Case: Dismissed Crumplesnatch v. MilkCrack (2025) CV 03

[Crumplesnatch]

Jebediah Crumplesnatch, Plaintiff

v.

Milkcrack, The Azalea Isles Government, and The Office of Prime Minister, Defendant



Civil Complaint:

On January 29th, I was informed twice that I would be removed from my position within the Ministry of Urban Development in response to me reminding the Prime Minister that he had stood down from the position of Minister of Urban Development. As the Constitution does not specify the right to rule the ministries in lieu of a Minister in Post, this is in breach of Fundamental Protection #10 of the constitution,
The right against government overreach of powers not specified by the constitution.
and thus was an unlawful action. Additionally, as I am the third member of my party to be dismissed from a Government role under suspicious circumstances by Milkcrack during the last few weeks, I also have little choice but to believe he is targeting APA members has breached Fundamental Protection #1 of the constitution.
Freedom of thought, belief, and political opinion.
I requested an official confirmation that I had been fired before bring about this case, and it took me asking 6 times, asking both privately, within the staff area of MUD, and publicly before he would give me the official confirmation of this.

Parties:

Identify the plaintiff(s); defendant(s); co-defendant(s); and third parties by name.

Jebediah Crumplesnatch - Plaintiff
Milkcrack - Defendant
The Office of Prime Minister - Defendant
The Azalea Isles Government - Defendant
Galavance - Witness


Factual Allegations:
Milkcrack served as Minister for Urban Development during the Third Term of Parliament.
During the confidence vote for Milkcracks government in the 4th Azalean Parliament, he left the role of MUD minister vacant, thereby resigning from the role.
Before his resignation, he appointed Westray as Deputy Minister.
On January 29th at 16:43 UTC, he responded to a MUD ticket opened by Galavance saying he felt that Galavance's proposal was not a good idea due to potentially causing a bigger workload down the line in very specific scenarios.
As Milkcrack was no longer a MUD employee, I interjected to prevent the ticket from being closed down without the input of a serving member of the Ministry.
After finding out I was participating as a MUD employee and not as a co-proposer alongside Galavance, he ordered me to stop taking part in discussions.
Before I could reply, I received private messages telling me to stop talking in the ticket to prevent sending "mixed messages".
I pointed out to him that he was no longer MUD minister and so the matter proposed in the ticket was no longer his concern.
He insisted to be in charge of MUD until a new minister was appointed. I disputed this and stated that the Deputy Minister was the one deputising as Minister until a new one was appointed. I also reminded him that I had repeatedly asked for a new minister to be appointed.
I then stated that I did not work for the Prime Minister, but for the Ministry. He then told me that if I did not want to work for him then he would be updating my roles to reflect this.
I informed him that there is no legal basis to support the Prime Minister being able to operate the ministries in lieu of a minister, he refused to acknowledge this, stating once again that he will remove my roles and leave the next minister the choice of rehiring me.
I am now the 3rd person to be removed from my role by Milkcrack in legally dubious situations.


Legal Claims:
The constitution specifies that members of the executive branch of government with portfolios to run ministries will hold the title of "Minister of (Portfolios name)"
Milkcrack has previously served as both PM and MUD minister, however this is no longer the case following the vote of confidence in his own government which left the position of MUD minister vacant.
The constitution specifically prevents citizens against "government overreach of powers not specified by the constitution."
By firing me, Milkcrack took actions reserved to the Minister of Urban Development, giving himself power that is not specified by the constitution.
He previously fired The Minister of Justice Galavance, taking an hour to actually seek constitutional permission from the crown to remove him from the role following on from the public announcement.
He previously fired Spyro as a prosecutor in the MOJ despite not being Minister of Justice, or Spyro being charged with any crimes.


Prayer for Relief:

• A ruling that my dismissal from the role of "District Analyst" unconstitutional and thus made invalid, restoring me to the position.
• Any lost earnings paid to me personally by Milkcrack.
• $5000 paid to me in compensation to remind the office of Prime Minister that the constitution is the foundation of our political system, not a memo to be ignored.
• Permanent injunction against the office of Prime Minister from firing government employees until such a time that the constitution is changed.

Verification:

I, Jebediah Crumplesnatch, hereby affirm that the allegations in the complaint AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the plaintiff's knowledge, information, and belief and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.

