- Joined
- Jun 29, 2020
- Messages
- 37
- Thread Author
- #1
-Client Name: Aladeen
-Counsel Name: AlexanderLove, Prestige Law Firm
-Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Plaintiff
-Reason for the Appeal:
This appeal has been raised to be heard by the Supreme Court because the Federal Court errored in five particular factors that made a decision that resulted in the incorrect interpretation of the law and the facts of the case. On March 23, 2024, our client, Mr. Aladeen was represented by Mr. SumoMC, who filed this suit in the Federal Court on Mr. Aladeen's behalf. Mr. Aladeen sued the Redmont Bar Association (herein "RBA") because of the alleged actions caused by Mr. Unseatedduke1, in his official capacity as Chairman of the RBA. Mr. Unseatedudke1 exceeded his authority as Chairman, in order to veto Mr. Aladeen's membership on the RBA Ethics Committee, despite that under the RBA Charter, Art. III, Sec. 3 states that the Ethics Committee "shall be composed of the Ethics Chairperson in addition to members appointed by the Ethics Chairperson. [emphasis added]". The defense claimed that Super Modern Legal Board Act empowered the RBA Chairman with the ability to oversee all programs and committees of the RBA and that the veto of members was within his authority.
Then-Justice Neemfy denied the defense's motions to dismiss, subpoena, and strike. The Federal Court then proceeded to go forward with the civil trial. On April 15, 2024, Justice Neemfy resigned and Justice RelaxedGV took over hearing the case. On April 19, 2024, the defense requested the Federal Court to hold the plaintiff in contempt, which despite not hearing from the plaintiff's first, the Federal Court proceeded to hold the plaintiff in contempt. However, the Federal Court then backtracked upon notification from Mr. Aladeen's new counsel, Mr. AlexanderLove, that the plaintiff had hired new counsel and could not respond till then. The Federal Court then proceeded to reject several motions raised by the defense.
On April 24, 2024, the Court requested to hear closing statements from either side after hearing arguments on the case. The Court errored in holding the plaintiff's counsel in contempt, despite no requirement for closing statements to be given. The plaintiff's counsel asked for a motion to reconsider since the rules and procedures of the Federal Court do not require closing statements. The Court made an error in rejecting this motion to reconsider which added undue prejudice unto the plaintiff, because of the Federal Court's hostility towards our client's counsel.
On May 8, 2024, the Federal Court released its final decision on the case, but the Court errored by interpreting the Super Modern Legal Board Act and the RBA Charter by over-broadening and extending the powers of the RBA Chairperson, by giving powers to the RBA Chairperson that simply did not exist, in any explicit, or even implicit form. The Federal Court itself admitted its own error by stating that the RBA Charter and the Super Modern Legal Board Act was in contradictory terms with the other in two parts. However, the Federal Court errored and incorrectly interpreted the relevant statutes as giving the Chairperson more authority than the the statutes had explicitly given the Chairperson.
Therefore, the Court made the Super Modern Legal Board Act unconstitutional and incorrectly over-broadened by giving the sole power of blocking committee member appointments to only the RBA Chair, despite no explicit statutes giving the Chairperson this power. Only does the committee membership hold the power to remove one of its own members. If the Chairperson has unlimited power to remove members from committees and is able to change anything about the programs and committees of the RBA to any of their whims, it provides a dangerous and unlawful balance of power in favor of the Chairperson and only the Chairperson. The higher court must ensure that the constitutional and statute-based safeguards are in place to prevent such abuses of power. The plaintiff asks the higher Court to hear this appeal and make a final determination of this legitimate dispute.
As for why this case ought to be accepted depite being more then two weeks after the final decision has been made, the higher court should refer to [2022] SCR 20, in which the appellant filed an appeal, despite the case happening a year before said appeal was made, and an appeal was granted. We ask the higher court to strongly consider this given that Mr. Aladeen wished time to consider his options in this case before coming to us for consideration to filing an appeal on his behalf.
Though this appeal has been filed after two weeks, it hasn't been far very from those two weeks, nontheless, this appeal is critically important for the Court to consider given what is at stake, this is a quasi-governmental body interacting with constituents and a violation of rights has occurred. The Court must ensure that it settles important questions of governmental power and the rights held by the people thereof.
