Lawsuit: Adjourned lawanoesepr v. AlexanderLove [2021] DCR 50

L

lawanoesepr

Citizen
Justice Department
Construction & Transport Department
Supporter
Oakridge Resident
3rd Anniversary 2nd Anniversary Change Maker Popular in the Polls
lawanoesepr
lawanoesepr
donator1
Joined
May 8, 2021
Messages
691
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Lawanoesepr
Plaintiff

v.

AlexanderLove
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: The plaintiff personal details was leaked to joegamer after alexanderLove told joegamer that I was terminated from lovely And tried to get me fired from apex law firm.

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
I was fired from lovely after giving the office of the attorney general information about acts of crime alexanderLove love did. After he found out I was fired. My punishment was leaked to joeGamer without my explicit consent thereby breaching section 3 of the Employee protection act.
I. PARTIES
  1. JoeGamer
2.Alexanderlove
3.sumoMc (Attorney general at the time)

II. FACTS
1. I was fired
2. AlexanderLove had leaked my punishment to joeGamer
3. I was providing information to the office of the attorney general.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
  1. Being fired is an administrative punishment once my punishment was leaked. AlexanderLove breached section 3 of the employee protection act.
  2. As seen in the screenshot the defendant was going to "talk with joe about my employment with apex" Joegamer later told me that he was told by AlexanderLove that I was fired from lovely law firm.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. 500$ I'm compensation for any services performed for the short time I was employed.
  1. A public formal apology

Witnesses:
  1. JoeGamer
1629672166167.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 22nd day of august 2021
 
district-court-png.12083

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The Defendant,
@Alexander P. Love , is required to appear before the court in the case of Lawanoesepr v. AlexanderLove. Failure to appear within 48 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.​
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

AlexanderLove
Plaintiff

v.

lawanoesepr
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint, in this case, be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. This exact lawsuit was already dropped and dismissed. The case is at this point redundant and frivolous.
2. He literally did nothing at the Lovely Law Firm and doesn't deserve any compensation.
3. This is a frivolous and exaggerated case just to win a payday.
4. The cited act is criminal and not civil. This was filed in a civil venue.

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 24th day of August, 2021
 
REBUTTAL
1. The lawsuit acts filed and dropped because of two acts of the same same one being vetoed other recieving assent.

2. After trying to get me fired and sharing an administrative punishment I was entitled to compensation

3. This is very serious because my administrative punishment is not to be shared

4.Its cited nowhere in the employee protection act that this is a criminal charge

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 24th day of August, 2021
 
Your honor I wish to submit additional evidence to the court:
unknown-1.png
 
I am going to reject the motion to dismiss because the reasons listed by the Plaintiff are not enough for a dismissal. The Defendant may present his opening statement now. If the opening statement is not presented within 48 hours, we will move on without it.
 
Your honor, I've been swamped in school work recently. May I have a 24-hour delay?
 
Granted, I expect an answer in the next 48 hours from now.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

lawanoesepr
Plaintiff

v.

AlexanderLove
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. I refute the claims made by the defendant under the terms laid out in Section II of this response.

II. DEFENSES
1. The Constitution states I have freedom of the press and media. Being able to convey information about my business is my right.
2. Corporate Espionage is defined as "any parties participating in, or accessory to the gathering, infiltration, or compromise of any sensitive company information that has not already been released to the public under the instruction of the company's controlling interest."
3. Corporate Espionage is an illegal activity.
4. The Plaintiff committed Corporate Espionage (see my additional evidence provided in Section III of this response). He leaked information about my case strategy to the opposing party. Given that we are a law firm, case strategy is very sensitive.
5. The Whistleblowers Act provides legal protection to an "individual that presents information to another individual or organization about an entity or individual who is involved with any activity that is deemed illegal..." The quoted material is from Section Two, Clause One.
6. I presented information to another individual (JoeGamer) about an entity (the Plaintiff) who was involved with an activity that is deemed illegal (Corporate Espionage).
7. Section Two, Clause Four states that "it is illegal for the Government to punish whistleblowers."
8. The Court, being a part of the Government, cannot punish me for whistleblowing the Plaintiff for committing an illegal action, which is Corporate Espionage.

III. EVIDENCE
I hereby tender the following exhibits into evidence:

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 26th day of August 2021
 
Apologies, I forgot to post the evidence.

