Lawsuit: Dismissed Aladeen v. Redmont Bar Association [2024] SCR 28

Status
Not open for further replies.
The_MarxSisters

The_MarxSisters

Citizen
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Staff Statesman
The_MarxSisters
The_MarxSisters
attorney
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
37
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Aladeen
Plaintiff

v.

Redmont Bar Association
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
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 direct messaging 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”.
6. On March 23, 2024, SumoMC, then attorney for Aladeen filed a suit against the RBA, Aladeen v. Redmont Bar Association [2024] FCR 46.
7. On May 8, 2024, after an extensive trial, then Justice RelaxedGV found in favor of the defense.
8. On May 29, 2024, on behalf of Aladeen, the plaintiff's attorney filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.
9. On June 15, 2024, the Supreme Court granted the appeal stating, "In a 2-0 decision, Chief Justice Dartanboy and Justice xEndeavour have decided to  grant this appeal, on the following basis only: Examining more closely whether the RBA Chairperson has authority over the contested matter."

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The RBA Chairperson does not hold the power to veto any person from joining a committee, given the explicit authorization for this power is not found in the RBA Charter nor in the SMLBA.
2. Unseatedduke slandered the plaintiff by peddling false accusations without having any of the facts of why he left the committee.
3. The RBA Chairman Unseatedduke1 doubled down on the veto but backpedaled on his reasoning, he left the prior reasoning up further slandering the plaintiff..
4. Aladeen's reputation in the 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. 30% of the case's value or $5,000 to cover attorney's fees.

1718671154974.png
1718671186325.png
1718671229606.png
1718671277683.png
aladeenconfirmation.png

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 17th day of June 2024.
 
1718982807472.png

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

The @Redmont Bar Association / its Chairperson is required to appear before the court in Aladeen v. Redmont Bar Association [2024] SCR 28. Failure to appear within 120 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.

I'd 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.

Due to the ongoing RBA Chair elections, the new Chairperson will be pinged once that election is concluded. This is also the reason for the extended timeframe to respond.​
 
@Matthew100x please review and appear to represent the RBA.

The aforementioned deadline is still in effect.
 
Good Morning your honors,

Can we get an additional 48-72 hours to attempt to resolve this issue? I'm currently in the process of negotiating with the plaintiff's council to see if we can come to a compromise on what I see as the issue.

Additionally, I must kindly ask the honorable Justice Sumo to recuse himself from this case under 16.1 of the Judicial Standards Act (see Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act), because of his representation of the plaintiff in Lawsuit: Adjourned - Aladeen v. Redmont Bar Association [2024] FCR 46, which falls under 16.4(e) of the same act. Additionally, kindly see Appeal: Accepted - [2022] SCR 20 - Appeal Request where a justice was recused from an appeal for being partly involved in the prior litigation as a lawyer of said case that was being appealed for further reasoning in favor of recusal.

Thank you,
~Matthew100x
Chairman of the RBA.
 
Matthew100x said:
Good Morning your honors,

Can we get an additional 48-72 hours to attempt to resolve this issue? I'm currently in the process of negotiating with the plaintiff's council to see if we can come to a compromise on what I see as the issue.

Additionally, I must kindly ask the honorable Justice Sumo to recuse himself from this case under 16.1 of the Judicial Standards Act (see Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act), because of his representation of the plaintiff in Lawsuit: Adjourned - Aladeen v. Redmont Bar Association [2024] FCR 46, which falls under 16.4(e) of the same act. Additionally, kindly see Appeal: Accepted - [2022] SCR 20 - Appeal Request where a justice was recused from an appeal for being partly involved in the prior litigation as a lawyer of said case that was being appealed for further reasoning in favor of recusal.

Thank you,
~Matthew100x
Chairman of the RBA.
Click to expand...
You may have an additional 48 hours.

Sumo voluntarily recused before you were summoned. I forgot to note it on the thread.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Aladeen (Represented by Prestige Law Firm, Trial Attorney The_MarxSisters)
Plaintiff

v.

Redmont Bar Association (Represented by RBA Chair Matthew100x)
Defendant


I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
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.

The defendant does not contest this fact.

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.

The defendant denies this fact. Defendant argues that this is a conjectured opinion and not a fact. Plaintiff states that the defendant used “authority not granted to him in the RBA Charter” without proof. Instead, the defendant argues that this is a claim for relief.

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.

The defendant does not contest this fact.

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.

The defendant denies this fact on grounds that it conjectures an opinion.

5. After direct messaging 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”.

The defendant denies this fact based on insufficient information. Plaintiff provides no evidence of direct messaging between themselves and Unseatedduke. The defendant is unable to verify this fact.

6. On March 23, 2024, SumoMC, then attorney for Aladeen filed a suit against the RBA, Aladeen v. Redmont Bar Association [2024] FCR 46.

The defendant does not contest this fact.

7. On May 8, 2024, after an extensive trial, then Justice RelaxedGV found in favor of the defense.

The defendant affirms this fact.

8. On May 29, 2024, on behalf of Aladeen, the plaintiff's attorney filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.

The defendant affirms this fact.

