Lawsuit: Adjourned AlexanderLove v. The Attorney General [2021] SCR 19

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


AlexanderLove
Plaintiff

v.

The Attorney General
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On September 29th, the Attorney General refused to allow for the enforcement of a lawfully passed RBA bylaw. This is a case that will demonstrate the Attorney General neglected his duties and leveraged his office for personal gain. His very own Solicitor General is also the Chairman of the RBA Council. It is clear the Attorney General is allowing an individual loyal to him to serve in two non-compatible positions at once in order to consolidate power, maintain control over the entire legal community, or perhaps other nefarious purposes.


I. PARTIES
1. JoeGamer2120 (Attorney General)
2. SumoMC (Solicitor General and RBA Chairman)
3. AlexanderLove (Plaintiff)
4. nnmc (Witness)
5. lawanoesepr (Witness)
6. Aladeen22 (Witness)
7. Cooleagles (Witness)

II. FACTS
1. On August 20th, 2021, a bylaw was introduced and passed shortly after. This RBA bylaw is featured in Exhibit #3. The authenticity of its unanimous passage is included in Exhibit #4.
2. An RBA Councilor brought up the fact the Chairman of the RBA Council is in violation of the enacted bylaw on September 29th, 2021.
3. The Attorney General stated that he is "not enforcing" the bylaw, which is not within his powers to do.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Attorney General violated law 16.1 - Corruption. He used his official authority in an unlawful matter to benefit his personal interests.
2. The Attorney General is not a Judge and cannot make the unilateral decision whether or not a policy should be allowed to stand.
3. The Attorney General cites Section 7, Subsection 3, Clause A of the Legal Board Act. This states that "Only lawyers with the Barrister or Attorney qualification may run for the Council." This does not serve to say that ALL lawyers with the Barrister or Attorney qualification may run for the Council, but rather to say that anyone who is not a Barrister or Attorney may not run for the Council. The law was clearly stretched by the Attorney General in a very erroneous and illogical manner to promote his own self-interests.
4. Subsection D of the same Clause states that "The Council may establish initiatives within the board in relation to profession and board development." The RBA's initiative to amend the bylaws relate to profession and board development directly as the bylaw is about the qualifications of those who may be a member of the board Council.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. An injunction on the Attorney General to enforce the legally passed bylaw
2. An injunction requiring SumoMC to resign from either Solicitor General or Chairman of the RBA Council
3. $5,000 in fines against JoeGamer2120 for corruption
4. JoeGamer2120's removal from office for corruption
5. $250 in legal fees issued back to AlexanderLove

V. EVIDENCE
The Plaintiff hereby offers the following exhibits as evidence:

https://imgur.com/a/tmd4ZiR

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 2nd day of October 2021.

 

[Matthew100x]

As per the constitution,

"Only‌ ‌the‌ ‌Supreme‌ ‌Court‌ ‌shall‌ ‌hear‌ ‌cases‌ ‌that‌ ‌would‌ ‌remove‌ ‌a‌ ‌person/persons‌ ‌from‌ ‌the‌ ‌following‌ ‌
positions:‌ ‌Representatives,‌ ‌Secretary,‌ ‌Senator,‌ ‌Judge,‌ ‌Vice-President,‌ ‌Principal‌ ‌Officers,‌ ‌General‌ ‌Advisors,‌ ‌President.‌ ‌"

I shall be moving this case and assigning it to the Supreme Court Docket as the prayer for relief includes a request to remove a secretary from their position.

 

[Matthew100x]

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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the AlexanderLove v. The Attorney General [Case No. 10-2021-02]. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.

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.

I will be handling the Supreme Court posts delegated to me by the Honorable Chief Justice Westray for this case.​

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, I feel this would be a good trial for an in-game trial provided certain facts were stipulated by the defendant to remove the requirement of some of the witness' attendance.

 

[Matthew100x]

Does the defendant want to do an in-game trial?

 

[JoeGamer]

As much as I would love to do an in game trial, my schedule has too many conflicts with school, work, and debate, so I will have to decline an in-game trial.

 

[JoeGamer]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

AlexanderLove
Plaintiff

v.

