Lawsuit: Dismissed Lawanoesepr v. The Redmont Bar Association. [2022] FCR 49

[lawanoesepr]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


lawanoesepr
Plaintiff

v.

The Redmont Bar Association
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: I have been illegally disbarred, As ofJuly 9th, 2022, I have been stripped of my ability to represent clients.

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
I have been illegally disbarred, As ofJuly 9th, 2022, I have been stripped of my ability to represent clients, Not only is this illegal but incredibly unfair as the council doesn't even have 4 councilors It has one, The chairman has failed to be impartial and this needs to be addressed

I. PARTIES
1. Milqy
2. RelaxedGV


II. FACTS
1. I was disbarred for Breaching Attorney Client Privileges, Frivolous Lawsuits, Elapsed Time on cases
2. The plaintiff does not contest breaching attorney client privileges
3. The plaintiff contests all other claims
4.The plaintiff also contests the legality of the vote, And the actions taken.
5. The constitution states: XIII. Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.
6. The constution states XVI. No citizen shall be tried or punished again for an offence regarding a single criminal act for which they have already been finally convicted or acquitted of, in accordance with the law.

7. The Constitution states IX. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge.

8. The RBA has vioates right IX as disbarments are not presided over by a judge or anyone in the judicial branch, They are presided over by a council and in this case only one councilor, Who's impartiality may be in question.

9.The RBA violates law XIII by doing a disbarment under a 1 man council while all other disbarred lawyers had a full council.

10.The RBA violates right XVI by trying me on the basis of a lawsuit I've already been tried for, The lawsuit in question is "lawanoesepr v. The Commonwealth of Redmont"
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Disbarment is illegal as relaxedGV is not a judge nor is he impartial, Nor is the Chairman
2. I have already been tried for one of the lawsuits which have infringed on my rights not to be tried for the same crime again


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. 5000 to compensate for any financial loses
2. 2500 for legal expenses
3. My disbarment overturned or shortened





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 9th day of july 2022

 

[Krix]

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

The Redmont Bar Association is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Lawanoesepr v. The Redmont Bar Association. [2022 FCR 49]

Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[Milqy]

Hello your honor,
RBA Chairperson Milqy is present.

 

[Krix]

The Defence has a remaining 35 hours to respond to the plaintiff's complaint or file a motion to dismiss.

 

[Milqy]

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


lawanoesepr
Plaintiff

v.

The Redmont Bar Association
Defendant

MOTION TO DIMISS

Your honor,
There are a few things completely wrong with this case.

1. The Plaintiff has already admitted to breaching attorney-client privileges.
2. The plaintiff has opened several lawsuits, and then either dismissed before the Judiciary even responds, or right after the Judiciary responds. This is the very definition of wasting the courts time.
2.1 The case being lawanoesepr v. Milqy [SCR 9].
3. The vote was completely legal, as given the law Modern Legal Board Act amendment, I the Chairperson, get a vote. As well as RelaxedGV get a vote on the motion. I also proposed this motion, as nowhere states the Chairperson is not able to propose a motion.
4. I contest this point on the fact that there was no discrimination, and his repeated abuse of the Legal Field, disregard for clients/cases warranted this disbarment.
4.1 I would also like to add to this point that the Council and I voted for a 2-week disbarment which is more of a suspension than an actual disbarment. Our goal was to allow him time to take a step away from the courts and to seriously think on the actions that he has committed.
5. The acts that he has been punished for before are not included, these are completely new cases and were actually the case where he fought against his previous disbarment. lawanoesepr v. The Redmont Bar Assocation [SCR 4]
5.1 The case was based around the fact that he "egregiously" abandoned lawsuits, while he was abandoning his own lawsuit.
5.2 I would like to point out that his point 10 is mentioning the #news channel, which was a typo written by me, and the actual chase that I meant to point out for failing to respond to in a timely manner is the one cited before.
6. While I do not contest that everyone should have a speedy and fair trial, the RBA is not the Judiciary, and did not conduct a "trial" so to speak. So, this point should also be dismissed.
7. There is no law stopping the RBA from doing a disbarment under a 1-man council.

