Lawsuit: Adjourned Aladeen v. Redmont Bar Association [2024] FCR 46

[SumoMC]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Aladeen (SumoMC Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Redmont Bar Association
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Unseatedduke1 in his capacity as Chairman of the RBA has used powers that are not provided to him to not allow my client to serve on the RBA Ethics Committee.


I. PARTIES
1. Aladeen (Plaintiff)
2. Unseatedduke1 (In his capacity as RBA Chairman)

II. FACTS
1. On March 20th, 2024 at 15:00 EST, Ethics Chairman SumoMC nominated Aladeen to the ethics committee members to fill the vacancy left by Magistrate xtub12345, as he was chosen to serve on the Redmont District Court.
2. On the same day at 20:35 EST, RBA Chairman Unseatedduke used authority not granted to him in the RBA Charter or the SMLBA to veto my nomination of Aladeen to the ethics Committee.
3. In the RBA Charter Article 2 Section 5 is states “ Appoint RBA Officers and Committee Chairpersons, who supervise RBA programs.” This gives the RBA Chairman the power to appoint the Chairpersons of the committee.
4. In the RBA Charter Article 3 Section 3 it states “The Ethics Committee shall be composed of the Ethics Chairperson in addition to members appointed by the Ethics Chairperson.” It is not required for the Chair of a committee to nominate a person to the committee, however the chairman felt it was the best thing to do.
5. After dming with Aladeen, the RBA Chairperson came to the Ethics Committee and said “Apparently that’s not why he quit ^ but veto still stands as he left for other obligations”.



III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The RBA Chairperson, no matter who they are, holds the power to VETO any person from joining a committee, it is not in the RBA Charter nor is it in the SMLBA.
2. Unseatedduke slandered my client by peddling false accusations without having any of the facts of why he left the committee.
3. The RBA Chairman Unseatedduke1 then doubled down on the veto but backpedaled on the reason, he left the prior reasoning up further slandering my client.
4. Aladeen's reputation in the legal committee has potentially been jeopardized by the Chairman of the RBA as he continues to leave the announcement up and denying him his seat on the Ethics Committee that the Ethics Chair approved.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $10,000 in punitive damages, as this conduct by the RBA is unprofessional and discriminatory.
2. $10,000 in emotional damages as my client has suffered his reputation being questioned and being denied positions he is more than qualified for.
3. Written apology issued by Unseatedduke via #announcements in the RBA Discord acknowledging his wrong doing and apologizing to my client.
4. $10,000 to cover the legal fee’s of Aladeen

V. Evidence

Spoiler: Exabit A: Motion to add Aladeen to the Ethics Committee

Spoiler: Exabit B: The Chairmans VETO

Spoiler: Exabit C: Chairman Doubled Down Veto

Spoiler: Exabit D: Article 3 Section 3 RBA Charter

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 23rd day of March 2024

 

[Neemfy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the Aladeen v. Redmont Bar Association. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[Redmont Bar Association]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS​

Your Honor,

The Redmont Bar Association respectfully requests the dismissal of this case on the grounds of Rule 5.5 Lack of Claim, for the following reasons:

The Plaintiff stated “The RBA Chairperson, no matter who they are, holds the power to VETO any person from joining a committee, it is not in the RBA Charter nor is it in the SMLBA.” This statement by the Plaintiff says the Chairperson no matter who holds the power to VETO. If this was a mistake, we recommend the plaintiffs counsel actually review the complaint before submitting. If this was not a mistake, we are glad you agree. Either way it is essential to recognize the broader responsibilities bestowed upon the RBA Chair under the Super Modern Legal Board Act (SMLBA). As outlined in the SMLBA, the RBA Chair is tasked with overseeing all programs and committees within the association. In exercising this duty, the RBA chair acted within his jurisdiction by intervening to prevent a member from joining a committee for valid reasons. The RBA Charter also mandates that the RBA Chair oversees all programs and committees, thereby affirming the Chairs actions as in line with his prescribed responsibilities.