The Attorney General
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Attorney General did not make this decision for personal gain.
2. The current Attorney General does not maintain a threatening relation with the Solicitor General.
3. The RBA did not have the authority to pass a motion that did not allow Barristers and Attorneys to run
4. The Attorney General has the power to allow and deny RBA Councillors or Chairman their seat followed by the Legal Board Amendment, the bill that gives election procedures.

II. DEFENCES
1. Under §16.1 - Corruption, corruption is to be defined as “to use a government position, elected or otherwise, to benefit one's private interests or corporate ventures.” The plaintiff has provided absolutely no evidence of me using my power to benefit my private interest. Mr. Love has made baseless accusations about the Attorney General's relationship with Solicitor General SumoMC. The Attorney General maintains a professional relationship with the Solicitor General and prosecutors working in the Office of the Attorney General. As the Attorney General, I strive to let my prosecutors do their own work. I have faith in my prosecutors and Solicitor General to do the work efficiently and effectively without constant oversight by the Attorney General. However, Mr. Love believes that he knows the relationship I have with my employees, and has provided no evidence of the Attorney General pressuring the Solicitor General/RBA Chairman. These baseless accusations should not stand in a court where evidence is needed to prove accusations. The plaintiff must prove his accusation and has failed to do so.

2. In this case, Mr. Love must prove that the Redmont Bar Association had the authority to pass a motion that would bar someone from sitting on the RBA council. However, it is not the RBA bylaws that give the requirements to run, it is the Legal Board Act which states under Section 7 Subsection 2(a) “Only lawyers with the Attorney qualification may run for Chairman.” The Legal Board Act also states under Section 7 Subsection 3(a) “Only lawyers with the Barrister or Attorney qualification may run for the Council.” The council is not given the power to revoke people from running or holding Council has described in Section 7 Subsection 3(b) stating “The Council will be charged with the regulation of lawyers as described in Section 4.” Section 4 - Regulation of Lawyers gives no authority to not allow a sitting Barrister or Attorney to not hold a position on the council. The Legal Board Act provides clear guidelines to who can and cannot run and hold a position on the Council, and nowhere does it give sitting Councillors to not allow one to hold office.

3. Let the record show that Fact #1 is incorrect. Mr. Love claims that the nnmc motioned and the Council unanimously passed an amendment to the RBA bylaws. As shown in the Exhibit #3 provided by Mr. Love, the motion was not an amendment to the bylaws, it was a regular motion. It did not specifically state that it was an amendment to the bylaws, and, therefore was not added to the RBA bylaws.

4. The Legal Board Act gives the Attorney General the power to initialize the board under Section 7 Subsection 1 stating “The Attorney General shall be charged with the initial organising of such board.” These powers include holding elections for a new council every two months, hosting special elections in the event that someone from the board steps down or is removed, and to assign these roles to these incoming council. This has been done by me and previous Attorney Generals. As in charge of the RBA formation of a council, the Attorney General does have the authority to carry out the results of the election. Given that SumoMC was an attorney and received the most votes in the Chairman Election, I did my duty to give Sumo the chairmanship. The motions passed in the RBA cannot change congressional mandates, and cannot disbar someone from holding council. As the organizer of the bar, I maintained SumoMC’s rightful spot as Chairman of the RBA.



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 5 day of October 2021

Spoiler: Exhibit #1

Spoiler: Exhibit#2

Spoiler: Exhibit #3 (The motion is not an Amendment to the bylaws)

 

[Matthew100x]

We will now be moving on to opening statements. I will allow the plaintiff 72 hours to draft their response to the arguments made by the defendant. After the plaintiff finishes and posts their argument, the defendant shall have 72 hours to draft their arguments against the plaintiff's rebuttal.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