 

[MilkCrack]

Motion to Dismiss

Representing myself

Your Honour,

According to the Constitution of the Azalea Isles, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's complaint. The Constitution explicitly defines civil trials as disputes between two parties:

"The courts shall be responsible for adjudicating disputes within Azalea Isles, through rendering verdicts in civil and criminal trials. Civil trials consist of disputes between two parties seeking compensation, while criminal trials consist of government-led charges for a criminal act."

The plaintiff has named four parties, including themselves, which exceeds the constitutional definition of a civil trial. Accordingly, this case does not fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of this court and must be dismissed.

Additionally, the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As established in the prior case:

"The Prime Minister cannot be held personally responsible for official actions within his realm of authority."

The plaintiff has simply refiled the case with additional defendants without addressing the substantive reasons for the previous dismissal. This constitutes an abuse of process and an improper use of judicial resources.

Furthermore, despite this clear precedent, the plaintiff once again seeks compensation for lost salaries from me personally rather than from the government, which is responsible for paying salaries. This demand to specifically require me to pay serves no legitimate interest and instead appears to be intended solely to inconvenience me.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that this court dismiss the case against me personally with prejudice and award me $500 dollars to compensate me.

 

[Crumplesnatch]

"The Prime Minister cannot be held personally responsible for official actions within his realm of authority."

I request an explicit quote from the law or constitution specifying that this is the case. Two cases thus far have been dismissed on this notion and yet I can find nothing in law to support it.

If one can be found I will happily alter the prayer for relief to reflect this, however until such a time that this is provided then this is a valid request. I would have made this point in the previous case however the thread was locked before I was able.

If however this case is once again dismissed without any evidence of this notion being law, I will have no choice but to officially question the independence of the judiciary.

 

[Crumplesnatch]

As for the matter regarding the number of individuals in this case, I felt it better suited to centralise this matter into one single case.

If the court would prefer, I can bring this matter back once again across 3 different cases, which would all contain the same arguments being argued by the same two people, however I fear that this approach would result in the defendant once again claiming that my intention here is solely based on trying to cause him inconvenience.

I would however like to remind the defendant that He is the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister leads the government and so all 3 parties are ultimately him. Crumplesnatch Vs Milkcrack. He is the one insisting that he cannot be held responsible for his own actions and thus necessitating this.

 

[Westray]

Having reviewed the plaintiff’s complaint, the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and all relevant constitutional provisions, this Court notes the following:

The Constitution of the Azalea Isles defines civil trials as disputes "between two parties." The Plaintiff has named multiple defendants, thereby exceeding the constitutional scope of a civil dispute. The Court finds that this constitutes a procedural defect warranting dismissal. However, in the interest of justice, the Plaintiff shall have an opportunity to amend or refile the complaint in accordance with constitutional requirements.

The Defendant argues that the Prime Minister cannot be held personally liable for official acts. While the government bears responsibility for employment decisions, the Court finds no explicit constitutional provision granting the Prime Minister immunity from civil liability. If the Plaintiff can reasonably prove that the Prime Minister acted outside his realm of authority, they can allege a level of personal liability.

As established in prior rulings, claims seeking government action, such as reinstatement to a government position, must be directed at the government itself, not an individual. Conversely, if the Plaintiff alleges wrongful personal conduct by the Prime Minister, the claim must clearly establish how such actions fall outside the scope of his official duties.

"the Prime Minister shall serve as the head of Government. The executive authority of Azalea Isles shall be vested into the Crown, the Prime Minister, and the Cabinet." (Constitution, Article 4)

Decisions made by the Prime Minister within his or her official duties are done through their constitutionally provided executive authority, as a representative of the head of Government.

For further clarification on this, I direct both parties to the Guiding Principles of Justice, particularly with regards to constitutional rights:

"A right can only protect a person against intrusion from the government or a private entity acting on the behalf of the government. Constitutional protections does not confer on an individual basis." (Rights Confer Protection From Public Entities, Principles of Constitutional Law, Guiding Principles)

This means that a right stops the government (or someone acting on its behalf) from interfering, but it doesn’t automatically apply between two private people. If the Plaintiff wishes to allege that his rights have been interfered with, he should consider directing such allegation towards the government.

