Appeal: Pending [2024] FCR 38 - Appeal

[Towloo]

Username: Towloo

I am representing a client

Who is your Client?: royalsnakee

File(s) attached

What Case are you Appealing?: [2024] FCR 38

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - Redmont Bar Association v. Royalsnakee [2024] FCR 38

Basis for Appeal: Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court,

We respectfully appeal the decision rendered in the case of Redmont Bar Association v. Royalsnakee. The grounds for this appeal are based on the following points:

I. Material Witness Conflict
The involvement of End, a member of the staff team, in the case as a material witness presents a conflict of interest. The staff team's direct involvement in the case affects the impartiality of the proceedings. This connection necessitates a thorough re-evaluation to ensure a fair and unbiased decision.

II. Misinterpretation of "Excessive" in Contempt Charges
The lower court concluded that the nature of the contempt charges against Royalsnakee was excessive. However, it failed to differentiate between the types of contempt charges. Notably, half of these charges were due to non-appearance rather than willful misconduct or disrespect to the court. This distinction is critical and should mitigate the severity attributed to these charges.

III. Amicus Brief Evidence
The Amicus Brief presented in this case clearly demonstrates that many lawyers have accumulated similar or more severe charges within a much shorter time frame. Royalsnakee’s infractions were spread over several years, indicating a less frequent pattern of misconduct. This evidence should have been given more weight in assessing the proportionality of the sanctions.

IV. Precedent Set by Chief Justice Dartanboy
It is important to highlight that Chief Justice Dartanboy himself admitted, “Your honor, I received 2 contempt charges in just 2 months (June-July 2023) followed by multiple contempt charges given to the Commonwealth when I was Attorney General.” This precedent shows that similar infractions have not led to such severe consequences, questioning the fairness and consistency of the disbarment ruling.

V. Incomplete and Insufficient Staff Testimonies
During the questioning, staff member xEndeavour admitted that the staff team does not maintain records of forum bans. The evidence, documented in "Staff: Insight," shows that the questions posed to the staff team were not fully answered, leaving significant gaps:

Question: "Could you ask all staff members with that rank and above if they recall banning Royalsnakee from the forums since January 2024?"

Answer: "We have no records suggesting that Royalsnakee was banned."

Question: "Can you be 100% sure that a staff member didn’t ban Royalsnakee from the forums?"

Answer: "We have no records suggesting that Royalsnakee was banned."

These responses do not definitively confirm or deny the ban. The first question seeks confirmation from all relevant staff members about their recollection of banning Royalsnakee. The response, "We have no records suggesting that Royalsnakee was banned," does not address whether staff members were asked or what their individual recollections might be. It only states the absence of records.

The second question asks for absolute certainty that Royalsnakee was not banned. The answer repeats the lack of records but does not provide the certainty requested. It fails to eliminate the possibility that a ban could have occurred without being recorded. This vagueness leaves reasonable doubt regarding the contempt charges related to non-appearance and undermines the validity of these charges.

Additionally, xEndeavour’s admission that forum bans are never recorded (See “Staff: Insight”) further complicates the situation. Without any records, it is impossible to verify whether Royalsnakee was banned from the forums with records, casting further doubt on the non-appearance contempt charges, and the only way to have been completely sure would have been if the staff team fully answered the questions.

Conclusion
In light of the above points, we respectfully request that you, the justices of the supreme court, overturn the lower court’s verdict and reconsider the sanctions imposed on Royalsnakee. The initial decision appears overly harsh and not fully supported by the contextual evidence presented. A fair and balanced re-evaluation will better serve the interests of justice.

Supporting Evidence:

 

[Dartanboy]

As I, long before I was Chief Justice, provided an amicus brief which more-or-less supported royalsnakee, I must recuse from this Appeal.

 

[Towloo]

As I, long before I was Chief Justice, provided an amicus brief which more-or-less supported royalsnakee, I must recuse from this Appeal.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, under Part II, Section 21 of the Constitution, "Judicial Officers cannot preside over an appeal that they have already ruled on previously in a lower court." This would mean that Justice xEndeavour would also have to recuse himself. Under Part II, Section 19 of the Constitution, "A minimum of two (2) Justices in agreement must be met to deliver a verdict on a Supreme Court case." This would mean that if moved to trial, a verdict would not be able to be reached. Let's cover who has more involvement in the case:

You - Wrote an Amicus Brief, saying "Today, I approach you as a friend of the courts. I seek to provide legal analysis of some key terms and this case, without arguing for either party."