May it please the Court,

Your honor, opposing counsel, this is a case of misinterpretation for manipulation. In this case, I will prove that the Attorney General misinterpreted the Legal Board Act in order to manipulate the Redmont Bar Association into fitting his personal mold. The Solicitor General is not supposed to also be the Chairman of the RBA. Not only is this a conflict of interest, where the lawyer second-most accountable to the government, serving at the pleasure of the Attorney General himself is also leading the bar association, but it is also suspicious how the Attorney General blocks a lawful motion from passing just before his deputy is elected Chairman. The Legal Board Act does not claim that it provides all of the election requirements for the RBA, nor does it deny the RBA the power to regulate itself, including the elections. The law gives the RBA the power to oversee the legal community, and it must be able to oversee itself in order to properly represent the legal community. Congress is a similar body on a mass scale. The Constitution does not deny Congress the power to regulate itself, including election laws, and Congress indeed takes advantage of them. The RBA should be treated no differently in that regard. Nonetheless, the Attorney General does not have the power to strike down RBA motions. They should have been brought to Court if the Attorney General felt they were illegal.
The Attorney General claims the motion does not enumerate it amended the bylaws. While this may be true, it is implied. Additionally, it received the necessary unanimous threshold it would need regardless. This many supporters certainly shows support for the amendment, regardless of what it may amend. The bylaws are also not the sole source of authority of the RBA. No law says a regular motion by the RBA cannot take action, regardless of the scale. Back to the example of the Congress, it passes laws, including election laws, at the whim of the majority. This could be unanimous, but it doesn't need to be. Nor do they need to specifically amend any kind of pre-existing document in order to make a legally binding decision.
Due to these facts, the prayers for relief should be granted. The Attorney General used his weight and alleged powers (ones that aren't actually granted to him) in order to strike down a lawful motion unilaterally to promote his interests of an Office of the Attorney General controlled RBA Council. SumoMC should be forced to comply with the lawful RBA decision, and resign from either Chairman or Solicitor General. JoeGamer should be removed from office for corruption. And future Attorney Generals should be reminded they must enforce and carry out all RBA motions properly nor impede their passage without rightful authority.

Thank you.

 

[JoeGamer]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REBUTTAL

AlexanderLove
Plaintiff

v.

The Attorney General
Defendant

REBUTTAL

In this rebuttal, I will review some of the claims of the plaintiff and then show how they are inaccurate or misinterpretations.

Not only is this a conflict of interest, where the lawyer second-most accountable to the government, serving at the pleasure of the Attorney General himself is also leading the bar association

In my office, I have employed three fine lawyers: Mr. nnmc, Mr. lawanoesepr, and the current Solicitor General SumoMC. Each of these fine lawyers have served on the RBA council, Mr. nnmc even sitting as the chairman in the previous term. Each of these lawyers worked at my pleasure, yet no concern was expressed by the plaintiff or any of the previous councilors. Why is that? Because these members shared similar values. Nnmc used to work for Lovely and helped a great deal at the Lovely Law Firm. No prosecutor has ever been questioned for serving in the OAG and the RBA council. This changed when SumoMC was elected. SumoMC had different policies, had different views on the legal field, and both the plaintiff and SumoMC have had their fair share of cases.
Prosecutors are not fired based on their political views, legal views, or how they vote. They are in the Office of the Attorney General because I have trusted these three lawyers to do their work, helping the government in lawsuits. Their voting patterns in any elections, congressional, presidential, or in the RBA do not constitute a firing from the OAG. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I will not have people's political beliefs changed to serve in the OAG. That’s not why they are there, to be lawyers for the government.
Exhibit #4 also shows the responsibilities of the Solicitor General (then called Deputy Attorney General). There is no responsibility given to run the Redmont Bar Association. That power is given solely to the Attorney General.

The Legal Board Act does not claim that it provides all of the election requirements for the RBA, nor does it deny the RBA the power to regulate itself, including the elections. The law gives the RBA the power to oversee the legal community

This statement is factually incorrect. As I’ve stated in my answer to complaint, Section 7 Subsection 2(a) and Section 7 Subsection 3(a) of the Legal Board Act clearly state the requirements to be able to run and hold office. These statements clearly state the requirements to run and hold a position on the RBA council. Under Section 4 Regulation of Lawyers in the Legal Board Act, it clearly sets the power granted to the RBA to regulate the legal field. Among these, Section 4 does not give the RBA council the ability to regulate the running eligibility or election eligibility. These eligibility regulations are granted only to the Congress, as this was a congressional legislation, not a union formation. These powers to change election eligibility were shown by Representative Aladeen’s Amendment to the Legal Board Act, where he attempted to amend the bill to not allow the Solicitor General to run for RBA council. If this would have passed, then of course I would have been obligated to remove SumoMC from his position as chairman. However, the House of Representatives rejected the bill, meaning the Solicitor General is still allowed to run in RBA elections and hold this office. As the initial organizer of such council, I am obligated to follow eligibility as outlined in the Legal Board Act.