In short -

1. If the Plaintiff is alleging that the Defendant, Milk Crack, as an individual, is liable for the alleged actions, then he needs to prove that the Defendant acted outside of his official duties and beyond the constitutional authority granted to him.
2. If the Plaintiff is asking for the government to reinstate him due to alleged wrongful termination, he needs to allege the case against the government, as to maintain the principles of due process.
3. If the Plaintiff is alleging that rights were violated, he needs to consider the Principles of Constitutional Law, as outlined in the Guiding Principles of Justice.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is hereby offered 72 hours to amend this complaint or provide clarity to the Court as to the party they wish to allege a suit against.

 

[Crumplesnatch]

Your Honour, I hereby amend by prayer for relief to the following:
Prayer for Relief:

• A ruling that my dismissal from the role of "District Analyst" unconstitutional.
• My restoration to the position.
• $5000 paid to me in compensation to remind the office of Prime Minister that the constitution is the foundation of our political system, not a memo to be ignored.
• Permanent injunction against the office of Prime Minister from firing government employees until such a time that the constitution is changed.
• A sincere public apology from The Prime Minister.

As for the matter of who this case is directed at, I would quote precedent from Reppal v. Azalea Isles, (2024) CV 01, a civil complaint where co-defendants were allowed to be included in the suit provided that they were members of the organisation or body which was the primary defendant.

I acknowledge that this case occurred before the introduction of our constitution, however the language used in the Mandate for the Isles is identical to what is written in the constitution.
"Civil trials consist of disputes between two parties seeking compensation,"

In the case structure guidance provided by our Judiciary, it states that before the case may go ahead, a justice must review the complaint.

1. Complaint is filed by the plaintiff.
2. A justice reviews the complaint. If it is satisfactory, a summons will be issued to the defendant. That justice becomes the presiding justice.
3. The defendant will be notified of the complaint via the summons, they will have time to respond to the complaint with an answer.

By allowing witnesses to be summoned in Reppal Vs Azalea Isles, the defendant deemed that members of any government organisation can be called upon as co-defendants in a case against a government body. As the language between the Mandate for the Isles and the Constitution is identical, there can be no reason for this to be satisfactory in one case, but unsatisfactory in another. If the defendant wishes once again to dispute this, I would have no choice but to believe they believed their rulings to be unlawful and thus would call for a full and complete review into all cases that the defendant served on, in order to seek out unlawful rulings and to sanction the defendant accordingly for these breaches of the law.

With this precedent in mind, I hereby ask if the following would be permissible to the court:
Jebediah Crumplesnatch - Plaintiff
The Azalean Isles Government - Defendant
The Prime Minister - Co-defendant
Milkcrack - Co-defendant

As the government would be the primary defendant, this precedent would allow for those within the government to be brought forwards as co-defendants, namely the Prime Minister, as head of the Government, and Milkcrack, as a government employee.

 

[Westray]

Before moving forward, does the Plaintiff intend to prove that Milk Crack acted outside of his constitutional duties?

As noted before, claims seeking government action, such as reinstatement to a government position, must be directed at the government itself, not an individual. Conversely, if the Plaintiff alleges wrongful personal conduct by the Prime Minister, the claim must clearly establish how such actions fall outside the scope of his official duties.

"the Prime Minister shall serve as the head of Government. The executive authority of Azalea Isles shall be vested into the Crown, the Prime Minister, and the Cabinet." (Constitution, Article 4)

If the Plaintiff is alleging that the Milk Crack, as an individual, is liable for the alleged actions, then he needs to prove that the Defendant acted outside of his official duties and beyond the constitutional authority granted to him. If the Plaintiff is alleging that Milk Crack only in his official capacity is liable, then the case needs to be directed towards the government itself.

If you intend to prove that Milk Crack acted outside of his official constitutional duties, we may move forward. If not, your complaint may require further amendment.

 

[Crumplesnatch]

Yes your honour, I do intend to prove that Milkcrack acted outside of their official duties.

 

[Westray]

Alright, we may proceed.

The Defendant has 72 hours to provide a response to the complaint. This additional time is given in consideration to the changes in this case.