The Plaintiff alleges that the chair slandered them by disseminating false accusations regarding the circumstances of their departure from the committee. If the Plaintiff perceives themselves as slandered, the appropriate course of action would be to pursue legal recourse against the chair individually, rather than implicating the Redmont Bar Association as a whole. Slander is defined as a false statement that defames another individual. the chairs remarks were based on information conveyed to him by the Plaintiff during a Voice Chat session, and upon clarification from the Plaintiff, the chair promptly retracted his previous statement, negating any defamatory intent. As per the provisions outlined in the Defamation Act, it is incumbent upon the Plaintiff to not only demonstrate harm but also furnish evidence indicating an intent to tarnish reputation. The prompt retraction made by the chair upon being corrected serves as clear indication that there was no deliberate intent to harm the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff asserts that the chair reinforced the veto decision while retracting the initial reasoning, further damaging their reputation. Upon being informed by the Plaintiff that the initial reason was inaccurate, the chair clarified the situation by stating that the Plaintiff's departure was due to other obligations. This clarification does not constitute slander but rather a factual update, ensuring transparency within the committee.

The Plaintiff claims that their reputation within the legal community has been tarnished by the Chairman's actions. The alleged "announcement" was made in a privileged channel accessible only to the RBA council and committee members, thus limiting its exposure. As such, it cannot be deemed damaging to the Plaintiff's reputation beyond this private forum. Again, to mention that if the statement was damaging, they should seek legal damages from the chair themselves, not the RBA.

The Plaintiff's case fails to establish a valid claim actionable in this court. Pursuing this matter further would only serve to expend valuable resources and time without just cause. We ask that you dismiss this case with prejudice.

Your Honor, irrespective of the outcome of this motion, we respectfully request a subpoena for the plaintiff, mandating disclosure of the individual who breached confidentiality by sharing private committee messages to them.

Your Honor, I motion to strike the plaintiffs' purported evidence from the record. Such information is privileged, having been disseminated within a confidential RBA ethics committee channel.

 

[SumoMC]

Your Honor,

We request time to respond to this Motion to Dismiss

 

[Neemfy]

You have 72 hours to respond to the Motion to Dismiss.

 

[SumoMC]

RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS

The motion to dismiss from the Redmont Bar Association doesn’t hold up under scrutiny and is an attempt to hide the clear wrongdoing by the RBA Chair.

First of all, saying the Chair can veto anyone without good reason goes against the rules laid out
in the RBA Charter and SMLBA. The Chair’s power is not unlimited and must follow the rules.
Vetoing a nomination without a good reason is an abuse of power that damages the integrity of the ethics committee.

Secondly, trying to minimize the damaging comments made by the Chairman does not make sense. Spreading false stories about why my client left the committee is defamation, plain and simple. Even if the Chair took it back later, the damage was done. Such unproved claims can destroy my clients professional career and his credibility within the legal community, which leads to the potential harm to his career as an attorney.

Also, saying that clarifying why my client left the committee was just giving the facts is misleading. By sticking to the veto and changing the story, the Chair kept making people doubt my clients honesty and suitability for the Ethics Committee, which hurts his reputation even more. This shift of explanations not only proves the lack of accountability on part of the Chair but also creates confusion and mistrust among the members of the ethics committee.

Lastly, saying the damage to my clients reputation was only in private chats within the RBA isn’t true. As a member of the legal community, my clients reputation matters outside of just the RBA. What the Chair did affected how people see me in the whole legal community, as the members of the channel who read the veto can have a poor image of him. The actions of the Chair extends much further from the private communications, potentially impacting my clients professional opportunities and relationships within the legal community.

In conclusion, the motion to dismiss does not deal with the real issues of this case and tries to avoid responsibility for what the Chair did. We ask that the court to rejects the motion and lets this case go to trial, where the evidence will show what really happened.

Apart from this , we disagree with the subpoena request to find out who leaked private information, as it’s not relevant here. And we object to striking the evidence from the record, as it’s of extreme importance to completely understand the context and implications of the Chairs actions.

 

[Neemfy]

The Motion to Dismiss is hereby denied. There is clearly a case that has yet to go through the proper arguments, and the claim against the Defendant is valid. Additionally, the request to subpoena is denied, as who leaked the images from a confidential channel is irrelevant to the case. The Motion to Strike is also denied.

We will now move onto Discovery. Please submit any evidence and any witnesses you have within 7 days.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Due to Justice Neemfy's resignation I will be taking over this case.

Given Discovery is now over, we will be moving onto Opening Statements.
The Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide their Opening Statement.

 

[Redmont Bar Association]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​

Your Honor, The plaintiff has failed to submit their opening statement within the 72-hour timeframe allotted to them. We respectfully request that you hold them in contempt and allow us to move on with this case.