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 10th day of July 2022

 

[lawanoesepr]

Your honor,
May I respond to the motion to dismiss?

 

[Krix]

Yes, the plaintiff may respond in an attempt to refute the motion to dismiss.

 

[lawanoesepr]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Lawanoesepr

V.

The Redmont Bar Association

Response To Motion To Dismiss

1. I do not contest breaching attorney client privileges, But I do contest the legality of the vote, and the bill that gives the RBA the power to disbar me

2. This point is not outlining anything frivolous or inaccurate

3. I do not contest that the chairman can propose a motion I contest the legality of the bill giving the RBA this power

4. This does not point out anything frivolous or inaccurate

5. Again, Not pointing out anything frivolous or inaccurate

6.If it was not a trial what right does the RBA have to issue a punishment, In fact only lawyers can vote for Chairman and All citizens have the right to vote in elections unless as punishment for a crime, Meaning the RBA has either violated my rights or conducted an illegal trial.


7. Not suggesting anything frivolous or inaccurate

 

[Krix]

Point > 1 - The plaintiff has indeed admitted to breaching attorney-client privilege and therefore this is a valid reason for disbarment.
Point > 2 - The plaintiff was not charged in the case [SCR 9] for lodging a Frivolous Court Case and therefore this does not fall under "excessive filing of frivolous court cases" and therefore the plaintiff can not be disbarred under this ground.
Point > 3 - This point is not grounds for a motion to dismiss as it the Legal Board Modernisation Act states "a majority vote of the RBA Council including the RBA Chairperson" is required for disbarment. This can be interpreted as out of the current sitting members or out of the total council including vacant seats, therefore I would like to hear both party's justifications for why it is one or the other.
Point > 4 - This point should be argued in trial as whether or not the plaintiff's actions justify disbarment is a major part of the case and I would like to see more evidence presented by the defendant.
Point > 4.1 - I do not agree with the practice of the RBA issuing disbarments as a measure to encourage reflection, disbarment is a power vested in the RBA to regulate the legal field and ensure lawyers are following the law.
Point > 5 - I would request that the defense provides the transcript of the RBA Councils' discussion on the disbarment in trial in order to prove that this previous breach was not the justification for the disbarment.
Point > 6 - The argument for whether or not disbarments are considered a trial is not concrete and therefore is not a valid reason to motion to dismiss this case.
Point > 7 - This is not concrete as the requirements for disbarment as mentioned in point 3 are up for debate and should be argued as such in trial, refer to that point for reasoning.

I will therefore be denying this motion to dismiss.

I request that the plaintiff proceeds with issuing their opening statement within the next 24 hours.

 

[lawanoesepr]

Your honor due to real life events the plaintiff request an extension of 24 hours in combination with the current remaining time

 

[Krix]

The Court hereby grants an allowance of an additional 24 hours to the plaintiffs' response time in which he must issue his opening statement. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to issue their opening statement.

 

[lawanoesepr]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT



OPENING STATEMENT


1. In FCR 114, The court ruled that “The RBA cannot judge over a potential disbarment of a lawyer with a license” The Modern Legal Board Act Amendment is in complete violation of FCR 114’s verdict, Directly allowing the legal board to disbar a lawyer by a vote. In the same case the court ruled that “The Plaintiff got disbarred and could not appeal this decision but needs to go through the court to fight this decision” The exact same scenario is happening now, The Modern Legal Board Act outlines no appeal process, Which is a violation of the constitution, The court further ruled that “a person of the Judiciary needs to handle such cases”, Which is not being done, And is a clear violation of the verdict set by the court.

2. I also bring to the court another argument, The constitution States: “The right to vote in elections, provided the player has been online within 1 month as the votes are counted.” The modern legal board act only allows lawyers with a license to vote for RBA council and Chairperson, Being Disbarred I cannot vote therefore, The constitution is yet again being violated.