-Additional Information: Aladeen v. Redmont Bar Association [2024] FCR 46
-Counsel Name: AlexanderLove, Prestige Law Firm
-Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Plaintiff
-Reason for the Appeal:
This appeal has been raised to be heard by the Supreme Court because the Federal Court errored in five particular factors that made a decision that resulted in the incorrect interpretation of the law and the facts of the case. On March 23, 2024, our client, Mr. Aladeen was represented by Mr. SumoMC, who filed this suit in the Federal Court on Mr. Aladeen's behalf. Mr. Aladeen sued the Redmont Bar Association (herein "RBA") because of the alleged actions caused by Mr. Unseatedduke1, in his official capacity as Chairman of the RBA. Mr. Unseatedudke1 exceeded his authority as Chairman, in order to veto Mr. Aladeen's membership on the RBA Ethics Committee, despite that under the RBA Charter, Art. III, Sec. 3 states that the Ethics Committee "shall be composed of the Ethics Chairperson in addition to members appointed by the Ethics Chairperson. [emphasis added]". The defense claimed that Super Modern Legal Board Act empowered the RBA Chairman with the ability to oversee all programs and committees of the RBA and that the veto of members was within his authority.
Then-Justice Neemfy denied the defense's motions to dismiss, subpoena, and strike. The Federal Court then proceeded to go forward with the civil trial. On April 15, 2024, Justice Neemfy resigned and Justice RelaxedGV took over hearing the case. On April 19, 2024, the defense requested the Federal Court to hold the plaintiff in contempt, which despite not hearing from the plaintiff's first, the Federal Court proceeded to hold the plaintiff in contempt. However, the Federal Court then backtracked upon notification from Mr. Aladeen's new counsel, Mr. AlexanderLove, that the plaintiff had hired new counsel and could not respond till then. The Federal Court then proceeded to reject several motions raised by the defense.
On April 24, 2024, the Court requested to hear closing statements from either side after hearing arguments on the case. The Court errored in holding the plaintiff's counsel in contempt, despite no requirement for closing statements to be given. The plaintiff's counsel asked for a motion to reconsider since the rules and procedures of the Federal Court do not require closing statements. The Court made an error in rejecting this motion to reconsider which added undue prejudice unto the plaintiff, because of the Federal Court's hostility towards our client's counsel.
On May 8, 2024, the Federal Court released its final decision on the case, but the Court errored by interpreting the Super Modern Legal Board Act and the RBA Charter by over-broadening and extending the powers of the RBA Chairperson, by giving powers to the RBA Chairperson that simply did not exist, in any explicit, or even implicit form. The Federal Court itself admitted its own error by stating that the RBA Charter and the Super Modern Legal Board Act was in contradictory terms with the other in two parts. However, the Federal Court errored and incorrectly interpreted the relevant statutes as giving the Chairperson more authority than the the statutes had explicitly given the Chairperson.
Therefore, the Court made the Super Modern Legal Board Act unconstitutional and incorrectly over-broadened by giving the sole power of blocking committee member appointments to only the RBA Chair, despite no explicit statutes giving the Chairperson this power. Only does the committee membership hold the power to remove one of its own members. If the Chairperson has unlimited power to remove members from committees and is able to change anything about the programs and committees of the RBA to any of their whims, it provides a dangerous and unlawful balance of power in favor of the Chairperson and only the Chairperson. The higher court must ensure that the constitutional and statute-based safeguards are in place to prevent such abuses of power. The plaintiff asks the higher Court to hear this appeal and make a final determination of this legitimate dispute.
As for why this case ought to be accepted depite being more then two weeks after the final decision has been made, the higher court should refer to [2022] SCR 20, in which the appellant filed an appeal, despite the case happening a year before said appeal was made, and an appeal was granted. We ask the higher court to strongly consider this given that Mr. Aladeen wished time to consider his options in this case before coming to us for consideration to filing an appeal on his behalf.
Though this appeal has been filed after two weeks, it hasn't been far very from those two weeks, nontheless, this appeal is critically important for the Court to consider given what is at stake, this is a quasi-governmental body interacting with constituents and a violation of rights has occurred. The Court must ensure that it settles important questions of governmental power and the rights held by the people thereof.
-Additional Information: Aladeen v. Redmont Bar Association [2024] FCR 46
