Lawsuit: Adjourned Hugebob23456 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 48

[HugeBob]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


hugebob23456
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Commonwealth of Redmont broke the law. That isn't me trying to hand down the verdict in this case, that's me reading the verdict of another case. Judge Wuutie (now the Chief Justice) in his time in the Federal Court ruled that the RBA could not rule over the potential disbarment of a licensed lawyer. Full stop, no exceptions. Because of this ruling, the Legal Board Act was amended to revoke their disbarment power. Crowds cheered as the RBA had been abusing this power and had devolved from a bastion of scholarly legal debate to a place of petty politics and scandal. Now, the Government has passed a new law to restore this unconstitutional power. This lawsuit merely seeks to ensure that the Government respects already established precedent. Thank you.

I. PARTIES
1. hugebob23456
2. The Redmont Bar Association
3. The Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. The Commonwealth of Redmont had previously given the Redmont Bar Association the power to disbar lawyers unilaterally.

2. This was deemed unconstitutional in Federal Court and disbarment powers were struck down as it infringes on a lawyer's Constitutionally protected right to pursue life, liberty, and security of the person and deprives lawyer's their constitutional right to appeal charges made against them. Relevant lawsuit here: Lawsuit: Adjourned - tekkovvs v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] FCR 114

3. The Commonwealth of Redmont has since passed another law which grants the Redmont Bar Association broad disbarment powers. Relevant law here: Act of Congress - Amend the Modern Legal Board Act

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Federal Courts have already deemed the language in this Act of Congress to be unconstitutional, this is simply an effort to ensure that the Federal Government respects the authority of the Courts and does not simply change laws back to their unconstitutional form during the next administration.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The "Amend the Modern Legal Board Act" be struck as unconstitutional. The Redmont Bar Association would revert to how it was prior to this law being passed.

2. I am seeking no monetary damages because I hope that the State will realize the mistake they have made and agree that the law is unconstitutional and yield this case. This is already settled law.

V. EVIDENCE

The verdict handed down which broadly prohibited the RBA from disbarment in any form:

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 7th day of July 2022

 

[Nacho]

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 Hugebob23456 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 48. Failure to appear within 48 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.​

 

[Milkcrack]

Your honour, the state would like to petition for a writ of certiorari we would like for the court to set aside the original verdict of that case. The state would like to argue here or in the supreme court why the original verdict was wrong.

 

[Nacho]

Your honour, the state would like to petition for a writ of certiorari we would like for the court to set aside the original verdict of that case. The state would like to argue here or in the supreme court why the original verdict was wrong.

I wish to understand fully - Are you wishing to petition for this case to be heard by the supreme court?

 

[Milkcrack]

Whichever court has the authority to do so.

 

[JoeGamer]

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN CASE [2022] FCR 48
RESPONSE TO WRIT OF CERTIORARI

The Supreme Court has denied this petition for a writ of certiorari.

This petition has not been made at the proper time nor is it the correct use of a writ of certiorari. A writ of certiorari is used to set aside a previous decision for an appellate court to review a case at it's own discretion. Such petition is to set aside a previous court decision. How can the Supreme Court issue a writ of certiorari when no court decision has been issued on this case? A writ of certiorari is to be ordered by an appellate court. The Federal Court is not an appellate court to itself, so the Federal Court cannot issue a writ of certiorari on a case which occurred in its own court.

Furthermore, on the question of original jurisdiction. Under Section II - The Court of the constitution, the Federal Court is given the power to hear ‌all‌ ‌Constitutional‌ ‌challenges. Given that this case is challenging the constitutionality of an act passed by Congress, the Federal Court has original jurisdiction over this case.

Thank you for your time.​

 

[Nacho]

What is the state's answer to the complaint? - Please have the answer to the complaint within 12 hours (3:39 AM EST)

 

[Milkcrack]

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

hugebob23456
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Commonwealth does not dispute this fact.
2. The Commonwealth does not dispute this fact.
3. The Commonwealth does not dispute this fact.

II. DEFENCES
1. The facts presented by the plaintiff do not take into account that this bill is different from the original one and that the status of the Redmond Bar Association has changed significantly.
2. The original verdict was based on the idea that disbarring someone is seen as a punishment and that there is no way to appeal the charge both of these ideas are wrong


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 11th day of July 2022

 

[Nacho]

The court now moves to opening arguments - If the plaintiff could please provide the court with their opening statements within 24 hours.

 

[HugeBob]

hugebob23456
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

OPENING STATEMENT

Your honor, apologies for the late response I am not accustomed to such short response windows, however I decided to post anyways seeing as no one else has yet to respond. It will not happen again.

1. The RBA was, in the past, granted the power to internally vote on the disbarment of lawyers without a review process.

2. The Federal Court determined that this power was unconstitutional and required that it be rewritten, the new system required that the RBA sue a lawyer they sought to disbar and an impartial Judge would preside over the matter.

3. Since then, the Government has passed a new law that effectively restores the powers that the Court has already deemed unconstitutional.

4. This is a very simple opening statement because the core merits of this case have already been deliberated and the power of disbarment was already found to be unconstitutionally wielded by the RBA. I am seeking only that this Court defend its own precedent and ensure that the other branches of Government do not believe they can ignore the Court to pass unconstitutional law.

Thank you.

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 11th day of July 2022

 

[Nacho]

Would the defense please provide their opening statements within 24 hours.