Thank You.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Due to the Plaintiff missing their Opening Statement I will be holding them in Contempt. Simply put this is the case that they started and thus should be in attendance throughout this case.

The Defense has 72 hours to file their Opening Statement.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Due to the Plaintiff missing their Opening Statement I will be holding them in Contempt. Simply put this is the case that they started and thus should be in attendance throughout this case.

The Defense has 72 hours to file their Opening Statement.

Your honor, I was just hired by the plaintiff. Seems there was some difficulty with Sumo being raised to the bench so he had to seek new counsel. I ask the court be reasonable. I request a 24 hour extension so that we may have a fair trial.

 

[Redmont Bar Association]

Your honor, I was just hired by the plaintiff. Seems there was some difficulty with Sumo being raised to the bench so he had to seek new counsel. I ask the court be reasonable. I request a 24 hour extension so that we may have a fair trial.

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure
​

Your Honor. Mr. Love is speaking out of turn. The RBA is in the process of preparing our opening statements. As you mentioned earlier, the plaintiff should have been present throughout this trial. The plaintiff themselves are a licensed attorney and should have requested an extension sooner.

Your Honor, we also request that you disallow Mr. Love from representing this client. Mr. Love was a member of the RBA council during the filing of this case and had access to privileged channels where the council discussed strategy. This presents a clear conflict of interest under the Futurist Legal Framework Bill, which defines a conflict of interest in the legal context as the situation where the same legal counsel represents both the defense and the plaintiff simultaneously in the same case. Mr. Love was part of the council when this case was filed, making him part of the legal team representing the RBA.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure
​

Your Honor. Mr. Love is speaking out of turn. The RBA is in the process of preparing our opening statements. As you mentioned earlier, the plaintiff should have been present throughout this trial. The plaintiff themselves are a licensed attorney and should have requested an extension sooner.

Your Honor, we also request that you disallow Mr. Love from representing this client. Mr. Love was a member of the RBA council during the filing of this case and had access to privileged channels where the council discussed strategy. This presents a clear conflict of interest under the Futurist Legal Framework Bill, which defines a conflict of interest in the legal context as the situation where the same legal counsel represents both the defense and the plaintiff simultaneously in the same case. Mr. Love was part of the council when this case was filed, making him part of the legal team representing the RBA.

That bill was literally just signed. Ex post facto

 

[RelaxedGV]

Your honor, I was just hired by the plaintiff. Seems there was some difficulty with Sumo being raised to the bench so he had to seek new counsel. I ask the court be reasonable. I request a 24 hour extension so that we may have a fair trial.

Apologies for not getting to this sooner, you of course have an additional 24 hours.

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure
​

Your Honor. Mr. Love is speaking out of turn. The RBA is in the process of preparing our opening statements. As you mentioned earlier, the plaintiff should have been present throughout this trial. The plaintiff themselves are a licensed attorney and should have requested an extension sooner.

Your Honor, we also request that you disallow Mr. Love from representing this client. Mr. Love was a member of the RBA council during the filing of this case and had access to privileged channels where the council discussed strategy. This presents a clear conflict of interest under the Futurist Legal Framework Bill, which defines a conflict of interest in the legal context as the situation where the same legal counsel represents both the defense and the plaintiff simultaneously in the same case. Mr. Love was part of the council when this case was filed, making him part of the legal team representing the RBA.

This Objection is rejected as given the bill was signed not long before AlexanderLove's statement to the Court it can be deduced using common sense that AlexanderLove was working on this case before showing in the Court Room itself. Yes the bill did state immediate action upon passage however ex post facto overrides this in a situation like this. Both sides are equal under the law and given the very Chair that wrote the bill is also the head of the RBA, I will be allowing AlexanderLove to remain on this case.

 

[Redmont Bar Association]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER
​

Your Honor, although the law in question was enacted after the initiation of this case, it should not be the sole factor considered in determining Mr. Love's eligibility to serve as legal counsel for the plaintiff. Attached are comments made by Mr. Love in the channel utilized by the RBA to deliberate on this case, providing additional context for your consideration.