The Constitution does not deny Congress the power to regulate itself, including election laws, and Congress indeed takes advantage of them. The RBA should be treated no differently in that regard.

The Congress of Redmont and the Redmont Bar Association are two very different entities and equating them is extremely misleading. In order for the Congress to change elections laws such as requirements, an amendment must pass through chambers of Congress, be signed by the president, and then be put up for public referendum. The RBA was created by Congress and does not have these same rules set in the constitution. There is no Article in the Constitution which regulates election requirements. These election requirements are granted through the Legal Board Act and only the Legal Board Act alone.

Nonetheless, the Attorney General does not have the power to strike down RBA motions.

As the organizer of the board and the person charged with leading elections, I am required to follow the election eligibility laws as stated by the Legal Board Act. If I were to not comply with the Legal Board Act, I would not be fulfilling my role as Attorney General. I must lead elections eligibility laws as stated. Also, since the motion that was proposed was not an amendment to the RBA bylaws, it had no bearing on election eligibility, and the RBA council cannot change congressional legislation; this is beyond their scope of power.

The Attorney General claims the motion does not enumerate it amended the bylaws. While this may be true, it is implied. Additionally, it received the necessary unanimous threshold it would need regardless.

These motions cannot be vague. The exact wording did not constitute an amendment to the RBA bylaws as it was not stated as an amendment. Just because a motion is unanimous does not make said motion a bylaw. That notion is ridiculous. Additionally, there is a shift in the Plaintiff argument. When describing election eligibility laws, the plaintiff argues that because something was not specifically stated, it does not make it legal, but here the plaintiff argues it should be an amendment because it did reach a unanimous vote. The plaintiff may argue that it should be interpreted word for word, or argue that it is implied, but not both.

No law says a regular motion by the RBA cannot take action, regardless of the scale.

This claim states that because a motion passes, action should be taken regardless, meaning no matter what is voted on, no matter the scale, it should be enacted. Certain motions have different meanings, a regular motion can allow for simple changes, changes that don’t require a lot of change to the legal system, or a change to the format of the RBA discord. Certain motions have much bigger impacts that can change the legal field, like a committee or investigation. Complex motions change the functionality of the Council itself by changing the RBA bylaws or disbarment. The plaintiff wants to equate all of these things even though the impact of each can change the legal field or RBA Council in different ways: from small, nonimportant changes, to major changes to the legal system, like the Ethical Doctrine. These changes are different and should be treated as such.

JoeGamer should be removed from office for corruption.

Again, no evidence has been shown on how I personally have benefited from SumoMC being elected as Chairman. Corruption has some sort of personal benefit, but the Plaintiff has supplied no evidence to the court about being personally benefiting.

Seeing these rebuttals to the plaintiff's claims, the Attorney General did have the authority to allow SumoMC to remain as the Chairman of the RBA, and the RBA does not have the authority to change election eligibility as those eligibilities come from the Congress alone through the Legal Board Act. Failure to follow would have gone against the Legal Board Act and against the law.

Spoiler: Exhibit #4

 

[Matthew100x]

Are there any witnesses or testimonials that the plaintiff or defendant wishes to present to this court?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, I wish to summon the following witnesses to the stand:

1. nnmc
2. lawanoesepr
3. Aladeen22
4. Cooleagles

 

[Matthew100x]

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

@nnmc, @lawanoesepr, @Aladeen, and @Cooleagles are hereby summoned to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in Case No. 10-2021-02 in order to answer the questions of the plaintiff in regards to this matter. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present.

I would ask that the plaintiff presents list of all the questions they want to be answered by each person in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable.

I am hereby informing each witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies, pursuant of the Perjury Act.

Once the witnesses have been questioned, the opposing party will have the opportunity to cross-examine.​

 

[nnmc]

Your Honor, I am present before this court.

 

[lawanoesepr]

Your honor, I am present before this court

 

[Aladeen]

Your honor, I am present.

 

[Cooleagles]

Your honor, I am present before this court.

 

[Matthew100x]

Can the plaintiff please place all questions within a single post for all of the called upon witnesses?

 

[JoeGamer]

Your honor,

The plaintiff has had more than adequate time to post questions. I ask the court to please speed up the questioning process.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

All Witnesses
1) Did you vote aye on the motion depicted in the evidence?
2) In your legal opinions, given your legal expertise, does the statute, explicitly or implicitly, state that the RBA cannot make additional election requirements?
3) Does the legal language of the statute suggest that it is necessarily the sole requirement?
4) When you voted on the motion, did you believe the RBA had the authority to pass this motion?
5) Did the Attorney General unilaterally block the motion without authority?

