Case 14-02 M.E.daL vs BenArd Jan 3, 2014 13:19:20 GMT -6
Post by Brad Holmes on Jan 3, 2014 13:19:20 GMT -6
In the Magistrate’s Court of the Kingdom of Talossa
Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun, Province of Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Béneditsch Ardpresteir in his Capacity as Deputy Immigration Minister, Province of Maricopa
Béneditsch Ardpresteir in his Capacity as Deputy Immigration Minister, Province of Maricopa
COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION AND INJUNCTIONI, Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun, come before this dignified Magistrate’s Court of our King’s, John the First of his name, realm as plaintiff, beseeching her to consider this case and, upon decision to hearing the case, to:
- CONVICT defendant Deputy Immigration Minister and Attorney-General Béneditsch Ardpresteir of a Class A Misdemeanour for intentful and untrue defamatory statement under 31RZ14 and its amending law 35RZ21, specifically 942.01 of the Civil and Criminal Codes of the State of Wisconsin, compelling him to remove such defamatory matter, and;
- CONVICT defendant of a Class I Felony under 946.12 subsection (3) of the Civil and Criminal Codes of the State of Wisconsin, and, if the Court deems reasonable;
- CANCEL the unsubstantiated dismissal of plaintiff as TALOSSAssistant, in light of an unrightful dismissal and facing the fact that the New Citizens Committee is scant of such volunteers, while the citizenship applications are numerous, thus rendering said dismissal null and void and reinstating plaintiff as TALOSSAssistant, and;
- IMPOSE civil disability upon defendant if he be thus convicted, under Talossan Statute 35RZ34, Section 2, Subsection 4
for the reasons stated below:
Statement of the CaseDefendant Domnul Béneditsch Ardpresteir holds a grudge against plaintiff due to a moot, held mainly between defendant and third parties (http://talossa.proboards.com/thread/9047/hats).
Consequently – viz. on Thursday, December 26th of the common era 2013, year 35th of our Indepence, at 04:58 a.m. (GMT ±0) – plaintiff was scurrilely dismissed of his duties as TALOSSAssistant by defendant in his capacity as Deputy Immigration Minister (on talossa.proboards.com/thread/9099/changes-immigration-ministry). Since defendant bore no reason for the dismissal, defendant’s wish to camouflage said reckless (due to scarcity of staff) dismissal can be seen in the untrue defamatory statement of said dismissal to be “(…) because of certain insubordinate activities of [plaintiff] (…)”.
However, defendant Ardpresteir, subsequently to the notification of removal, instates plaintiff as Junior Deputy Immigration Minister, to act on the Deputy Immigration Minister’s behalf during his absence.
Common sense indicates dismissals to stem from a loss of mutual trust between employer and employee, which forms the foundation of any employment contract, or due to the employer’s incapability of paying the employee a salary, which is not the case with the honorary occupation as TALOSSAssistants.
By instating plaintiff to a higher position inside the Ministry of Immigration, yet, the defendant shows that no such loss of mutual trust, which would justify the removal as TALOSSAssistant, has come about. Self-evidently, such a break of trust could never have taken place, since defendant has never communicated with plaintiff in the latter’s honorary capacity as TALOSSAssistant.
Defendant’s failure to consult with the Head of New Citizens Committee, Carlüs Xheraltescù, prior to plaintiff’s dismissal, shows that the same has taken place prematurely in defendant’s lust for vengeance against plaintiff. The fact that defendant has instated plaintiff simultaneously to a more important position in the Ministry of Immigration, knowing plaintiff to not have any previous ken of governmental task, and also not supplying plaintiff with access to the Ministry of Immigration to fulfill his duties bestowed upon, shows malicious intent of defendant to furtherly destroy plaintiff’s reputation, by driving him to failure in his newly assumed capacity of the Junior Deputy Immigration Minister.
Subsequent to defendant’s return, the same insulted the plaintiff on the 1st of January and imputed insubordinance to plaintiff followingly: “Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun was specially instructed to act as the Junior Deputy Immigration Minister to take care of the affairs of the Ministry, if need be; however the first thing he whined about was the missing seals - which was in fact available for use. Secondly he questioned the created position of 'Junior Deputy Immigration Minister' and made fun of it and went on to call it as the Judeimm. For his aforesaid insubordinate behaviour, he is relieved of his duties.”
Defendant has shown that informing the Realm of incapability of the same to supply plaintiff to assume his duties, is insubordinance. If people were to fear for their jobs, only for pointing out that they miss keypoints to fulfill their assignments, all would stagnate.
Furthermore, defendant states that: “The Capitán Carlüs Xheraltescù, the Head of the NCC is again reminded to remove him from existing immigration projects as the TA. However, he may be assigned as the TA on subsequent projects.”