 

[MilkCrack]

Your honour, I am a bit confused now about the defendants of this case. It's my understanding, that the amendment to the complaint targeted the government specifically leaving out Milkcrack as a private individual by leaving them out of the prayer for relief.

However, they still intend to prove that Milkcrack as a private individual is personally liable? Which would not be relevant if the suit is against the government.

I asked the plaintiff to post a new complaint clearly specifying who the suit is against and who is liable should it be successful. I also ask that the suit not contain any 'co-defendants' as to avoid confusion.

 

[Crumplesnatch]

With respect your honour, the defendants confusion has no legal bearing on this case. Though as he appears to be struggling I can make it clearer for him.

I removed the request for loss of earnings due to external circumstances resulting in no loss of earnings to myself.

I am suing the government for wrongful dismissal, in order to be restored to my position when the case is won.

I am suing the office of prime minister to allow for the injunction to apply, and in order to receive the requested compensation.

And I am suing you as an individual in order to receive the personal apology I have requested.

As you as a private individual work for the government, this is something I am entitled to do by the precedent you established whilst serving as a justice.

 

[Westray]

In order to clear up any uncertainty, the Plaintiff is asked to provide their finalized amended complaint to the Court within the next 48 hours. I remind them to not waste the Court's time naming numerous "co-defendants" unless they believe there is a lawful basis to do so. If they believe there is a lawful basis, they can explain in their amended complaint.

I also remind the Defence to please ensure they are organized in their response. Continued back-and-forth will not be tolerated.

The next post in this Court thread shall include the amended complaint, in full, from the Plaintiff.

 

[Crumplesnatch]

Motion for Sanctions
Your honour, I must firmly protest against the conduct of the defendant here. I have presented my case in a legal manner, and when challenged I have provided precedents. The defendant has acted against court structure to lodge complaints without motioning, which has resulted in nothing more than delaying this case, wasting the courts time, and making it so a week after filing I am still putting forward my plaintiffs and prayer for relief. Due to the defendants actions, I am once again forced to change my prayer for relief as due to the naming of a new minister who has subsequently returned me to my role as a District Analyst.

Additionally your honour, if the defendant had truly believed that I had filed incorrectly, he could have argued this in his opening statement. Instead the defendant chose to make an unofficial complaint, without making a motion, and I am subsequently forced to repeat myself and alter my filings once again.

This does not follow case structure, and is unacceptable behaviour from a former justice and one of our nations most powerful figures. His disregard for due process in unacceptable and cannot go unsanctioned.
------------------------------------------
You have requested I not waste the courts time by naming co-defendants, I would like to remind the court that I as the previously named co-defendants were members of the government, I was more than entitled to name them, and I have provided precedent to support this. I then subsequently clarified that I do intend to sue all named defendants. Respectfully your honour, me being forced to repeat myself does not support the notion that I am wasting the courts time, and I must admit I find it somewhat unseemly for a justice to be pressuring me into dropping defendants which I am both legally entitled to bring forward, and have made perfectly clear that I do intend to explain my case against.

However following on your remarks which I personally deem wrongly targeted, and the change in circumstance following the Prime Ministers incessant delays, I provide my final amended complaint below.
-------------------------------------------
Jebediah Crumplesnatch, Plaintiff

v.

Milkcrack, Defendant



Civil Complaint:

On January 29th, I was informed twice that I would be removed from my position within the Ministry of Urban Development in response to me reminding the Prime Minister that he had stood down from the position of Minister of Urban Development. As the Constitution does not specify the right to rule the ministries in lieu of a Minister in Post, this is in breach of Fundamental Protection #10 of the constitution,

The right against government overreach of powers not specified by the constitution.​

and thus was an unlawful action. Additionally, as I am the third member of my party to be dismissed from a Government role under suspicious circumstances by Milkcrack during the last few weeks, I also have little choice but to believe he is targeting APA members has breached Fundamental Protection #1 of the constitution.

Freedom of thought, belief, and political opinion.​

I requested an official confirmation that I had been fired before bring about this case, and it took me asking 6 times, asking both privately, within the staff area of MUD, and publicly before he would give me the official confirmation of this.

Parties:

Identify the plaintiff(s); defendant(s); co-defendant(s); and third parties by name.