Aladeen
6) Isn't it true that the bill regarding the motion being placed into law was supplementary, and not an admission of a lack of the RBA's authority to do the same?

 

[nnmc]

My responses:

1) At the time of that motion, I was the RBA Chairman. The RBA Chairman does not vote on motions unless to break a tie. Since there was no tie on this motion, I did not vote on it.

2) In my legal opinion, I think the RBA is allowed to make additional election requirements, due to the Legal Board Act granting the RBA a strong degree of autonomy and because the Act does not explicitly forbid additional election requirements.

3) I believe that is not the case.

4) As explained in Question 1, I did not vote on the motion. But I was the one who proposed the motion. I do believe the RBA had the authority to propose and pass this motion.

5) Yes he did. The AG does not have veto power over RBA motions and bylaws.

 

[Aladeen]

1. Yes, I voted aye on the motion.

2. In my legal opinion, I believe that the RBA is allowed to make additional election requirements

3. No it doesn't.

4. Yes, when I voted on the motion I fully believed that the RBA had the authority to pass this motion.

5. Yes. Just like nnmc said, the AG does not have veto power over RBA motions and bylaws.

6. The Bill that prohibited the SG from running/being the RBA Chairman is not an admittance of a lack of the RBA's authority. The Bill was made since the Attorney General decided to not implement the new requirement.

 

[lawanoesepr]

) Did you vote aye on the motion depicted in the evidence

Yes I did.

) In your legal opinions, given your legal expertise, does the statute, explicitly or implicitly, state that the RBA cannot make additional election requirements?

I do believe the RBA was in it's right to pass this motion but I also believe that the attorney general was within his right to block it as being the organizer of the RBA

Does the legal language of the statute suggest that it is necessarily the sole requirement?

Not in my opinion a sole requirement as many other factors in our by laws and in other acts as like The attorney general may not serve as the chairman of the RBA.

4) When you voted on the motion, did you believe the RBA had the authority to pass this motion?

Yes, I do as we have the power to set requirements for attorney applications so we should have power over limitations of becoming council or chairman.

Did the Attorney General unilaterally block the motion without authority?

In my legal opinion he had the power of organizing the RBA and to do that duty he blocked that vote.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

I will dismiss Cooleagles since he doesn't play anymore.

 

[Matthew100x]

Would the defendant like to cross-examine the witnesses?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, it has been over 48 hours since that question was posed. I request that the Court compels the Defendant to answer in a timely manner. Thank you.

 

[JoeGamer]

FOR ALL:
1. Was this motion explicitly a motion to amend the bylaws?
2. Does the RBA council have the authority to pass election eligibility laws through a regular motion?

 

[nnmc]

1) It was not explicitly stated that it was a motion to amend the bylaws. However, it was implied that it was, because the motion passed with the unanimous support needed to amend the bylaws.

2) No. It needs to be a complex motion which requires unanimous consent because it is amending the bylaws. For this motion, unanimous consent was obtained and so the motion passed as a complex motion.

 

[Matthew100x]

Sorry Joe, it's been 72 hours. You've lost your time to cross-examine witnesses. The Supreme Court had already decided to continue with the case prior to you posting your questions.

Are there any witnesses or testimonials that you would like to call on?

 

[Matthew100x]

NNMC's testimony shall be struck from the record because the questions fell outside of normal time given for posts of this matter.

 

[JoeGamer]

Your honor, I have no further witnesses. I am ready to move onto closing statements.

 

[Matthew100x]

We shall be moving onto closing statements then. The plaintiff shall have 72 hours to respond followed by the defendant who shall also have 72 hours to respond. Afterward, the Supreme Court will begin deliberations.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, I am incredibly sorry for the late reply. I have been busy with real-life matters recently.

For my closing remarks, I would just like to say that the Legal Board Act doesn't state we don't have those powers to make entry requirements, it does however say we oversee ourselves and the profession. This implies we can make entry requirements. Either way, the Attorney General cannot refuse to override passed motions, especially when they are unanimous and receive enough to amend bylaws or any document. Also, not all of our requirements and motions need to be part of the bylaws. I ask that Sumo pick one position to uphold the passed motion, the AG to pay corruption fees and legal fees, and to remove Joe from office for corruption.