3. Frivolous court cases is not applicable in this instance as I have never been charged with lodging a frivolous court case, I have left court cases unanswered but this is not serious enough to warrant disbarment, Nor Is leaving cases unanswered a violation of the Modern Legal Board Act.

4. The plaintiff would like to add to add the following to his prayer for relief

Disbarment Lifted
Modern Legal Board Act Declared Unconstitutional and struck down

 

[lawanoesepr]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

The plaintiff request his opening statement be struck and rewritten for the following reasons:

It is unfinished and and left vague and should be redone with more editing


DATED: This 11th day of july 2022

 

[Admin23]

Your Honor, lawanoesepr has requested that I represent him in this case, so I will be taking over for him from now on. I am familiar with this case so I do not need additional time to become familiar with it.

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

 

[Krix]

The new representative of the plaintiff may proceed by delivering their opening statement.

 

[Milqy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION

Your Honor,
I object on breach of procedure your honor. The Plaintiff has already provided an opening statement, and requested it to be stricken from the record, but with no actual comment from your honor on whether or not it would be stricken. I do not believe that is fair for the Defendant that the opposing counsel is allowed to post a complete opening statement, and then have it stricken because, and I quote "It is unfinished".

 

[Krix]

Objection Sustained, apologies to both parties on my behalf I missed the message above and did not see that the plaintiff had already issued their opening statement. Therefore I ask both parties to disregard my comment above, the plaintiffs new representation will be required to continue with the initial opening statement.

I now ask for the defence to deliver their opening statement.

 

[Admin23]

Your Honor, I do understand that it would be a breach of procedure, but I cannot, with good conscience, represent my client without asking for an exception here. I did recommend to my client that he take the 2 weeks without being allowed to represent clients to work on his skills in the courtroom. He isn’t quite fully capable of representing himself or others yet. I had already written an opening statement before I saw the objection. Would it be permissible to replace his opening statement with mine? It will not take extra time as I already have it ready. Again, I understand this is not usual in any way, shape, or form, but for the sake of an even playing field, I request to submit my opening statement in replacement to his.

 

[Milqy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT


lawanoesepr
Plaintiff

v.

The Redmont Bar Association
Defendant

OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

It is an irrefutable fact, made clearer even with this court case today, that the Plaintiff should be temporarily disbarred. With an exact quote from his own legal representation "He isn’t quite fully capable of representing himself or others yet." But I digress as that is not what is being refuted by the Plaintiff. What is being refuted is the legality of the disbarment, and for that I have a few arguments.

The Plaintiff claims that because there was only 1 council member, the vote should not stand. However, nowhere in the law says that a disbarment cannot or should not occur unless there is a full council. While I do sympathize with the Plaintiff, the RBA has started a Special Election for the RBA Council. The "Modern Legal Board Amendment Act" has passed Congress, and since gained presidential assent. That bill gave the Redmont Bar Association the right to disbar members of the RBA, taking the Federal Court out of the bill.

The plaintiff claims that leaving court cases unanswered is "not serious enough to warrant disbarment." While this is even outlined in the RBA Ethical Doctrine "Negligence is a failure by a lawyer.... failing to respond to the Court in time or not completed an opening or closing statement." The Plaintiff has done this several times, as mentioned in my motion to dismiss.

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 12th day of July 2022

 

[Krix]

In response to the plaintiff, the Court has sustained the objection, you must continue with the original opening statement provided by the plaintiff, however, If you have any arguments or evidence you wish to provide which is not covered in the Filing of the case or the opening statement you may do so.

 

[Admin23]

Thank you, your Honor.

I would like to add the following arguments to the original opening statement:

My client accepts the point of breaching attorney client privilege and accepts the two week disbarral for it. The Plaintiff breached attorney client privilege because he knew someone may get sued for something they did not do. He later realized his mistake and opened an Ethics Ticket in the RBA Discord Server to show that he violated attorney client privilege.