Spoiler: Exhibit A

Spoiler: Exhibit B

Your Honor, should you require further evidence regarding the conversations within this chat, we are fully prepared to present Mr. Love's contributions to this case, which include assisting in the review of the Motion to Dismiss and engaging in discussions concerning its details. Allowing him to persist in representing the plaintiff is akin to a scenario where an individual from the DLA prosecutes a case and then abruptly resigns from the DLA to represent the opposing side midway through proceedings. Such a situation would undoubtedly raise concerns about impartiality and conflicts of interest.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Given this affects the Plaintiff, they shall have 24 hours to respond to the Motion to Reconsider.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER
​

Your Honor, although the law in question was enacted after the initiation of this case, it should not be the sole factor considered in determining Mr. Love's eligibility to serve as legal counsel for the plaintiff. Attached are comments made by Mr. Love in the channel utilized by the RBA to deliberate on this case, providing additional context for your consideration.

Spoiler: Exhibit A

View attachment 43065

Spoiler: Exhibit B

View attachment 43066

Your Honor, should you require further evidence regarding the conversations within this chat, we are fully prepared to present Mr. Love's contributions to this case, which include assisting in the review of the Motion to Dismiss and engaging in discussions concerning its details. Allowing him to persist in representing the plaintiff is akin to a scenario where an individual from the DLA prosecutes a case and then abruptly resigns from the DLA to represent the opposing side midway through proceedings. Such a situation would undoubtedly raise concerns about impartiality and conflicts of interest.

Objection your honor, both pieces of evidence are hearsay and it is after discovery, where evidence may not be filed.

I will post an argumentative response today.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER
​

Your Honor, although the law in question was enacted after the initiation of this case, it should not be the sole factor considered in determining Mr. Love's eligibility to serve as legal counsel for the plaintiff. Attached are comments made by Mr. Love in the channel utilized by the RBA to deliberate on this case, providing additional context for your consideration.

Spoiler: Exhibit A

View attachment 43065

Spoiler: Exhibit B

View attachment 43066

Your Honor, should you require further evidence regarding the conversations within this chat, we are fully prepared to present Mr. Love's contributions to this case, which include assisting in the review of the Motion to Dismiss and engaging in discussions concerning its details. Allowing him to persist in representing the plaintiff is akin to a scenario where an individual from the DLA prosecutes a case and then abruptly resigns from the DLA to represent the opposing side midway through proceedings. Such a situation would undoubtedly raise concerns about impartiality and conflicts of interest.

Actually this is easy. Lawyers do not have the duty to be impartial! In fact we are very partial. There is no conflict of interest because my only interest is representing my client. It is not the duty of the defendant to look out for the plaintiff’s representation. If the plaintiff was weary of my involvement with the RBA, he wouldn’t have hired me yet he chose to on his own accord.

 

[RelaxedGV]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER
​

Your Honor, although the law in question was enacted after the initiation of this case, it should not be the sole factor considered in determining Mr. Love's eligibility to serve as legal counsel for the plaintiff. Attached are comments made by Mr. Love in the channel utilized by the RBA to deliberate on this case, providing additional context for your consideration.

Spoiler: Exhibit A

View attachment 43065

Spoiler: Exhibit B

View attachment 43066

Your Honor, should you require further evidence regarding the conversations within this chat, we are fully prepared to present Mr. Love's contributions to this case, which include assisting in the review of the Motion to Dismiss and engaging in discussions concerning its details. Allowing him to persist in representing the plaintiff is akin to a scenario where an individual from the DLA prosecutes a case and then abruptly resigns from the DLA to represent the opposing side midway through proceedings. Such a situation would undoubtedly raise concerns about impartiality and conflicts of interest.

This Motion to Reconsider is rejected and I will provide more clarity:

The bill that was linked states that the RBA may investigate and should they wish prosecute for Conflict of Interest for a fine and, or, jail time. Nowhere in that section does it state that the Presiding Officer has the ability to remove someone's council nor should one have it.

- Act of Congress - Super Modern Legal Board Act
Section 11

The idea of Conflict of Interest surrounds on the fact that there needs to be proof that such is occurring, that is achieved however the hard part of this is, as with the point above, lack of power to remove someone from their position of representing someone. If you wish to remove one's ability to represent other's that power is already awarded to the RBA to vote on disbarring the individual and then the Courts granting or rejecting the charge.

When it comes to the knowing strategy and writing the Motion to Dismiss, if those are arguments one is making to remove someone from the Plaintiff then that shows how little the Defense believed in the arguments presented by the Defense.

The very bill that was also linked by the Defense also is regarding the RBA itself thus while I applaud that the RBA understands it's own charter, these are not actual Court Procedure and are simply remedies, procedures, and daily actions that the RBA can utilize day to day.