Screenshot (239).png
 
The Plaintiff may present his opening statement. You have 48 hours to do so, if not done in time we will move on without it.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

lawanoesepr
Plaintiff

v.

AlexanderLove
Defendant

II. CLAIM
The defendant breached the employee protection act by sharing my punishment to JoeGamer. As he was suing on behalf of himself not the company I did not commit the crime corporate espionage. As the Attorney General's office is not a corporation I did not leak anything to a corporation.
1. III. EVIDENCE
unknown-1 (1).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 27th day of August 2021
 
Please present a list of the witnesses you want to call. You have 48 hours to submit the list on this thread.
 
1. JoeGamer
 
Objection, your honor.

Corporate espionage does not have to be done in the interest of another company. It's definition states "any parties participating in, or accessory to the gathering, infiltration, or compromise of any sensitive company information..."
 
Alexander P. Love said:
or compromise of any sensitive company information..."
Click to expand...
I did not leak any company information as the defendant was suing on behalf of himself, Not the lovely law firm. Therefore no corporate espionage was committed as the defendant is not a company, He may own that company but he did not sue on behalf of the company. I had merely told lies to the defendant and gave information about him and his opinionz and statements he made to
The office of the attorney general. therefore not providing information about his company but rather himself.
 
Im going to grant the objection made by the Defendant because the Lovely Law firm is a company and doesn't matter if the AG is a company or not. Does the defendant like any witnesses?
 
The defense would like to call SumoMC to the stand.
 
district-court-png.12083

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

@SumoMC and @JoeGamer are hereby summoned to the District Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in Case No. 08-2021-22 as witnesses. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions from the Plaintiff and may also be cross-examined.

I would ask that the Defence provides a list of all the questions they want answered by each witness 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. When the Defence is ready, they may post questions to the witness.

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.​
 
Your honor,

I have familiarized myself with the case, and am aware of the law of perjury and its severity. I intend to tell the truth and answer the questions to the best of my ability, so help me End.
 
1. Did the defendant inform you of me being terminated from the Lovely Law Firm?
2. Was there an attempt to get my employment with Apex terminated?
3. Do you believe that the defendant breached the Employee Protection Act?
 
Your Honor,

I have familiarized myself with the case and can proceed with questions.
 
lawanoesepr said:
1. Did the defendant inform you of me being terminated from the Lovely Law Firm?
2. Was there an attempt to get my employment with Apex terminated?
3. Do you believe that the defendant breached the Employee Protection Act?
Click to expand...

Objection, your honor.

This witness cannot answer to my intent as that would be speculation. Only I can determine my intent. Additionally, question three is for the Court to determine, and it is not the place of the witness to speak to this matter. I ask that questions two and three be stricken from the record.
 
Objection granted for question 3, I ask for more information about question 2 by the Defendant because this is about a possible conversation between you and sumo about firing him. Please explain your objection more and then I’ll decide if question needs to be answered. To conclude: Question 3 can’t be answered by the witness and more information of the Defendant. Thank you.
 
Your, Honor
A conversation between alexanderLove and the at the time managing partnerJoeGamer happened. I am asking joeGamer if an attempt was made to get me fired at the time.
 
Question 2 must not be answered as well by the witness because this is totally other case. Mr. Joegamer only needs to answer question 1 by the Plaintiff
 
@JoeGamer please answer the question in the next 24 hours. Alex you can ask your questions to the witness and after response you have 48 hours to ask your questions voor SumoMC. Witnesses have 48 hours to answer any question or you will be in contempt.
 
@JoeGamer will be found in contempt with court, 15.10 - Contempt of Court.
He will be fined 250 dollars by the Doj for not in time answering the court. I ask in the meantime the defendant to list the questions for his witness.
 
I want to apologize for my delay, I had several things come up at once and forgot to post my answers.

1. Did the defendant inform you of me being terminated from the Lovely Law Firm?

Yes, Alexander Love reached out to me informing me of lawanoespr being fired from Lovely because of how Mr. Lawanoespr's acted in a case in regards to the RBA v. Redmont Bar Association and at the time working for both Apex Law Firm and the Lovely Law Firm. Evidence of the conversation between me and Mr. Love was posted in the Opening statement by Mr. Lawanoespr.
 
Objection your honor,

I move to strike the witness's testimony from the record as he was too late. The statement also includes incorrect information such as:
JoeGamer said:
the RBA v. Redmont Bar Association
Click to expand...