Your honour, I appeal to you by this sentence to see that defendant has groundlessly dismissed plaintiff from his duty as TALOSSAssistant and that defendant is toying with plaintiff in defendant’s official powers for – if you allow me to say it in plain English – “a cheap comeback” at plaintiff. Defendant dismisses plaintiff from current assignments as TALOSSAssistant, but allows the Head of the NCC to have plaintiff at his disposal as TA for future prospectives. This is inconsistent with anything defendant has stated as reason for dismissal.
Plaintiff feels this act to be outrageous and the bemoaned statement, disregarding whether dismissal was rightful or not, to villainise his good standing and to put his future employment in any Talossan institution in jeopardy, as references of insubordination can arouse great distrust and suspicion in any future employer.
Furthermore, plaintiff believes the defamation to have taken place intentionally to retaliate upon him for mentioned quarrel, in which plaintiff held a supporting part against defendant.
Legal bearings of the CaseChapter 942.01 of the Civil and Criminal Codes of the State of Wisconsin (hereinafter referred to as “(the) Codes”), which has been dynamically incorporated and validated to Talossan Law by statutes 31RZ14 and 35RZ21, states that “whoever with intent to defame communicates any defamatory matter to a 3rd person without the consent of the person is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor”.
In present case, the third party to which the defamatory matter has been communicated, is composed of the whole nation officially and publicly notified of the change in the Ministry of Immigration.
The statement is defamatory insofar as plaintiff has never communicated, neither given the impression to communicate with defendant in his capacity as TALOSSAssistant, nor believed to be communicating to defendant in his official capacity as TALOSSAssistant, since plaintiff and defendant have never conversed about the New Citizens’ Committee howsoever, and falsehood of the matter can be conveyed by the vague formulation of the reasoning as “certain insubordinate activities”.
Chapter 946.12, namely subsection (3), of the Codes states that “[Any public officer or public employee who,] whether by act of commission or omission, in the officer's or employee's capacity as such officer or employee exercises a discretionary power in a manner inconsistent with the duties of the officer's or employee's office or employment or the rights of others and with intent to obtain a dishonest advantage for the officer or employee or another, [is guilty of a Class I felony.]”.
In present case, plaintiff reasons that defendant, although having retaining right to dismiss with or without reason any member in his Office, has, by dismissing plaintiff, exercised his power in the Ministry of Immigration recklessly insofar as, by scarcity of available TALOSSAssistants, he thus endorses the stagnation of a facile immigration process for the two prospectives previously assigned to plaintiff by the New Citizens Committee, thus neglecting his duties as Immigration Minister, in order to prevail in the argument both parties were involved in. The fact that he only dismisses plaintiff for the current assignments he was given, makes the dismissal seem rather ridiculous.
According to National Statute 35RZ34, Section 2, Subsection 4, if it is not ordered that the defendant’s citizenship be revoked, “civil disabilities may be imposed in conjunction with a suspended sentence upon conviction of any crime for which imprisonment is authorized”. 939.50 (3)(i) of the Codes states that imprisonment not to exceed 3 years and 6 months is authorised for a Class I felony. Furthermore, Chapter 939.51 (3)(a) of said Codes authorises imprisonment up to 9 months for a Class A misdemeanour.
Plaintiff thus prays that the Court consider imposing civil disability upon defendant, if he is found guilty and a sentence is suspended.
Remedies sought by plaintiffSince above mentioned quarrel has not taken place with plaintiff assuming official capacity as TALOSSAssistant for which disciplinary action could be taken, plaintiff thus seeks to judicially remedy the injustice and reputatory defamation as follows:
- A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION shall bar defendant from acting in any nationally and/or provincially official and/or judicial capacity, since plaintiff holds likely that Domnul Ardpresteir will withdraw plaintiff’s dismissal to evade trial, and;
- defendant shall be FOUND GUILTY of a class A misdemeanour and a Class I felony for reasons stated and under statutes given above, and;
- upon finding defendant guilty, at the discretion of the esteemed Justices and if the sentence be suspended, defendant shall be BARRED from holding any national or provincial office or service in the Royal Household for the longest period on that probation can be imposed, and;
- plaintiff shall be REINSTATED as TALOSSAssistant, since defendant has acted against the good of his Ministry and the Realm for the reasons stated above.
Jurisdiction of CourtBy National Statute 39RZ18, this Magistrate’s Court is bestowed with jurisdiction over all criminal and civil trials in the Kingdom of Talossa. As this complaint is neither contesting any law nor questioning organicity of any law, plaintiff believes that this Court has jurisdiction over present case.
Respectfully submitted this day, the 1st of January in the year of the common era 2014 and the thirty-fifth of our Kingdom’s indepence,
Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun
Any Magistrate want this one?