JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiff,

and in the matter of,



National Guard




May 9, 2015

Judgement per the Honorable Ramazan Malice;


March, 21, 2015, plaintiff Teek Mercy (hereinafter referred to as Mercy or Plaintiff) had filed a civil lawsuit against the National Guard of San Andreas (hereinafter known as National Guard or Defendant) for the claims of (i). Discrimination (from the military); (ii). Breach of Trust; (iii). Conduct unbecoming of a serviceperson; and (iv). Medical compensation (for the usage of a taser by National Guard personnel member).



To begin, I will first discuss the issues of (ii). Breach of Trust and (iii). Conduct unbecoming of a serviceperson. Beginning with the claim of Breach of Trust; the act of Breach of Trust is a crime, and is not a tort. Therefore, the Civil Court of Justice for San Andreas cannot order the National Guard to pay any relief towards the plaintiff for the act of Breach of Trust. Now, moving onto the claim of Conduct Unbecoming of a Serviceperson; this claim is also a crime, and not a tort. Both these claims are taken from the Uniform Statutory Code of Laws, which is a criminal statute.



For the claim of military discrimination from the National Guard which led to the “Loss of Happiness” for the plaintiff, the Civil Courts of Justice for San Andreas has come to the conclusion that such claim is found to be true, and that the National Guard has indeed discriminated upon the plaintiff for reasons which are not quite yet known wholly. However, the Court does know that the National Guard had exempted Mister Mercy from the live recruitment held by the National Guard, for the National Guard. However, the Court finds the compensatory relief to be overly excessive and exaggerated. The Court has drastically reduced the amount in which the National Guard is ordered to pay the plaintiff down to a cost of two point five ($2,500,000) million San Andrean dollars. Reason behind such action is due to the fact that the plaintiff has not provided the Courts with enough evidence for the claim of “Loss of Happiness” via medical documentation from a medical professional. The Court cannot order such a high amount to be paid without official release of documentation stating otherwise.



For the claim to compensation of medical bills, the Court has decided to grant such claim, and orders the National Guard to pay a lump sum of two million ($2,000,000) San Andrean Dollars to the plaintiff, Mister Teek Mercy.


The defendant submitted a statement that that the department of defense building (the building which was being used for the live recruitment process) is a restricted area, which gives them the power of immediate arrest. The Court disagrees with such statement, as previously stated, the only restricted areas are red zones, also known as militarized zones. The National Guard had used excessive force for the military discrimination of the plaintiff in order to eject said plaintiff from the building in which the live recruitment was being held. Firstly, Mister Mercy was discriminated on as the National Guard had attempted to eject Mister Mercy from said building, then proceeded to use a taser to subdue Mister Mercy. As we all know, a taser shoots electric shocks towards the body, which results in serious pain. For that matter, the National Guard is ordered to pay the plaintiff in a lump sum, in the amount ordered in this paragraph.

The Court has done its research on the matter of how much harm was inflicted upon the plaintiff by taser usage from the National Guard. As I traveled to the United States on a business trip, I had the chance to speak with scientific professionals residing in the United States. Those scientists laid down the following statements. They also provided me with an article on the topic. (( Google’d it ))


The prongs of a taser send electricity directly into muscle fibers and cause them to contract uncontrollably.

A taser incapacitates a person by highjacking the reins of the central nervous system—the ultimate controller of our muscles.”

“[The taser] overrides the brain’s control of the body by speaking the same ‘language’ as nerves. It achieves this by emitting electric pulses that match those used by neurons, which transfer information between the brain and muscles. When these nerves are flooded with pulses that are similar to their natural frequency and strength, normal signals get drowned out and muscles contract uncontrollably.”


The full article in which I have obtained from said scientists will be attached below. Needless to say, I think I have provided enough evidence to prove that the plaintiff did indeed retain a fair amount of bodily harm from the tazer’s usage. A taser takes control of a person’s bodily and muscular function, and sends electrical shocks through the body. The majority of the human body is comprised of water. When an electric current is in contact with the human body, it has a sometimes fatal reaction. Thereby we find the National Guard guilty of inflicting harm (non-punitive) upon Mister Mercy.

(( Article: http://scienceline.org/2007/08/ask-sergo-tasers/ ))



The case falls into the favor of Teek Mercy due to the clear evidence provided. However, the compensatory relief sought has been drastically reduced to the full amount of four point five ($4,500,000) million San Andrean Dollars. In correspondence to the Supreme Court Order, the Civil Court has greatly reduced relief sought by the plaintiff, due to the fact that the plaintiff had not provided the Court (via initial filing of the civil law suit) with medical documentation from a licensed medical professional.


Before I end, I would like to answer one of the claims by the defendant’s attorney. The attorney responded with, and I quote,


“The plaintiff claims that he is a "gay muslim" although islam forbids gays and same sex marriage, which just shows that this whole story is made up to attempt to destroy the National Guard reputation in the public eyes.”


Mister Miller, don’t you know that this Court rules upon facts of the law, and not by opinion of beliefs in terms of harassment and claims related to it. How can you claim that the plaintiff is attempting to ruin your client’s reputation by announcing they’ve harassed him due to being a homosexual Muslim when the religion of Islam forbids such a status? What a religion tends to allow and disallow is not in correspondence with the law, I seek you no longer make such claims based upon a person's belief and standings. I rest.

Be it ordered.


The Honorable Ramazan Malice

Judge of the Courts of Justice