Tl;dr, the Motion to Reconsider is Rejected due to the bill that was linked is the RBA Charter.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

May it please the Court,

Your honor, the law is simple. The Super Modern Legal Board Act (governing law of these facts) explicitly states who hires who. The ethics chairman hires committee members, and the RBA Chairman has zero say in this. The RBA chairman claimed a power to veto which he did not possess. Even though the Chairman has assumed de facto control of the organization, the legal board is a democracy and there is due process to follow. Where the law enumerates something, the law must be followed to the letter. It is clear by the language of the law that the author intended for the committee chairmen to independently administer their own committees, especially ethics which, for practical reasons, needs to be distanced from the Council anyways to do its job with fairness and impartiality. In the RBA Charter Article 3 Section 3 it states “The Ethics Committee shall be composed of... members appointed by the Ethics Chairperson.” Remember this, and note that it does NOT say the RBA Chairperson.

In this process, the Chairman made false and defamatory remarks, making my client out to be petty and vindictive, that caused the plaintiff to no longer hold any influence in the RBA or in the legal field. His lack of clients is a good economic indicator of the damage caused to his reputation as a result of these remarks. The remarks and gross breach of due process constitutes an outrageous action subject to the punitive damages requested. I ask that all prayers for relief are granted. Thank you.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Due to the Plaintiff missing their Opening Statement I will be holding them in Contempt. Simply put this is the case that they started and thus should be in attendance throughout this case.

The Defense has 72 hours to file their Opening Statement.

The Defense is going to also have an additional 24 hours given how this case has already been running.
The 24 hours shall start from this message.

 

[Redmont Bar Association]

OPENING STATEMENT


Your Honor, Members of the Court,

The defendant has contended that the RBA Chair lacks the authority to "veto" or obstruct the Ethics Chair's appointment of committee members. Allow me to direct your attention to the Super Modern Legal Board Act, which meticulously delineates the responsibilities of the RBA Chairperson. According to this act, the Chairperson is tasked with overseeing all programs and committees within the RBA. While the term "veto" was utilized during the announcement to the committee, it was merely an exercise of the Chair's oversight authority, as mandated by the SMLBA. Nowhere within the Super Modern Legal Board Act is the authority to appoint committee members granted to the Ethics Chair. Let me be unequivocal: the SMLBA does not confer upon the Ethics Chair the power to appoint committee members. The RBA charter also gives the RBA Chair the authority to oversee all programs and committees within the RBA, including the power to appoint RBA Officers and Committee Chairpersons who supervise RBA programs. In this context, the Chair assumed the responsibility of overseeing the Ethics Committee and exercised their authority to "appoint" officers, thereby preventing the defendant from joining the Ethics Committee. It is crucial to recognize that the Chair's actions were undertaken in the best interests of the committee, as mandated by their role as overseer of all programs.

Regarding the defamatory remarks alleged by the plaintiff, it is imperative to consult the Defamation Act, which stipulates that in cases of suing for defamation, the plaintiff must demonstrate both harm and intent to harm reputation. There was no intent to harm the plaintiff's reputation; indeed, when the Chair was promptly corrected upon making the statement, they immediately rectified their error. I submit that the actions of the RBA Chair were conducted within the bounds of their authority and in accordance with the mandates of the SMLBA and the RBA charter. There was no malicious intent behind the alleged defamatory remarks, as evidenced by the Chair's swift correction of their statement.

Thank you.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Thank you, given neither side provided witnesses during Discovery, we will be moving straight into Closing Statements.

The Plaintiff has 72 hours to post their Closing Statement.

 

[Redmont Bar Association]

Your Honor, the plaintiff has neglected to provide closing statements. We respectfully request that you hold them in contempt and proceed accordingly.

Thank you.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Your Honor, the plaintiff has neglected to provide closing statements. We respectfully request that you hold them in contempt and proceed accordingly.

Thank you.

AlexanderLove is hereby found in Contempt of Court, I order the DOJ to jail/fine appropriately.

The Defense now has 72 hours to provide their Closing Statement.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

AlexanderLove is hereby found in Contempt of Court, I order the DOJ to jail/fine appropriately.

The Defense now has 72 hours to provide their Closing Statement.

Your honor, a closing statement wasn’t necessary. Why am I being held in contempt when providing a closing statement is not mandatory?

 

[RelaxedGV]

Thank you, given neither side provided witnesses during Discovery, we will be moving straight into Closing Statements.

The Plaintiff has 72 hours to post their Closing Statement.