 

[Milkcrack]

Your honour can I ask for a 24-hour extension and that we stick to the regular 48 hours. There has been an increase in lawsuits and other workload. The Department of Legal Affairs is currently working on hiring more prosecutors and paralegals which is successful, however, training said prosecutors and paralegals require time. I and the department are already at maximum capacity and can not handle double workload on top of the already increasing amount of cases and investigations.

 

[Nacho]

Your honour can I ask for a 24-hour extension and that we stick to the regular 48 hours. There has been an increase in lawsuits and other workload. The Department of Legal Affairs is currently working on hiring more prosecutors and paralegals which is successful, however, training said prosecutors and paralegals require time. I and the department are already at maximum capacity and can not handle double workload on top of the already increasing amount of cases and investigations.

I will grant a 24-hour extension however, you have been in my courtroom before. I run on a standard 48 hours for summoning and then is a stern 24 hours after that. Please be prompt with your response.

I encourage both parties to prep their future responses while we are in recess and prep for the conclusion of the case as well as gather their list of witnesses and prep their questions if either party has them.

The court shall be in recess until 7/13/22 @ 9:47 PM EST.

 

[Milkcrack]

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

A motion for summary judgement is intended to be used if no facts are longer in dispute. The duty of the Attorney General is to uphold the constitution and the laws that govern our nation. After extensive contemplation and discussion, the Department of Legal Affairs agrees that the current bill does not fit with the requirements set out by the constitution and the judiciary.

The state does not concede the right to take away licences as punishment for a crime without going to court such as fire-arm licenses because this is done through a constitutionally sanctioned and relatively political independent institution. However, the state does concede that the people within Redmond Bar Association with authority to disbar people are currently not independent enough to make such a decision.

We ask that the court strikes down the law with the opportunity for congress to make a new amendment. We also ask that the court make clear under which circumstances such an amendment will be considered constitutional and under which circumstances it won't.

 

[Nacho]

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

A motion for summary judgement is intended to be used if no facts are longer in dispute. The duty of the Attorney General is to uphold the constitution and the laws that govern our nation. After extensive contemplation and discussion, the Department of Legal Affairs agrees that the current bill does not fit with the requirements set out by the constitution and the judiciary.

The state does not concede the right to take away licences as punishment for a crime without going to court such as fire-arm licenses because this is done through a constitutionally sanctioned and relatively political independent institution. However, the state does concede that the people within Redmond Bar Association with authority to disbar people are currently not independent enough to make such a decision.

We ask that the court strikes down the law with the opportunity for congress to make a new amendment. We also ask that the court make clear under which circumstances such an amendment will be considered constitutional and under which circumstances it won't.

The court would like to ask the plaintiff if they wish to agree to the motion request. The motion is required to be submitted before the case goes to trial and seeming the plaintiff has already submitted their opening statements, the trial has begun.

@HugeBob Please respond within 24 hours to provide an agreement for the courts to make a ruling on the motion for summary judgment.

 

[HugeBob]

The plaintiff does not wish to challenge this motion in any way. This case has no intention of challenging the legality of firearms-license confiscation and is more than willing to allow for lawyer disbarments conducted by someone other than the RBA, in line with precedent already established by the Courts. Striking down this law is the right thing to do, the Congress can pass another law after this has been struck if they like.

 

[Nacho]

I will grant the motion to summary judgment as both parties have agreed. The court is now in recess while I begin to draft a verdict for the case.

 

[Nacho]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Hugebob23456 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 48

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
The legislative has drafted and passed a bill that amends a previously defined unconstitutional law. They wish to have the court strike this amendment to be unconstitutional and have the law reverted back to its former form.

II. DEFENDANT’S POSITION
Has yielded the floor and has no objections to the allegations. The courts hold a legal and moral responsibility to uphold and protect an individual's constitutional rights. These rights are protected and cannot be infringed upon.

III. COURT’S OPINION
I have broken the court's opinion into multiple sections to ease the burden on my head and make it easier to read.

Did the legislative circumvent the court's authority with the amendment?
With the amendment to the Modern Legal Board Act, it comes in swing with a previous court ruling which struck the ability of the RBA to disbar an individual as it was in violation of a person's rights given to them by the constitution. The amendment has given the same body the ability to violate the right of citizens by disregarding the court's authority in the matter again.

Who has the burden of proof when it comes to disbarment?
It falls upon the RBA to prove that an individual violated the terms of their licenses, it is only the purview of the court to remove an individual's ability to practice law under the limitations set forth within the Modern Legal Board Act. It falls to the court to issue frivolous court case charges not that of the RBA to deem themselves. This creates a political entrapment to open an opportunity for an individual's rights to be violated due to the political motivation behind the RBA.

How can this issue be resolved?
In order for this action to be deemed constitutional, the legislation would be required to remove the safeguarded protections defined within the constitution preventing these acts to be deemed needed. These safeguards are as previously defined within “tekkovvs v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] FCR 114” verdict by the Federal Court.


IV. VERDICT

In the case of Hugebob23456 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 48 I rule in favor of the plaintiff.

The “Amend the Modern Legal Board Act” (Milqy Legal Board Amendment) - shall be struck down and deemed unconstitutional. All disbarments and further action was taken by the RBA under this amendment shall be overruled and reverted back to their previous form.

All future disbarments will need to be brought before the courts in the form of a general civil case where the verdict will determine if an individual is disbarred or not.


The Court thanks each party for their time. This case is now adjourned.