Appeal: Denied [2024] FCR 116 - Appeal

[ko531]

Username: ko531

I am representing a client

Who is your Client?: The Commonwealth of Redmont

What Case are you Appealing?: [2024] FCR 116

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Alexanderlove [2024] FCR 116

Basis for Appeal: The Commonwealth wishes for the verdict to be vacated as it is not in compliance with the law. We do not wish for a retrial however as that would violate a citizens rights. We are only asking for a Vacated verdict so a new verdict may be given more in line with the law and one that does not set Dangerous Precedent.

Duke claimed that Ghost writing isnt Legal fraud when stating:

"If Mr. Love were to “ghostwrite,” he would not be breaking the law as he is not practicing in a court of law"

This is very much wrong. The act of ghost writing is about lying to the reader on who wrote the information so If alexanderlove were to ghost write then the court would be actively lied to as to who is actually behind the case. It would have the exact same effect as if Alexanderlove went under a new name to practice law.

This decision sets dangerous and harmful precedent for the legal community. What is the point of disbarring someone when they can easily avoid it by ghost writting? What is the point of passing the legal exams if you can just ghost write? Legal fraud is now almost useless against the very thing it was trying to stop.

As for Conflict of Interest Duke stated:

"However, it does not constitute a COI when clients agree to waive their right to representation if a higher-status client is involved."

This is just wrong. The definition for Conflict of Interest (in a legal sense) is:

"In the legal context, a conflict of interest is defined as the situation where the same legal counsel represents both the defense and the plaintiff simultaneously in the same case."

Dragon law with this policy to allow one client to sue another would be a conflict of interest as Dragon law is still actively representing both clients in almost all legal matters. They have attorney client privillege for both clients so to allow these lawsuits could give dragon law an advantage as they have access to very private information about the exact entity they are suing. Dragon law has the responsiblility to do what is best for their clients which does not include suing them for a higher pay day.

As you can see these 3 charges all being found not guilty does so much more harm then good. It sets terrible precedent and will utterly render these laws useless. This is why the Commonwealth is appealing for a vacated verdict in order to prevent the legal field from going to chaos. This is not just about finding one person guilty, its about upholding integrity and accountability in the practice of law.

Supporting Evidence:

 

[End]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

In a 2-0 Decision, the Supreme Court has upheld the ruling of the Federal Court and rejects the appeal.

The Supreme Court found no new evidence to suggest that the Defendant misrepresented their legal credentials and concurs with the Federal Court's determination that the burden of qualification and responsibility rests with the legal professional before the court. How they go about researching and preparing their cases is not grounded in law and is common practice by way of interns, researchers, paralegals, and less-qualified lawyers assisting. It is not the Court's place to create law where there is no law concerning this action by loosely tying it to a definition which does not suit.

The Supreme Court reminds the appellant that attorney-client privilege is owned by the client and concerns the information relationship between a client and their lawyer, unless agreed otherwise. The Supreme Court concurs with the Federal Court that if a client contractually agrees to waive their representation where a higher retainer exists, then there is no conflict. No new evidence suggests a change from the original verdict in relation to the defendant having breached a client's interests.

The Supreme Court reminds the Commonwealth that appeals need to be made on a basis of law, legal procedure, or out of new evidence. The Commonwealth has put forward further arguments and hypothetical examples with no evidence because it simply did not get the verdict it wished in the first instance.

​