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.

 

[Tokyosap]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 10/11/2024
Saarthigaming
TokyoSAP (Representing)

v.

Government of Stratham
Nightmare98765 (Attorney General)

Response to the Motion to Dismiss

Before we start, I would like to thank the court for the patience extended during the recess period.

I. Request for clarification regarding court statement
I would like to note that the constitution states that “3.1(b) The Judiciary is empowered to interpret the laws passed by the Parliament.” with no mention whatsoever on a restriction of interpretation of IRL laws. I would like to ask the court to clarify and reconsider their decision regarding usage of IRL laws in court.

II. Motion to Overrule the Motion to Dismiss

1. Argument Against Applicability of the At-Will Employment Doctrine
The Plaintiff argues that, given the absence of specific employment laws within the Stratham Republic’s legal system, real-life employment laws can be referenced for guidance, specifically the UK’s Employment Rights Act 1996, which protects against unfair dismissal. The Defense responds by arguing that the the At-Will Employment Doctrine from U.S. law should instead apply, allowing dismissal without cause.

I would like to argue that the choice to apply UK law over U.S. law aligns better with the principles of fairness embedded within the legal system in Stratham. Unlike the U.S. at-will doctrine, the UK’s Employment Rights Act focuses on safeguarding employees from arbitrary dismissals, reflecting a more suited approach to the principles of fairness and justice guiding Stratham’s legal proceedings. Furthermore, I argue that the court allowing the application of U.S. at-will doctrine would severely undermine employee protections, leading to a lack of employee rights, potential workplace abuse, and arbitrary and capricious dismissals without fair review. This better aligns with Stratham’s goals of fairness in all sectors, and thus, the UK law should guide the court’s interpretation.


2. Defence’s Argument on Double Jeopardy and Separation of Staff and Government
The Defense argues that the principle of double jeopardy, as asserted by the Plaintiff, is irrelevant because constitutional protections apply only within the government’s legal framework, not to staff actions. Therefore, the Defense claims that prior staff-imposed punishments should not preclude further government-imposed penalties.

I argue that, while the separation of powers distinguishes staff and government responsibilities, it does not permit duplicative or overlapping penalties for a single light transgression. Here, Saarthigaming’s harassment penalty by staff constituted a complete punishment, satisfying any retributive goals and preventative measures. The government’s attempt to impose additional punishment constitutes an “injustice of excess” as the original infraction has already been addressed. The court should see the staff-imposed punishment as final and prevent further government-imposed penalties for the same act, adhering to the principle of “double jeopardy” that protects from overreach in both governmental and quasi-governmental realms.

3. Disproportionate Punishment for Leaking Information
The Defense claims that the Plaintiff’s punishment was justified since the DoPA minister later clarified that a strike was indeed issued prior to dismissal, thus meeting departmental policy standards.

The Defense’s statement regarding the DoPA minister’s clarification simply reveals inconsistency in the application of departmental policies. I continue to assert that the punishment remains disproportionate, as the standard policy response to leaking was a warning rather than dismissal. Furthermore, even if a strike was issued, the Plaintiff’s dismissal from multiple positions (versus a specific departmental response) goes beyond the policy’s intended discipline, showing how the punishment is an unjustly severe reaction relative to the offence. This punitive escalation without sufficient grounds shows a lack of procedural fairness.

I would also like the courts to deny the Motion to Dismiss in order to bring witnesses to the court and ensure fair and factual proceedings.

4. Dismissal Power of Ministers Under Constitutional Authority
The Defense argues that ministerial dismissal decisions are at the Prime Minister’s discretion, under the constitutional provisions affirming ministers’ right to manage their departments, including personnel decisions.

While the Constitution grants ministers dismissal power, it does not protect ministers from accountability for exercising this power arbitrarily or without cause. Constitutional authority to dismiss does not imply the right to act capriciously or without reason, as this could enable unchecked misuse of power. The laws of Stratham are deeply flawed in this aspect, relying on executive officers being “nice” rather than displaying clear policies regarding fair treatment. Dismissals should follow due process, particularly when serious allegations (e.g., harassment) are in play. The Plaintiff thus requests the court to ensure this ministerial authority was exercised with just cause.

5. Excessiveness of Damages Sought
The Defense claims that the damages requested by the Plaintiff, such as KR 4000 for lost income, lack proper substantiation. It also points to a resolution already in progress, with the Plaintiff having been rehired on a trial basis in certain roles.