Jebediah Crumplesnatch - Plaintiff
Milkcrack - Defendant
Galavance - Witness


Factual Allegations:
- Milkcrack served as Minister for Urban Development during the Third Term of Parliament.
- During the confidence vote for Milkcracks government in the 4th Azalean Parliament, he left the role of MUD minister vacant, thereby resigning from the role.
- Before his resignation, he appointed Westray as Deputy Minister.
- On January 29th at 16:43 UTC, he responded to a MUD ticket opened by Galavance saying he felt that Galavance's proposal was not a good idea due to potentially causing a bigger workload down the line in very specific scenarios.
- As Milkcrack was no longer a MUD employee, I interjected to prevent the ticket from being closed down without the input of a serving member of the Ministry.
- After finding out I was participating as a MUD employee and not as a co-proposer alongside Galavance, he ordered me to stop taking part in discussions.
- Before I could reply, I received private messages telling me to stop talking in the ticket to prevent sending "mixed messages".
- I pointed out to him that he was no longer MUD minister and so the matter proposed in the ticket was no longer his concern.
- He insisted to be in charge of MUD until a new minister was appointed. I disputed this and stated that the Deputy Minister was the one deputising as Minister until a new one was appointed. I also reminded him that I had repeatedly asked for a new minister to be appointed.
- I then stated that I did not work for the Prime Minister, but for the Ministry. He then told me that if I did not want to work for him then he would be updating my roles to reflect this.
- I informed him that there is no legal basis to support the Prime Minister being able to operate the ministries in lieu of a minister, he refused to acknowledge this, stating once again that he will remove my roles and leave the next minister the choice of rehiring me.
- I am now the 3rd person to be removed from my role by Milkcrack in legally dubious situations.


Legal Claims:
- The constitution specifies that members of the executive branch of government with portfolios to run ministries will hold the title of "Minister of (Portfolios name)"
- Milkcrack has previously served as both PM and MUD minister, however this is no longer the case following the vote of confidence in his own government which left the position of MUD minister vacant.
- The constitution specifically prevents citizens against "government overreach of powers not specified by the constitution."
- By firing me, Milkcrack took actions reserved to the Minister of Urban Development, giving himself power that is not specified by the constitution.
- He previously fired The Minister of Justice Galavance, taking an hour to actually seek constitutional permission from the crown to remove him from the role following on from the public announcement.
- He previously fired Spyro as a prosecutor in the MOJ despite not being Minister of Justice, or Spyro being charged with any crimes.

Prayer for Relief:

1. $5000 in Compensation for my illegal dismissal.​

2. A ruling that my dismissal from the role of "District Analyst" was unconstitutional.​

3. A public apology from Milkcrack.​

Verification:

I, Jebediah Crumplesnatch, hereby affirm that the allegations in the complaint AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the plaintiff's knowledge, information, and belief and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.

 

[Westray]

The Defendant is asked to provide an answer to the complaint as posted above accordingly.

 

[Westray]

Seeing as several days have passed since the Court asked the Defendant to respond, I hereby set out a deadline of 24 hours, from this post, for the Defendant to provide an answer to the complaint.

 

[MilkCrack]

MOTION FOR SANCTION
Your Honor,
It is critical to distinguish between myself and the government in this matter. While I have chosen to assist in defending the government's legal position due to limited government resources, this does not merge my identity with that of the government. We remain separate entities.

The plaintiff might find the distinction trivial, however, it's vital in determining whether the case should be headed by a government prosecutor or a private attorney employed by me and who pays for renumeration.

Moreover, the arguments presented on my behalf would differ from those applicable to the government. The distinction between these positions is material to the proceedings.

Furthermore, the amendment to the complaint initially filed contains a significantly different prayer for relief than the fully amended complaint currently before the court. This inconsistency is not trivial and makes it clear that my objections to the complaint were in good faith and necessary.

I submit that the plaintiff's failure to maintain a consistent legal position has placed an undue burden on both myself and the court.

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Answer to Civil Complaint:

I would like to submit the following elements that any civil case must prove in order to succeed. These elements are well established in common law and founded on basic principles.

For the plaintiff to have a case, they must establish:
1) The existence of a legal duty the defendant owes to the plaintiff.
I submit that any legal duty to pay salaries or not fire the plaintiff was with the government, not me.