9. On June 15, 2024, the Supreme Court granted the appeal stating, "In a 2-0 decision, Chief Justice Dartanboy and Justice xEndeavour have decided to  grant this appeal, on the following basis only: Examining more closely whether the RBA Chairperson has authority over the contested matter."

The defendant affirms this fact.


II. DEFENSES
1. Relating to Claim for Relief 1: Unseatedduke, the chairman at the time, genuinely thought that he had the power to veto any person from joining a committee. The defendant defended this decision at that time and maintains this position currently.

2. Relating to Claim for Relief 2: Unseatedduke may or may not have slandered the plaintiff, however, the defendant sees no reason why it should be held liable for an individual’s choice of words, which were made by Unseatedduke. Unseatedduke was, at the time, the defendant’s Chairman. The defendant is an organization. Elections have been held since and Unseatedduke is neither the chairman nor on the council. The defendant maintains that it is not liable under any circumstances for any potential slander, libel, or other defamation that could or could not have been made by Unseatedduke. Instead, liability rests on an individual basis, and the plaintiff should seek compensation for any potential slander, libel, or other defamation from Unseatedduke solely, instead of the defendant who is an organization.

3. Relating to Claim for Relief 3: Unseatedduke may or may not have slandered the plaintiff, however, the defendant sees no reason why it should be held liable for an individual’s choice of words, which were made by Unseatedduke. Unseatedduke was, at the time, the defendant’s Chairman. The defendant is an organization. Elections have been held since and Unseatedduke is neither the chairman nor on the council. The defendant maintains that it is not liable under any circumstances for any potential slander, libel, or other defamation that could or could not have been made by Unseatedduke. Instead, liability rests on an individual basis, and the plaintiff should seek compensation for any potential slander, libel, or other defamation from Unseatedduke solely, instead of the defendant who is an organization.

4. Relating to Claim for Relief 3 & 4: The defendant, if they need to defend slander; libel; or other defamation claims, allege that any and all statements either lacked the mens rea (the intention) of being false and that they caused no damage (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - xLayzur & Krix v. Politico [2023] FCR 62).

5. Relating to Claim for Relief 4 The plaintiff’s reputation has not been harmed, or, if it has been, is de minimis. Further, the plaintiff is now an elected member of the council in spite of the prior veto against them joining the ethics committee, further showing how their reputation has not been harmed.

6. Relating to Prayer for Relief 1: Plaintiff fails to allege any outrageous conduct made by the defendant against them. Plaintiff’s claim does not utilize a law that authorizes “punitive damages” against the defendant. Conduct that is “unprofessional and discriminatory” is not automatically outrageous conduct unless otherwise ruled so by the judge. The plaintiff should therefore be barred from pursuing this prayer for relief (see Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act.).

7. Relating to Prayer for Relief 2: Plaintiff fails to provide any evidence of how harm was made. Plaintiff alleges emotional damages, “Situations in which a person suffers psychological harm due to an entity's negligent or intentional actions” (see Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act.). However, the plaintiff failed to provide witness testimony, make reasonable person arguments, and did not convince the judge of any emotional harm in Lawsuit: Pending - Aladeen v. Redmont Bar Association [2024] SCR 28. The plaintiff should therefore be barred from pursuing this prayer for relief.

8. Relating to Prayer for Relief 3: Unseatedduke is no longer the RBA Chairman. The defendant is unable to force him to write an apology to post in #announcements of the RBA Discord. This prayer for relief further demonstrates that the case is against Unseatedduke as an individual and not the defendant as an organization.

9. While defendant understands that Rule 5.6 (Appeal Exception) (see Information - Court Rules and Procedures) prevents them from filing a Motion to Dismiss, the defendant wishes to make it known that the original trial should have been dismissed under Rule 5.7 (Failure to Include Party) (see Information - Court Rules and Procedures) because the plaintiff mistakenly placed the RBA as the primary defendant instead of the person whom the plaintiff felt aggrieved them, Unseatedduke.

10. Defendant maintains the right to amend this answer under rule 3.3 (see Information - Court Rules and Procedures) during the course of discovery.


III. REVISED DAMAGES
The defendant kindly requests the honorable judges limit the Prayer for Relief in the event that they rule in favor of the plaintiff:

1. Nominal Damage: Up to $4,000 dollars.
2. Legal Fees: Up to $5,000 dollars.

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 28th day of June 2024.
 
Thank you. We will now move on to a 7 day Discovery period. It may be ended early with the consent of both parties.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Aladeen (Represented by Prestige Law Firm, Trial Attorney The_MarxSisters)
Plaintiff

v.

Redmont Bar Association (Represented by RBA Chair Matthew100x)
Defendant

Your Honors,

The plaintiff and defendant have come to a settlement agreement, which has been agreed to by both parties. The plaintiff does not wish to further waste the Court's time on what is now a closed and settled issue. Therefore, we are withdrawing our case and respectfully asking the Court to dismiss the case, without prejudice.

We thank the Court and opposing counsel for their time.
 
We can confirm that a settlement has been made resolving the plaintiff's issue.
 
Case dismissed with prejudice as a settlement has been reached out-of-court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top