Justice xEndeavour - Was a witness in the case (staff team member) and ruled on it (specifically outlined in the Constitution)

There must be another Justice to be able to deliver a verdict on this case. Justice SumoMC was not involved in the case whatsoever and is unbiased. Justice xEndeavour was directly involved in the case as a witness (staff team member) and the presiding officer (once more, specifically outlined in the Constitution). You made an Amicus Brief presenting an unbiased ("without arguing for either party") statement ("I seek to provide legal analysis of some key terms and this case").

Therefore, you must reverse your recusal to be able to rule on the case, as well as the fact that between you and Justice xEndeavour you are the more unbiased one (and frankly, completely unbiased).

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, under Part II, Section 21 of the Constitution, "Judicial Officers cannot preside over an appeal that they have already ruled on previously in a lower court." This would mean that Justice xEndeavour would also have to recuse himself. Under Part II, Section 19 of the Constitution, "A minimum of two (2) Justices in agreement must be met to deliver a verdict on a Supreme Court case." This would mean that if moved to trial, a verdict would not be able to be reached. Let's cover who has more involvement in the case:

You - Wrote an Amicus Brief, saying "Today, I approach you as a friend of the courts. I seek to provide legal analysis of some key terms and this case, without arguing for either party."

Justice xEndeavour - Was a witness in the case (staff team member) and ruled on it (specifically outlined in the Constitution)

There must be another Justice to be able to deliver a verdict on this case. Justice SumoMC was not involved in the case whatsoever and is unbiased. Justice xEndeavour was directly involved in the case as a witness (staff team member) and the presiding officer (once more, specifically outlined in the Constitution). You made an Amicus Brief presenting an unbiased ("without arguing for either party") statement ("I seek to provide legal analysis of some key terms and this case").

Therefore, you must reverse your recusal to be able to rule on the case, as well as the fact that between you and Justice xEndeavour you are the more unbiased one (and frankly, completely unbiased).

Towloo,

While I am confident in my ability to remain impartial and know I am capable of looking at this case fairly and without bias, even the appearance of bias (even where no actual bias is present) is grounds for recusal.

The Judicial Branch has been politicized in recent months, and the public's faith in one of the very core principles of our Democracy has diminished. As the Chief Justice, I must help restore the Courts to the a-political body it has always been intended to be, and I cannot in good conscience preside over this case, knowing there is at least some appearance of bias - one which you yourself noted in our DMs (before I was a Justice).

The Motion to Reconsider is  overruled.

 

[Dartanboy]

Just an informational post, for you:

Justice SumoMC voluntarily recused as he was the Chairman of the RBA Ethics Committee that recommended Aladeen's appointment.

Justice xEndeavour is recused due to having ruled on the FCR case.

The appeal cannot be heard until two (2) Justices who are not recused are available, and currently there are zero (0).

 

[Towloo]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your honors,

My client, royalsnakee, respectfully requests that this Court grant an emergency injunction to temporarily reverse the decision rendered in [2024] FCR 38 for the duration of this appeal. This request is made to preserve my client's constitutional right to a speedy trial, which is currently at risk due to procedural delays.

The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental constitutional guarantee. In this case, this right is in conflict with another constitutional requirement regarding the composition and recusal of the justices. This conflict does not invalidate the right to a speedy trial, and because of that, it necessitates a remedy to ensure my client's rights are upheld.

Without the requested temporary reversal, my client faces irreparable harm. The delay in addressing this appeal directly infringes upon my client's right to a timely resolution of the legal proceedings. This harm cannot be adequately remedied through traditional legal channels due to the unique circumstances of this case.

The balance of equities favors granting this emergency injunction. While such injunctions are not typically granted, the exceptional nature of this situation, where my client's right to a speedy trial is effectively nullified by procedural limitations, justifies this request.

Therefore, we request that the above injunction be granted as we wait for Justices to become available.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your honors,

My client, royalsnakee, respectfully requests that this Court grant an emergency injunction to temporarily reverse the decision rendered in [2024] FCR 38 for the duration of this appeal. This request is made to preserve my client's constitutional right to a speedy trial, which is currently at risk due to procedural delays.

The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental constitutional guarantee. In this case, this right is in conflict with another constitutional requirement regarding the composition and recusal of the justices. This conflict does not invalidate the right to a speedy trial, and because of that, it necessitates a remedy to ensure my client's rights are upheld.

Without the requested temporary reversal, my client faces irreparable harm. The delay in addressing this appeal directly infringes upon my client's right to a timely resolution of the legal proceedings. This harm cannot be adequately remedied through traditional legal channels due to the unique circumstances of this case.

The balance of equities favors granting this emergency injunction. While such injunctions are not typically granted, the exceptional nature of this situation, where my client's right to a speedy trial is effectively nullified by procedural limitations, justifies this request.

Therefore, we request that the above injunction be granted as we wait for Justices to become available.

We can't rule on that, due to all of us having recused.