2) The defendant's breach of that duty
I submit that I did not breach that duty both because there was no duty and because due process was followed in the firing of the plaintiff.

3) The plaintiff suffered an injury.
I submit that the plaintiff did not suffer an injury due to the fact that the government did not yet update any rolles in-game between the plaintiff beeing fired and hired. Therefore it's impossible for damages to have occurred.

4) Proof that the defendant's breach caused the injury
Again it's unclear what duty the defendant (not the government) would have supposedly breached, and there is no injury.

Parties:

1. Plaintiff - Crumplesnatch
2. Defendant - Milkcrack

Factual Defenses or Challenges:
1. Milkcrack served as Minister for Urban Development during the Third Term of Parliament. DENY minister for urban development is not a constitutionally recognised title.
2. During the confidence vote for Milkcracks government in the 4th Azalean Parliament, he left the role of MUD minister vacant, thereby resigning from the role. DENY, the proposal included MUD as "Pending" and that did not constitute resignation, because there was no intent to resign.
3. Before his resignation, he appointed Westray as Deputy Minister. DENY No resignation occurred.
4. On January 29th at 16:43 UTC, he responded to a MUD ticket opened by Galavance saying he felt that Galavance's proposal was not a good idea due to potentially causing a bigger workload down the line in very specific scenarios. AFFIRM
5. As Milkcrack was no longer a MUD employee, I interjected to prevent the ticket from being closed down without the input of a serving member of the Ministry. DENY Milkcrack was the head of the department.
6. After finding out I was participating as a MUD employee and not as a co-proposer alongside Galavance, he ordered me to stop taking part in discussions. AFFIRM
7. Before I could reply, I received private messages telling me to stop talking in the ticket to prevent sending "mixed messages". AFFIRM
8. I pointed out to him that he was no longer MUD minister and so the matter proposed in the ticket was no longer his concern. AFFIRM
9. He insisted to be in charge of MUD until a new minister was appointed. I disputed this and stated that the Deputy Minister was the one deputising as Minister until a new one was appointed. I also reminded him that I had repeatedly asked for a new minister to be appointed. DENY
10. I then stated that I did not work for the Prime Minister, but for the Ministry. He then told me that if I did not want to work for him then he would be updating my roles to reflect this. AFFIRM
11. I informed him that there is no legal basis to support the Prime Minister being able to operate the ministries in lieu of a minister, he refused to acknowledge this, stating once again that he will remove my roles and leave the next minister the choice of rehiring me. DENY
12. I am now the 3rd person to be removed from my role by Milkcrack in legally dubious situations. DENY

Legal Defenses or Challenges:
1. According to the Rights Confer Protection From Public Entities:
"A right can only protect a person against intrusion from the government or a private entity acting on the behalf of the government. Constitutional protections does not confer on an individual basis. "

The whole reason the plaintiff is suing me personally is because they are attempting to prove I did not represent the government and acted on an individual basis. Which if true, means that constitutional protections do not confer.

And legal claim 3. asserting the defendant's right against government intrusions is not applicable in this case. If they wish to use this claim they must sue the government, not the defendant.

2. Ministers may only be dismissed under specific circumstances, the plaintiff is asserting that the parliament dismissed the Minister by not filling in a name.

The minister who would be in charge of the department was left as "Pending" to imply the next minister would still be decided. This does not mean the then-current minister (Milkcrack) was dismissed from their responsibilities.

Furthermore, Parliament lacks the authority to dismiss ministers, with a vote of confidence. The constitution specifically states that parliament only has the authority to dismiss a minister through a vote of no confidence.

Therefore Milkcrack's legal position as PM and minister in charge of the department did not change after the vote of confidence in his government.

3. The prime minister as the head of government has full authority to hire and fire anyone within their government unless otherwise described by law.

Ministerial departments such as MUD are not established by law or the constitution but only exist through the executive authority vested in the queen, the prime minister and the cabinet.

This executive authority is somewhat delegated to the ministers in charge of the department, however, this does not mean the queen, the prime minister or the cabinet give up their prerogative to exercise this executive authority when they see fit.

4. The plaintiff lacks salary damages, during the time of removal from the department they were also a police officer, and they did not receive any additional salary from their position within the department.