 

[JoeGamer]

Your honor,

The plaintiff did not post his closing statement within the allotted time frame and ask it be struck from the record

 

[JoeGamer]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING ARGUMENTS

AlexanderLove
Plaintiff

v.

The Attorney General
Defendant

CLOSING ARGUMENTS

Your honor,

This entire case revolves around Section 8 of the Legal Board Act (LBA). In Section 8 it gives the power to initialize the board. This has been interpreted by previous Attorney General’s to hold votes for elections as this is part of initializing the board. Just as the Department of State makes sure that candidates for election meet all the requirements as set by the system's founding doctrine, the constitution. Similarly, the founding document for the Redmont Bar Association is the LBA, and from there we can find the election requirements. These requirements were directed by Congress, and through a congressional bill. The RBA does not have the power to amend the bylaws to amend the LBA. That is beyond the Council’s power to do, no matter if the entire council agrees. Congressional set requirements can only be changed by a congressional bill. Because of this overstep of power by the RBA council, the Attorney General has the right to make sure that the elections are as prescribed by Congress. As the official vote holder, the Attorney General must enforce election eligibility and voter requirements. If the courts don’t affirm this, then the Council can call for a simple motion (as this motion was not an amendment to the bylaws) to change election eligibility, which could very likely lead to holding election eligibility laws against their rivals. This is something the RBA cannot afford to see.

Finally, this case was about corruption - “To use a government position, elected or otherwise, to benefit one's private interests or corporate ventures. By applying for a position or being elected into a position in government, the player agrees to serve the server over themselves.” The plaintiff has the burden of proof in this case, and has failed to prove how I have benefitted from SumoMC holding the chairman position. I made the decision to uphold the integrity of the LBA, to uphold the standard set by congress. There has been no corruption, no benefits of private interest from me or SumoMC.

With that, the defense rests.

 

[Matthew100x]

The Supreme Court is going to take some time to review the case before posting a verdict. We'll be back within a week to give the verdict.

 

[Westray]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Case No. 10-2021-02

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff, AlexanderLove, alleges that the Defendant unlawfully used his position as Attorney General to block a motion to forbid the Solicitor General from being RBA Chairman/Council.
2. The Plaintiff claims that the Attorney General took this action out of self-interest, in order to advance his self-interest in the "control of the entire legal community" as they claim the Solicitor General was loyal to his interests.
3. The Plaintiff asserts that alike Congress, the RBA should be granted the power to regulate itself as it wants.

II. DEFENDANTS POSITION
1. The Defendant, the Attorney General, alleges that it was their duty as the organizer of the RBA to prevent the enforcement of such respective motion.
2. The Defendant, the Attorney General, alleges that he maintains a solely professional relationship with those in his office, and has pointed out past precedent of Chairmans and Councilors serving as Prosecutors simultaneously.
3. The Defendant, the Attorney General, claims that the authority of Congress and the RBA are vastly different, pointing out the democratic mandate of each respective body.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. It is the opinion of the court that the motion presented by the RBA Council was an overstep of the organization's authority. The motion to effectively forbid an individual and or role from running for Council and or Chairman was in direct contravention of the Legal Board Act §8 that allows any with the Barrister or Attorney qualification to run for Council and such.
2. It is additionally the opinion of the court that the Attorney General has unlawfully abused his power to block the passage of a motion within the RBA. We believe that the interpretation that the responsibility of "initial organization" suddenly provides him veto powers is a stretch of the law. Regardless of whether or not the motion was lawful, it was not his power to prevent and effectively act with judicial authority. If he believed it was unlawful, it should have been brought to a court of law first.
3. While expressing the severe discontent for the Attorney General's abuse of power, we do not believe that the motion was blocked to advance his private or corporate interests. No evidence has indicated that the Attorney General has been able to exert additional influence any differently through having the Solicitor General remain as RBA Chairman. All claims of corruption are based solely on speculation, due to the fact that many members of the Attorney General's office have served in their respective positions, and we see no difference in facts to prior those situations.
4. Further explaining the first remark in the court opinion, while the motion was unlawfully blocked, we will not be granting the prayer for relief to have it enforced, as we agree that the motion is unlawful. In addition to the contravention with §8 of the Legal Board Act, the responsibility of the RBA was to regulate lawyers, not to regulate its own leadership structure, as noted in §3 of the Legal Board Act. The Legal Board Act is very clear in is terms of RBA leadership and electability. It is the law that sets out how many Councilors there are, and so forth. Therefore we believe the ability to adjust who can and cannot run for Councilor/Chairman was left in the hands of Congress.