By opening a ticket to show his mistake to the RBA, he showed honor and integrity in the face of a massive mistake.

In the case of the filing of alleged frivolous lawsuits, let’s start with lawanoesepr v. Milqy [2022] SCR 9.

A frivolous lawsuit is defined as a case with “no serious purpose or value.” In SCR 9, the Plaintiff had exhausted all means of reporting a wrongdoing. He was turned away by the Department of Legal Affairs as they had stated that there would be no lawsuit filed against Milqy. Then the Department of Legal Affairs sends in an amicus brief disapproving of the filing of this lawsuit. When there is an accusation of something as large as corruption and bribery in an election with screenshots to found allegations, it is not frivolous. It had the serious purpose of attempting to right a wrong that has been witnessed when no other routes of righting that wrong were allowed to be followed. This point seems to be a personal issue between Milqy and the Plaintiff, as Milqy had motioned for disbarral on these grounds, including for a lawsuit directly against Milqy.

Next, the second alleged frivolous lawsuit that has been mentioned is lawanoensepr v. The Commonwealth of Redmont (dated January 18th, 2022). The Defendant has stated that this was “This is the very definition of wasting the courts time.” in the motion to dismiss submitted to this court by the defendant. Your Honor, this was the complete opposite. The Plaintiff submitted the lawsuit and then did not intend to as he knew it was not an argument he wanted to make. If he actually did want to waste the court’s time, as the Defendant has stated, the Plaintiff would have followed through with the lawsuit and would not have ended the lawsuit before it started.

To move onto the last point of not responding within the time frame given by a presiding judge. This was an unfortunate mistake but the Plaintiff had a family emergency along with other problems such as exams. This was the Plaintiff’s own case on the line and he did not let down any other person. He was his own client. He did indeed lose the case, but he could not respond in time due to real life issues that are far more important than this game. The RBA should not punish attorneys for real life problems losing them a case when it’s their own case and there was no client who could be damaged in the case.

DATED: This 12th day of July, 2022

 

[Krix]

The Court asks that both parties provide a list of witnesses they wish to call within 24 hours.

 

[Admin23]

Your Honor, I wish to call lawanoesepr and RelaxedGV to the stand.

 

[Milqy]

Your Honor,
I wish to call Acting Chief Justice JoeGamer as a witness. And former Chief Justice xEndeavour as a witness.

 

[Krix]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
@lawanoesepr, @RelaxedGV, @JoeGamer, and @xEndeavour are required to appear before the court in the case of Lawanoespre v. The Redmont Bar Association. [2022] FCR 49.
as witnesses. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions from the council that requested your summons, and may also be cross-examined. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a contempt of court charge.

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 to the Perjury Act.​

 

[lawanoesepr]

Your honor,
I am present

 

[End]

Present

 

[RelaxedGV]

I believe I should be recused due to that I have a bias towards the Redmont Bar Association. If it is deemed I should stay then don't summon me again I am watching the case.

 

[JoeGamer]

Your honor, I am present and have familiarized myself with this case.

 

[Krix]

In response to RelaxedGV, you are still able to testify regardless of whether you have bias or not as long as you do not commit perjury you are fine.

 

[Krix]

The Court now invites the plaintiff to list all the questions they wish to ask their witnesses within the next 24 hours, Once both witnesses called by the plaintiff have answered the questions the Court will invite the defense to cross-examine the witnesses.

 

[Admin23]

Your Honor, with the recent verdict given in Hugebob23456 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 48, all disbarments using Milqy’s Amendment are reversed. This means the Plaintiff’s disbarment is now reversed and thus no longer has grounds to continue this lawsuit. Should we end this here and call it a day or do we continue?

 

[Krix]

Is the plaintiff wishing to drop this case?

 

[Admin23]

Yes, your Honor.

 

[Krix]

Case Concluded, Witnesses will not be required to provide testimony.