No roles were updated in-game only on Discord. Therefore no salary could have been lost.

The plaintiff is now once again an employee at the ministry, so there could be no further salary loss.

5 The plaintiff was given ample opportunity, to change their course of action before being let go from the department, however, they elected to be obstinate and combative.

Afterwards publishing the fact they have been temporarily removed, in an attempt to score political points.

The plaintiff is attempting to seek equitable relief in the form of an injunction to publicly apologise. If this court recognises the existence of equitable relief as defined in common law they must also recognise the clean hand doctrine.

Stating, "He who comes into equity must come with clean hands". The plaintiff did not come with clean hands and has acted in bad faith every step of the way.

Therefore granting the plaintiff, equitable damages would be unjust and contrary to common law.

6 For the court to demand the defendant issue a public apology would go against the 1st and 4th rights in the constitution.

7 The defendant's actions were well within their perceived authority, the defendant was not responsible for paying salary to the plaintiff. Any legal obligation to pay salaries lies strictly with the government, not the defendant.

8 The prime minister may re-assign ministerial departments to ministers as they see fit. Ministers are not tied to a specific department. The prime-minister is also a minister, and can therefore put themselves in charge of a ministerial department when they see fit.

Verification:
I, Milkcrack, hereby affirm that the allegations in the answer AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the defendant’s knowledge, information, and belief and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.

 

[Crumplesnatch]

Response to Motion
Your Honour,
This motion is beyond farcical. I have been forced to change my filings repeatedly due to their wrongful insistence that my filings were not legally sound. I have repeatedly provided precedence for my previous filings however this was not enough for him, delaying the case from being heard due to “not understanding” and “being confused”.

Due to the delays solely brought about by the defence, circumstances changed, and when refiling I updated the filing to reflect these changes and not waste the courts time.

He speaks of his previous objections being in good faith, I apologise your honour, but what objections? He did not submit any official objections, and one of my refilling’s was forced to occur despite no Motion or Objection being filed. This totally goes against the Case Structure and the rules of trial.

My legal position has been clear from the very beginning. I intend to sue this Man. I have standing to sue this Man. I have basis to sue this Man. Any delay or inconsistency are solely the outcome of the defendants conduct. This case began over a week ago and we are only now getting his response to the filing. He cannot file a motion on the grounds that his defence arguments would have been different if he has done everything in his power to prevent these arguments from ever being heard.

 

[Westray]

Could the Plaintiff please clarify what lawful basis, whether it be precedent or statute law, is being applied in this case to justify a public apology from the Defendant? As the constitution does enshrine certain freedoms to communication, the Court is inclined to oppose an order that would otherwise compel speech.

As these constitutional freedoms are subject to reasonable limits prescribed by the law, the Court is open to allowing this prayer for relief, only if some sort of argumentation/basis is given for why this would be a reasonable limit. The Plaintiff is asked to consider pointing to precedent established in a previous case, an act established by the Parliament, or some other lawful basis that would justify an apology as an appropriate form of relief.

The Plaintiff has 48 hours to respond to this question from the Court before I rule on the motions accordingly.

 

[Crumplesnatch]

Your honour, the protections given to us in the constitution are sacred, and this case entirely resolved around such protections being respected, so obviously I would never wish the court to compell someone in that manner.

However, it would not be a breach of an individual's rights for the court to simply ask the defence to provide one should they be found to be in the wrong. Obviously it would be up to the defence for one to be given, and I would not take action if they chose not to, because everyone has the right to be protected by the constitution, both lowly citizens and those in high office.

What's more, should the court side with me and find the defence did knowingly break the constitution in order to illegally remove me from my position, a request from a judge for a simple apology would be more than appropriate.

 

[Westray]

The Court finds that the Plaintiff’s amendments to the complaint were made in response to procedural objections and evolving circumstances. While the Defendant argues that these changes were inconsistent, the Court does not find evidence of bad faith. As such, the Defendant's motion for sanctions is denied.

The complaint that the Court has taken into consideration is quoted below:

-------------------------------------------
Jebediah Crumplesnatch, Plaintiff

v.