Your closing statement was asked for.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your closing statement was asked for.

Court procedure never says a closing statement is compulsory, your honor.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Court procedure never says a closing statement is compulsory, your honor.

This will be struck for not applying the correct Motion or Objection.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

This will be struck for not applying the correct Motion or Objection.

K, I motion to reconsider. Court procedure never says a closing statement is mandatory.

 

[RelaxedGV]

K, I motion to reconsider. Court procedure never says a closing statement is mandatory.

Court Rules are subject to interpretation first of all, Secondly it does not state within the Procedures that Closing Statements are optional. They are apart of the proceedings and you are expected to provide one.
The Motion to Reconsider is rejected.

 

[Redmont Bar Association]

Your Honor, Members of the court,

This case has been brought before this honorable court on grounds stemming from trivial grievances. The plaintiff's discontent over being denied membership in a committee has led them to clutch at any legal straws to undermine the integrity of the RBA. A a close look of the law reveals that the RBA ethics chair lacks the authority to appoint members. Contrary to the plaintiff's assertions, the SMLBA does not grant the ethics chair such power; rather, it vests the RBA chair with authority over ALL programs and committees.

The plaintiff's contention that the involvement of the ethics committee alters the situation is merely an attempt to prolong this baseless case. Even within the RBA charter, which constitutes RBA policy and not law, while it does grant the RBA ethics chair the capacity to include members, it also affirms the RBA chair's oversight of ALL programs and committees. Thus, the members of the committee ultimately fall under the purview of the RBA chair.

Although the RBA chair could have exercised better discretion in their choice of words—opting not for "veto" and used other terminology—the fundamental principle remains unchanged: the chair acted within their legal authority to prevent a member from joining the committee for valid reasons.

Turning to the accusation of defamation, it is preposterous to sue the RBA based on the chair's statements—equivalent to suing a nation because of a defamatory remark made by its president. The statement made by the RBA chair does not meet the legal threshold for defamation. There was no intent to harm the plaintiff's reputation, as evidenced by the chair's prompt retraction upon realizing the error. Defamation necessitates proof of malicious intent, which the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate throughout this proceeding.

In light of the absence of evidence and valid grounds for this lawsuit, we respectfully urge the court to rule in favor of the RBA. Thank You.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Thank you, we will now be in recess pending Verdict.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Aladeen22 v. Redmont Bar Association [2024] FCR 46

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The RBA Chair lacks the ability to block someone's appointment to a committee within the RBA.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The RBA Chair has the power to oversee programs and committees thus the chair has the ability to block an appointment.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. I'm going to be honest here, I was very busy and saw this as a complex case that over the past few days had the ability to rule on. This week is AP Week for my school so I have been busy studying and took my last test today. Hence the reason for the delay.

2. Now for the actual ruling. This case is simple yet complex in the sense that it is fighting definition. Overseeing is the idea of ensuring that an organization or in this case, a committee is running smoothly. So yes, the Chairperson is to ensure the stability of that committee and oversee the entire RBA according to the Super Modern Legal Board Act and its amendments (most recent being The Futurist Legal Framework Bill).

So the question is, does the Chairperson have the ability to block an appointment to a committee? This is where we attain a contradiction, the Super Modern Legal Board Act states that the RBA Chairperson and the Council are to oversee the Committees and the RBA Chair is tasked with the stability of the RBA. That is our first part of this contradiction, the second part is that the Committee Chair is to appoint members of the Ethic's committee.

How is that a Contradiction? The idea that the RBA Chair is to ensure the stability and oversee the committees yet are unable to appoint and remove those in that committee to ensure stability is the contradiction.

3. What does that mean for the verdict? This effects the verdict in the form of rather than just ruling on whether the blocking was legal, the Courts are ruling on which side of this contradiction is correct. I am going to be blunt with this, the interpretation the Court will be going with is that the Committee Chairperson is to appoint members however, the RBA Chairperson has the ability to stop an appointment.

How would this work? To put this simply, the RBA Chairperson is tasked with providing the roles for when an appointment has occurred. This is how the RBA Chairperson would have the ability to block an appointment. I want to be clear on this however, this is only stating a way this can happen and not the true process that may occur. The RBA are welcome to change the way this is conducted however until the RBA does update their Charter or have the Legislative Branch update the SMLBA this is the current form.

IV. DECISION
1. Now for the decision, I will be ruling in favor of the Defense.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.