Additionally, I object under the grounds of narrative. The witness provided way more explanation and detail than was required by the question at hand.
 
@SumoMC I have a list of questions for you:

1) Isn't it true that lawanoespr informed you details about a case I was handling and/or screenshots of a private conversation between myself and the Plaintiff regarding the aforementioned case?

2) Do you consider legal strategy to be sensitive information?

3) Isn't it true that a law firm's legal strategy is private corporate information?
 
Objection overruled, do you have any questions for mr. Joegamer?
 
1.) Yes I was informed of details about the mentioned case.

2.)I believe that legal is considered sensitive information

3.) yes
 
Have both parties questions to the other party witness? Please list them in next 24 hours
 
Question for sumoMC:
1. Is it true that I was giving information on the individual not the company
2. Wasn't the defendant disbarred at the time of the lawsuit
 
1.) you gave me information one a person you got under false circumstances.

2.) He was disbarred at the time but his firm was still active.
 
I would like to add that my disbarrel and resulting consequences impacted my ability to run a law firm effectively. Therefore, my case against the RBA had corporate ramifications for the Lovely Law Firm and was, therefore, a corporate case. Several attorneys from the firm had been helping me during the case, which is why lawanoespr was privy to the private information in the first place.

@JoeGamer

1) Isn't it true that I informed you about the fact the Plaintiff was leaking information about my case to another entity?
 
Thank you both for your time, the Plaintiff may present his closing statement.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT


Lawanoesepr
Plaintiff

v.

AlexanderLove
Defendant

Your honor,

The defendant had terminated my employment before proceeding to inform my employer at apex law firm about my termination without my consent.
The defendant claims that I committed corporate espionage. Even if that claim is true that does not mean that the breach of the Employee Protection Act did not happen. The defendant also claims that he is free to convey information about his business, This is true but the punishment I received is not part of his business.

With that the plaintiff rests.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT


Lawanoesepr
Plaintiff

v.

AlexanderLove
Defendant

May it please the Court,

Your honor, the Plaintiff alleges I breached the Employee Protection Act. What I was actually doing was informing another entity, as JoeGamer confirmed, that the Plaintiff had committed corporate espionage, as stated throughout my argument, facts being affirmed by the evidence and by SumoMC's testimony. As a whistleblower, I am protected under law from repercussions. Everything I said, including about the termination, pertains to the corporate espionage situation and is lawfully protected.

Additionally, the Plaintiff confirms I have the right to freedom of speech about things pertaining to my business. The Plaintiff claims that this situation does not pertain to my business, however, the decision was a business decision, affecting resources (employees) formerly belonging to my business.

I ask the Court to adjourn this case in the defense's favor. Thank you.

The defense rests.
 
The Court will go in recess now.
 
Verdict will come today, my apologies for the delay some personal issues held me back with writing it.
 

Verdict



IN THE COURT OF COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

Case No. 08-2021-22

1. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION

a) Was being fired of the Lovely law firm for leaking information to the office of the Attorney General. The Plaintiff found this unreasonable.
b) Being fired is an administrative punishment once my punishment was leaked. AlexanderLove breached section 3 of the employee protection act.
c) The Defendant had terminated the employment before proceeding to inform the Defendants employer at apex law firm without my consent.

2. DEFENDANT'S POSITION

a) The Constitution states I have freedom of the press and media. Being able to convey information about my business is my right.
b) The Plaintiff committed Corporate Espionage. The Plaintiff leaked information about the Defendants case strategy to the opposing party.
c) The Defendant claims he is protected by the Whistleblower Act by informing it.

3. THE COURT'S OPINION

a) The Courts follows both reasoning but the Defendant was a whistleblower for the acts made by the Plaintiff. This is why he is protected by the Whistleblower Act.
b) The reason for firing the Plaintiff of the Lovely law firm is also reasonable because of leaking crucial information in case strategy and can be seen as Corporate Espionage and then follows point a in the verdict.
c) The Court acknowledges the fact that the Defendant has freedom of press and speech but is not acknowledged in this case.
d) The Court doesn’t agree with the reasoning of the Plaintiff about his reason of firing.

4. THE VERDICT

The Court will rule in favor of the Defendant.

A note of the Court:
The Court finds that the Defendant has been criminalized by identifying him as a whistleblower.

Furthermore the Court thanks each party for their time and effort put in this case. This case is now adjourned.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top