Milkcrack, Defendant



Civil Complaint:

On January 29th, I was informed twice that I would be removed from my position within the Ministry of Urban Development in response to me reminding the Prime Minister that he had stood down from the position of Minister of Urban Development. As the Constitution does not specify the right to rule the ministries in lieu of a Minister in Post, this is in breach of Fundamental Protection #10 of the constitution,

The right against government overreach of powers not specified by the constitution.​

and thus was an unlawful action. Additionally, as I am the third member of my party to be dismissed from a Government role under suspicious circumstances by Milkcrack during the last few weeks, I also have little choice but to believe he is targeting APA members has breached Fundamental Protection #1 of the constitution.

Freedom of thought, belief, and political opinion.​

I requested an official confirmation that I had been fired before bring about this case, and it took me asking 6 times, asking both privately, within the staff area of MUD, and publicly before he would give me the official confirmation of this.

Parties:

Identify the plaintiff(s); defendant(s); co-defendant(s); and third parties by name.

Jebediah Crumplesnatch - Plaintiff
Milkcrack - Defendant
Galavance - Witness


Factual Allegations:
- Milkcrack served as Minister for Urban Development during the Third Term of Parliament.
- During the confidence vote for Milkcracks government in the 4th Azalean Parliament, he left the role of MUD minister vacant, thereby resigning from the role.
- Before his resignation, he appointed Westray as Deputy Minister.
- On January 29th at 16:43 UTC, he responded to a MUD ticket opened by Galavance saying he felt that Galavance's proposal was not a good idea due to potentially causing a bigger workload down the line in very specific scenarios.
- As Milkcrack was no longer a MUD employee, I interjected to prevent the ticket from being closed down without the input of a serving member of the Ministry.
- After finding out I was participating as a MUD employee and not as a co-proposer alongside Galavance, he ordered me to stop taking part in discussions.
- Before I could reply, I received private messages telling me to stop talking in the ticket to prevent sending "mixed messages".
- I pointed out to him that he was no longer MUD minister and so the matter proposed in the ticket was no longer his concern.
- He insisted to be in charge of MUD until a new minister was appointed. I disputed this and stated that the Deputy Minister was the one deputising as Minister until a new one was appointed. I also reminded him that I had repeatedly asked for a new minister to be appointed.
- I then stated that I did not work for the Prime Minister, but for the Ministry. He then told me that if I did not want to work for him then he would be updating my roles to reflect this.
- I informed him that there is no legal basis to support the Prime Minister being able to operate the ministries in lieu of a minister, he refused to acknowledge this, stating once again that he will remove my roles and leave the next minister the choice of rehiring me.
- I am now the 3rd person to be removed from my role by Milkcrack in legally dubious situations.


Legal Claims:
- The constitution specifies that members of the executive branch of government with portfolios to run ministries will hold the title of "Minister of (Portfolios name)"
- Milkcrack has previously served as both PM and MUD minister, however this is no longer the case following the vote of confidence in his own government which left the position of MUD minister vacant.
- The constitution specifically prevents citizens against "government overreach of powers not specified by the constitution."
- By firing me, Milkcrack took actions reserved to the Minister of Urban Development, giving himself power that is not specified by the constitution.
- He previously fired The Minister of Justice Galavance, taking an hour to actually seek constitutional permission from the crown to remove him from the role following on from the public announcement.
- He previously fired Spyro as a prosecutor in the MOJ despite not being Minister of Justice, or Spyro being charged with any crimes.

Prayer for Relief:

1. $5000 in Compensation for my illegal dismissal.​

2. A ruling that my dismissal from the role of "District Analyst" was unconstitutional.​

3. A public apology from Milkcrack.​

Verification:

I, Jebediah Crumplesnatch, hereby affirm that the allegations in the complaint AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the plaintiff's knowledge, information, and belief and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.

As for the forced public apology, the Court will not compel or request any individual to provide an apology as it would be inconsistent with the law. If Parliament wishes to pass legislation that would allow for legally obligated apologies in the interest of justice, they may, but since the law does not currently exist, the Court cannot consider whether or not it is a reasonable limit on rights.

Should both parties come to an arrangement outside of court, an apology could be in order. However, the Court compelling an apology, even indirectly, with no lawful basis, would set a precedent inconsistent with constitutional rights.

The Plaintiff has 48 hours to provide their opening statement, in response to the answer to the complaint by the Defendant.