witness, @Evachu is reminded to respond promptly to questions asked by either party until such a time where their presence is no longer required. Failure to respond within a reasonable timeframe without just reasoning will be viewed as contempt of court.

 

[Nightmare98765]

Your Honor,
The defence has been contacted by the witness (Evachu) stating that she would like to stop being a witness in this case since she is being stressed by it and currently real life too much. We would like to request that Evachu is allowed to step down from the position of witness. TokyoSAP has also never asked Evachu directly if she wanted to be called upon as a witness. While in one of the screenshots provided TokyoSAP is indeed asking for permission to inverview her for witness statements this can be taken as only on discord and not in court. The defence hopes that the request of Evachu will be allowed.

 

[Cherub54321]

Good evening,

If @Evachu wishes to stop their testimony, they are to message me directly either through discord or forums. As a department minister, I would expect them to be able to stand as a witness when required, and additionally it is important to clarify that as a witness, they are not being tried for their actions, nor is any blame being directed towards them, however their testimony is important to help the court gain a clearer understanding of the events. In response to your second point, permission is not required when a party calls a witness to the court, and even if it was, permission to be interviewed in regards to a possible witness statement would be viewed as permission to call them to the court.

Unless the witness directly contacts me to explain their reasoning for wishing to stop their testimony in greater detail, they shall still be expected to continue their testimony.

 

[TokyoSAP]

In that case I would like to request the witness continue their witness statement as to not drag out the lawsuit. Thank you.

 

[TokyoSAP]

My apologies I forgot smth - as witness Evachu has said that they will be on vacation for 2 weeks starting from the 13th could we postpone her statements and move on to second witness veryreal_alex? Thank you.

 

[Cherub54321]

Good Evening,

Following a conversation between myself and _Evachu_, their witness testimony will be paused, and hopefully they will be in a position to continue their testimony once they return from their holiday. In the interest of efficiency, we shall now move onto the witness statement from veryreal_alex.
@veryreal_alex is hereby called to this court to give evidence as a witness, and are requested to announce their presence within this court with a simple present.

Once the witness has announced their presence, the Plaintiff may begin their examination of the witness. Once the plaintiff has no further questions, they are to state so. If at any point, the defence has an objection to any question asked or response given, they are to raise it immediately, following which I shall make a decision on said objection.

Court Dismissed

This case was presided by Judge Cherub54321

 

[veryreal_alex]

Present.

 

[TokyoSAP]

Thank you. As you have previously stated in the screenshot previously attached in the lawsuit, the plaintiff’s dismissal was a violation of department policy, yes?

 

[veryreal_alex]

The dismissal of the plaintiff was because of breaking department policies.

(At the time you were interviewing me, I was very sleepy and therefore I misread the last question, so now I‘m correcting it.)

 

[TokyoSAP]

Yet while the plaintiff did break department policy, it does not warrant a dismissal, as your statement has demonstrated, yes?

 

[veryreal_alex]

No, I was being too lenient on the plaintiff, therefore in my opinion, the dismissal was justified because the plaintiff would have had more than 3 strikes.

 

[TokyoSAP]

Yet the plaintiff didn’t. If he did, then you would have committed perjury by explicitly stating that he didn’t in a court statement. So the situation on the official record stands: the plaintiff did not have 3 strikes when he was dismissed. The plaintiff had 1. The charge of leaking would have warranted a second strike, but the defendant chose to intervene in a disproportionate manner. Is any part of this statement false?