The requested damages represent estimated financial and reputational losses incurred due to unjust dismissal. However, I will be changing the request for damages to KR 2500 as we do not know how much money would actually be lost from this situation.

Request for damages will now be:

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, DoPA, and DoH minister.
3. KR 2500 for lost income
4. KR 2000 for damage to reputation
5. KR 1000 for legal fees

Consequently, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the motion to dismiss be denied, allowing the case to proceed to a full hearing for a more thorough examination of these claims.

 

[Cherub54321]

Good evening,

I thank you for your response and patience whilst I review and write up my decision to the motion to dismiss. I am currently very busy so am unlikely to be able to get this completed until Thursday at the earliest.

 

[Cherub54321]

Good Morning,

I would first like to begin by clarifying the court's standing on the use of real life laws to support arguments. Firstly, the constitution specifically states 3.1(b) The Judiciary is empowered to interpret the laws passed by the Parliament. As there is no mention of other countries laws, and the constitution is exhaustive in terms of powers granted, it can therefore be taken that the laws passed by parliament are therefore the only laws that the judiciary are empowered to interpreted. In addition, the idea that laws of different countries can be picked over and chosen based on what is most beneficial to the argument presented is a fundamentally flawed concept. Therefore, if an action is not covered by a law written by the parliament of Stratham, then said action is taken to be viewed as legal. This decision is that of the Supreme Court of Stratham, with both myself and acting chief justice MegaMinerM agreeing that this is what is intended by the Constitution.

Following on from that statement, what I said prior is still standing, thus I will not be considering any arguments based on laws from other countries when reviewing the motion to dismiss and responses to it.

I shall be overruling the motion to dismiss, based on the following reason. While I agree with the defendant, that the protection from double jeopardy only applies to the government, I would like the defence to show which laws or polices the actions the plaintiff was in breach of with their actions leading up to their removal from their government roles in more detail.

The Defence may now respond with their answer to complaint.

 

[Nightmare98765]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 16/11/2024
Saarthigaming
TokyoSAP (Representing)


v.


Government of Stratham
Nightmare98765 (Attorney General)

Answer to Complaint:

1. Its up to the minister to appoint members of the department and fire them, who in turn gain these powers from the Prime Minister:

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.

1.4(a) The Cabinet of the Republic of Stratham consists of the Ministers of the Executive Departments and the Deputy Prime Minister. Ministers are the head 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. When the Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister holds a Ministerial position in an official capacity, they shall receive only a single vote in those matters.

With lack of laws regarding Employment in Stratham this shows Legislative has a issue to look into, As well there is no legal obligation providable to the executive to rehire SaarthiGaming into these positions requested we ask these charges to be dropped.


2. It is also legally defaming to make someone publicly Apologies and no laws require this within Stratham outside of Slander, However it can be argued to make someone public Apologies to a player in a public chat can damage there own reputation just as much as the act claimed to damage theirs can do.


3. Previously proven the loss of income is not possible, as Saarthigaming and since conducted events under DoPA that where in the works prior to removal.


4. There is no exact proof that the actions taken by Prime Minister DoubbleKerius to remove the players government positions directly effected his reputation or if the actions done by the Player effected there own reputation.

 

[Cherub54321]

Good Afternoon,

The Plaintiff may now respond

 

[Tokyosap]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 19/11/2024
Saarthigaming
TokyoSAP (Representing)

v.

Government of Stratham
Nightmare98765 (Attorney General)

Response to Defence Arguments

I. Validity of Defence Arguments

The Defence’s argument highlights various departmental policies and constitutional provisions to justify the Plaintiff’s dismissal. I would like to dispute the validity and consistency of these policies and asserts the following:

1. Unnecessary Escalation from Defence
The Defence argues that the Plaintiff’s punishment was imposed within the bounds of relevant policies. However, the Defence has not sufficiently demonstrated that these policies explicitly outline the grounds for dismissal. The Plaintiff contends that staff-imposed disciplinary measures (a temporary suspension) were already enacted and fulfilled any punitive obligations. Thus, the Plaintiff maintains that further punitive measures by the government constitute an overreach.

2. Escalation and Break of Department Policy
The Defence asserts that the Plaintiff’s dismissal was in accordance with departmental policies. However, the Plaintiff disputes this claim, as evidence shows (e.g., the DoPA Minister’s prior statements) that standard policy for such offenses typically warrants only a warning. The Plaintiff’s dismissal from all government departments represents an escalation that exceeds the intended scope of the relevant policies.

