Zephyr

You are not framing this correctly again. This is because of what I said, and again, I never said what you claim I did. Even if I have, it does not give you any amount of power to shoot a minister because they tell you the truth. Sure, I could have phrased it in a more polite manner, but the result would have been the same as it had been the other times we told you in that room. Your opinion was incorrect and could have harmed the state if the party had pursued its options. It is my right, as is anyone, if they think they were fired wrongfully, to take it to the courts. If that had not worked, I don't know what would have happened, because we didn't get that far. If you shot me before court. It is not last resort. You didn't even reach the court case. Also, why would I agree to be removed by you if you did it unfairly? No one that I know of would sue their boss for a wrongful termination. You are not the arbiter of the Law. There is not a single Minister I can think of who was shot because they chose to sue for wrongful termination. And again, it is not grief because I refused to accept that you wanted to get rid of me. In all fairness, I would have ten times the amount of grief due to the endless number of things you have done against me, given my side. Yet not a single time did I shoot you because you undermined my office or insulted me. I actively attempted to work with you so it would not happen again. No one insults their entire ministry and refuses to compromise with them, then accuses the other party of not coming to the table. It is laughable to think that you have that opinion. Once more, as I explained, it was not a threat, nor can you view it as one unless you are intellectually disabled. I have explained the meaning in the most precise terms multiple times, yet you have chosen to reinterpret it as a threat, despite never having argued against it before this point. Several people also informed you of why removing me was a "bad idea." So you knew what that meant. Do not beat around the bush and pretend to be ignorant of my statements. You had no right to claim grief or last resort because I came to you numerous times to help and form a positive relationship with you. You adamantly refused to engage in any positive dialogue with me for any reason.

Again didn't call you a retard. Said you were acting like one by refusing to listen to your ministers for the 79th time. I never threatened you. I told you that after you threatened me, I wouldn't have a job. "The last time someone tried to fire me, it didn't end too well." Which would have been a threat if I hadn't followed up after you asked what that meant. The senior co-vice chairman, Kris Christie, defended me in a council meeting after someone else removed me because they attempted to say I wasn't doing anything and that I was useless, as you had said before. I had told you that before. It was a rebuttal to your statement that I was useless, which I wasn't, and it brought up a case that precisely defined that point. Since you said that constantly. I also mentioned that exact phrase several times during your entire tenure as Vice Chancellor. Never once did you call it a threat until now, when I told you what it meant, since you called me useless, worthless, pathetic and an endless number of other pejoratives over your tenure.

Bear this in mind. Active disrespect would be being out in public and decrying your office or yourself. Never did I do that. I expressed my concerns to you in private meetings, not in the public forum.

I didn't actively disrespect you. You have disrespected me and my office multiple times under your leadership. I had never had any issues with any Vizekanzler, Kanzler, or President throughout my entire tenure until yours. Seeing you on the 6th doesn't apply to anything. I am not going to apologise for something I never said to your face. You refused to talk to me at all. You did not ask to reconcile at all. I was more than happy to work with you throughout your tenure. Over and over again, you refused to work with me. You didn't compromise at all. You calling me to a meeting to call me names and insult me until I apologise to you is not a compromise. Working through that and coming to an agreement that we both refrain from using such language towards each other, which I suggested when we met, is a compromise. Respect is earned and not given. I did, however, provide you with respect at the beginning of your tenure until you started insulting me consistently every single time we met. In which I gave respect to the title and not to you. Which is why I said that consistently. Also, there was a disagreement between the two of us. You directing me to apologise in front of the Minister of the Interior when it is between us makes no sense, nor did you ask or direct me to apologise while we were in that room. I filed an injunction against your order, which was illegal. I told you a week ago, along with Wolfson, how to remove civil servants using the Civil Service Act. Shooting me over calling you a name that I didn't even use is not only illogical, but also actively trying to work with you for your entire tenure and being hostile towards me twenty-four seven does not make people want to work with you. Yet still, I came to your office each time you asked for me and did my job. You being upset because you are not being professional, and then continuing to act unprofessionally, and me pointing that out, and how you act is not a Last Resort. I came to you to resolve our differences multiple times, and each time, you insulted me. This is an entirely one-sided relationship, and almost every single minister can tell you I tried to help you and respected your office. For you to turn around and accuse me of what you did is not only a lie but a blatant one. Also, you never asked to meet with me, the day you had people shoot me or ask to speak with me in any way. What you did is what you usually do, which is insult me and call me names in public, which I never called you names in public or over advertisements. You, however, did call not only me but multiple other people names in public.

Character's name & rank: Außenminister Alhmanic Rothgeb Schröpfer SteamID (STEAM_0:X:XXX): STEAM_0:0:215028615 Staff member who issued the PK (if you know): Prime Explain why you were PK'd: As far as I know, it was grief due to numerous arguments, disagreements, and statements that I and the Vizekanzler had over the course of a few months. Why should you be un-PK'd?: I do not believe he took this to the last resort due to me actively trying to work with him multiple times, and him snubbing me each and every time I attempt to work with him. Each time we had a meeting, he assumed that at the next cabinet meeting, I would side with him one hundred per cent. When I did not, he would call me to his office and complain that I wasn't siding with the state. Over and over again, this trend happened. He called me in person and in private, insults which I had been told about, which was our fourth meeting at the time. I told him that insulting ministers and everyone else wouldn't win people over. He told me it would. I then proposed protections for ministers because that would give them leeway with the rest of the state. He got upset and had the Kapo remove me from his office. The most recent argument we had was about him limiting the party and why what he did was considered bad procedure, as well as how the Konsul could challenge that with a Supreme Court case. The Truth and Science Minister also supported me in this matter. He then insulted me. To which I said you need to act professional in private as much as in public, as I told him numerous times. He denied this and then asked how he was acting. I said to him that insulting and cursing others at every turn without being diplomatic is reckless behaviour. I told him it was acting like a retard. He asked me, "Are you calling me a retard." I told him no. You need to act like the Vice Chancellor and be professional; otherwise, you'll start to develop a reputation similar to that of the procurement minister, who is known for yelling at everyone and earning no respect. He said I don't respect him and am now suspended, and that I needed to be removed. Later, he called me to his office and told me to apologise. I told him I would not apologise due to I did not call him a retard. Acting like one and being one are different things. He needs to act like the Vice Chancellor and defend the state to earn respect. He said I have never respected him. Which is not true. I told him numerous times, both in private and in public, that not only could he be one of the longest-serving Vice Chancellors, but he could also be one of the best. All he had to do was defend the state and stop getting into arguments or positions he could not win. To which he stated I was the reason he couldn't win because I have a cabal of ministers waiting to get rid of him. I rejected the accusation because it was utterly false. He proceeded to have me removed from the position until I apologised. This was going to be a legal battle. I attempted to work with him multiple times during his tenure, but he repeatedly refused my help. I do not believe this was a last resort for the reasons listed. I have attempted many, many, many times to work with him, and he has snubbed me every last time. After the sixth attempt to return to the table with him, it became impossible to work with him due to his insults and threats. I was not attempting to get him removed, killed or anything of the sort. My primary goal was to continue in my position as Minister of Foreign Affairs. We have argued a lot that is true, but for no other reason than disagreement on policy and how he talked to other people, which was easily resolvable. Sometimes you can't agree with someone on how they act, but this was a completely one-sided relationship, which I attempted to repair many times. Each time, he refused to listen to me or anyone else when we tried to help him.

-1 FREAK