Remarks from the Hon. Westray:

Today we declared that the some of the actions of both the Attorney General and the Redmont Bar Association were unlawful. This case is one of an overstep of authority. The Attorney General overstepped his authority by blocking a motion and essentially acting as the court retrospectively. The Redmont Bar Association's Council overstepped their authority by imposing a limitation to serving as Councilor/Chairman, and making a significant change to the Redmont Bar Association's leadership structure without the consultation of Congress.

The duty of the Attorney General was to remain as uninvolved in the Redmont Bar Association's affairs as possible. The Attorney General holds three key purposes in the Redmont Bar Association, to (a) handle the election of Chairman and Council, (b) manage the prosecutors and government representation aspect of the legal field; and (c) advise the Council on matters involving the Office of the Attorney General where necessary. It is only the authority of the Chairman to block motions on the basis of proper usage of the board, given the clause "The Chairman shall manage the votes and ensure the proper usage of the board."

As for the claim of corruption, I hold one major concern over the conflict of interest that can be posed with the Attorney General, which is the oversight of public defenders by the Redmont Bar Association. If the Attorney General was working with his office to deliberately obstruct functions for the management of public defenders by the Redmont Bar Association, then I would consider it an act of corruption to advance his own interests. However, no evidence in this case has indicated that, nor has any evidence been indicated of the direct influence from the Attorney General over the Solicitor General.

The duty of the of the Redmont Bar Association was to regulate lawyers, manage public defenders, and advise Congress on bills relating legal policy, as examined in §3 of the Legal Board Act. Instead, the Redmont Bar Association took it upon themselves to create motions to limit who can and cannot serve as Councilor/Chairman. The purpose of the Redmont Bar Association was never to have internal struggles over power nor over who can and cannot serve in the offices of its leadership. Instead, it was clearly organized with a structure in the Legal Board Act that any individual with the Barrister or Attorney qualification may run for Council. As Congress created the roles within the law, it is up to them to make any applicable changes to it.

The key difference between the Redmont Bar Association and the Congress of Redmont is the democratic mandate and the constitutional processes defined between the two. The Congress of Redmont is elected by the democratic will of the people as a whole, whereas the Redmont Bar Association is a closed-off organization of lawyers. In addition to this, in order to pass any limitation on the ability to run for office within their own body, Congress must gain the signature of the President and the support of the people via public referendum. Whereas, the Redmont Bar Association solely has a Council with a limited check on them, given that the Chairman does not hold veto powers to the same extent as the President.

Furthermore, recent legislation introduced by Congress further shows the extent of Congress' authority over the regulation of the Redmont Bar Association. The RBA Disband & Replace Act shows that Congress can effectively dissolve the entire organization at a whim of passing a bill. Therefore, it is my opinion that the authority of Congress is much greater than one of the Redmont Bar Association, and in major decisions such as limitations on RBA leadership, Congress deserves an input.

- Westray, Chief Justice

Remarks from the Hon. xLayzur:

Congress is the only entity to hold the power to adjust the operations of the Redmont Bar Association. Claims of corruption shall be taken seriously as strong evidence needs to follow with said claim. If the council feels improvements or adjustments should be made, they should contact fellow congress representatives to communicate solutions.

- xLayzur, Speaker of the House (Acting Justice)

IV. DECISION

The Supreme Court hereby declares that the proposal made by the Redmont Bar Association to prevent certain individuals and or roles from serving in their leadership would be unlawful and in direct contravention of the Legal Board Act in its current form. The bylaws of the Redmont Bar Association cannot supersede congressional authority.

Additionally, while not granting the punishment of corruption, the Court will be adjourning this case in favour of the Plaintiff, ordering the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff their legal fees of $250, given the actions committed by the Attorney General, while not corrupt, were not within his scope of authority.

Thank you to both parties for their time in presenting these arguments.