II. Constitutional Authority and Ministerial Discretion

The Defense relies heavily on constitutional provisions that grant ministers the discretion to dismiss employees. However, such discretion does not justify arbitrary or disproportionate actions. I reiterate that constitutional authority must be exercised in accordance with principles of fairness, proportionality, and due process. While the constitution does grant the Prime Minister these rights, checks and balances must exist.

1. Lack of Transparency in Disciplinary Process
The process leading to their dismissal lacked transparency and consistency. No formal investigation was conducted to determine the severity of the alleged misconduct, nor were the Plaintiff’s actions adequately reviewed in the context of existing policies.

2. Disproportionate Punishment
The Plaintiff’s dismissal from multiple positions was unnecessarily severe and lacks proper justification. I contend that the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the alleged infractions and was influenced by personal biases rather than objective policy considerations.

III. Request for Judicial Review

Due to the reasons cited above, I respectfully request the court to exercise its power of Judicial Review and execute the requested procedures below:

1. Mandate the Defense to provide clear and detailed evidence of the specific laws and policies allegedly violated by the Plaintiff.

2. Assess the proportionality of the Plaintiff’s dismissal in relation to the alleged infractions.

3. Review the decision to dismiss Saarthigaming from all government decisions considering the charges formerly brought up.


IV. Request for evidence and witness interviews

The Plaintiff respectfully requests the Defendant to demonstrate specific laws or policies that the Plaintiff violated, justifying the dismissal, as well as invite the related personnel for an interview in court.

V. Conclusion

I reiterate again that their dismissal was unjust, disproportionate, and inconsistent with procedural fairness. I urge the court to consider the principles of justice, equity, and proportionality when rendering a decision and requests that the case proceed to a full hearing to ensure all relevant evidence is reviewed and addressed.

I will be maintaining the claims for relief previously stated as while public apologies are indeed defaming, it is a necessary consequence of abuse of power.

 

[Cherub54321]

Good Afternoon,

The defence may now make their response. Within their response, they are to provide clear evidence of any polices that the plaintiff allegedly violated. Following the Defence's response, we shall move onto witness statements. If either party has witnesses they wish to bring in front of the court, they are to state so following the Defence's response.

 

[Nightmare98765]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 16/11/2024
Saarthigaming
TokyoSAP (Representing)

v.

Government of Stratham
Nightmare98765 (Attorney General)



Answer to Complaint:

1. While specific policies per department are up to the Ministers to decide in all departments all employee's are expected to follow the BusinessCraft Rules and Regulations this is evident in every department besides the DoJ and DoE currently, As shown in the screenshots. these rules are usually very lenient as very rarely does Stratham fire any player or individual, however when the power to "Fire" a employee is utilized it is in general to a long evident of disrespect, harassment or inactivity related

2. While they do not outline grounds for dismissal in there listing, it is expected that if one does not follow the rules and regulations that they will be terminated from there position, and no law argues otherwise in these situations.

3. There is clear miscommunication when it comes to how to handle harassment from a government standpoint, and I believe this lawsuit can work to helping us make a informed decision on how to move forward from here, as a community.

4. Message from the PM DoubbleKerius: While it can be argued myself dealing with the situation was a overreach, I believe in protection of all who work with me no matter the position I am in, I have received countless messages over my term of these situations and have approached every single one of them to my best extent, there is no clear laws regarding harassment on a Governmental level. Therefor my best judgement in this case was to remove the player from the possibility of inflicting more harassment and detrimental behaviors on those in cabinet and in the departments discords/facilities.

5. The Player at question is again served staff level punishments for similar behavior showing a trend of this behavior.

6. Lastly I ask the plaintiff to be charged with Contempt in court for changing there response initially posted well after a reasonable timeframe of posting as evident below:

Evidence:
https://www.mcbusinesscraft.com/forum/threads/department-of-health-policies.7630/ (Department of health policies)

 

[Cherub54321]

Good Evening,

After reviewing the version histories of the posts in question, the plaintiff did not make any major adjustments to their posts, nor made adjustments made after my acknowledgment, and so shall not be charged with contempt of court. I would however like to remind both parties to avoid editing their responses once posted, and if a major correction/adjustment is required, to inform the court of such.

We shall now move onto witness statements. If either party has witnesses they wish to bring forward, now is the time to state so. As a reminder, witness statements are not a time for opinions, and are purely to be used as a form of expert or 1st party evidence.