View a Hearing
Appeals Court
Docket: AC-12
Status: Under consideration by the Dept. of Justice
agumobrown
Attorney: Kelpti
vs.
Department of Justice
Attorney: Not Assigned
Overview
-
Submitted: 1 month ago (21/Mar/2026 05:39:36 PM UTC)
-
Hearing Location:
-
Hearing Verdict:
-
Date Scheduled:
-
Time Scheduled:
Information
Appeal Type
Hiring Blacklist
Explain why your appeal should be successful
I believe my appeal should be successful because my termination and blacklist placement did not follow the disciplinary procedures required under White House law, and the punishment was disproportionate to the situation. I acted in good faith, using a previous BGC as a structural template with the intention of updating it fully for the White House. This was a correctable mistake, not misconduct, and I immediately offered to redo all BGCs from scratch. No warning or strike was issued, despite the Code of Conduct Act 2025 requiring a clear, step‑by‑step process before termination. Additionally, no law in the Crimes Act or Defense Act defines my actions as an offense. For these reasons, the decision was excessive, procedurally incorrect, and should be reconsidered.
Justification for the Action you're appealing
My termination and blacklist placement did not comply with the Code of Conduct Act 2025, which mandates a progressive disciplinary process: first a warning, then strikes, and only after repeated offenses a firing. I received none of these steps. “Plagiarism of classified documents” is not a crime under the Crimes Act 2025, and my actions do not fall under any offense in the Defense Act 2025. The only possible category is “Negligence of Duties,” a Class B offense that does not mandate firing or blacklisting. Because the disciplinary process was skipped and the punishment was disproportionate, the decision meets the definition of Unfair Punishment under the Crimes Act 2025. Therefore, the action taken against me was not legally justified and should be overturned.