- Joined
- Nov 19, 2022
- Messages
- 170
- Thread Author
- #1
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
Redmont Bar Association (Represented by Chair Matthew100x)
Plaintiff
v.
AlexanderLove
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
Under the Super Modern Legal Board Act (see Act of Congress - Super Modern Legal Board Act) and subsequent The Futurist Legal Framework Bill (see Act of Congress - Super Modern Legal Board Act), the plaintiff is charged with process of disbarment of lawyers. On 07/21/2024, the defendant, in his capacity as a prosecutor, launched a prosecution against Nacholebraa with the intention of attacking the Bank of Reveille (see P-001). In doing so, the defendant opened up the government to over $2,600,000 million dollars of liability. The defendant admitted that the case was launched intentionally full-well knowing that he could likely be charged with 15.5 - Contempt of Court (see Act of Congress - Miscellaneous Offenses Act) and have the fine be doubled since it was a serial crime (see P-002). The defendant showed a complete lack of remorse and called this action one of his “tactics”, leading to the plaintiff’s investigation over the defendant’s conduct as a lawyer.
The plaintiff found over 14 different potential violations of the law: 8 contempt of court charges, 1 perjury objection sustained (with another court confirming the defendant lied on the stand but did not sustain a perjury objection), 6 instances of violating 3.3 —Egregious conduct in court, and other violations and other potential violations of the law (see P-003). The defendant had been engaging in a series of abusive tactics and practiced in such a way that was unbecoming of his status as a lawyer. The plaintiff placed a vote and passed a motion for the plaintiff’s Ethics Committee to investigate the referral for ethics charges (see P-004). After an investigation, the plaintiff’s Ethics Committee approved the following charges (see P-005):
As such, the plaintiff moves with this complaint. Reiterating the words in Redmont Bar Association v. Royalsnakee [2024] FCR 38, “The Redmont Bar Association upholds rigorous standards for legal practitioners, emphasizing professionalism both inside and outside the courtroom, adherence to court procedures, and zealous advocacy for clients.” The defendant has failed to meet these standards, “exhibiting a consistent disregard for the law, ethical principles, and the professionalism expected of an attorney” (see Complaint, Lawsuit: Adjourned - Redmont Bar Association v. Royalsnakee [2024] FCR 38), thus the plaintiff requests that the defendant be disbarred for two months.
I. PARTIES
1. The Redmont Bar Association
2. AlexanderLove
II. FACTS
1. On 07/21/2024, a lawsuit was launched by the defendant against Nacholebraa & the Bank of Reveille, opening the government up to over $2,600,000 dollars of liability (see P-001). That lawsuit would later be dropped via a Motion to Nolle Prosequi on 07/23/2024.
2. Also on 07/23/2024, the defendant explicitly said in #legal of the DemocracyCraft discord that he “was going to lose only 5k OR get the evidence I wanted” showing that he was intentionally launching cases full well knowing that he was conducting himself in such a way that he could get a Contempt of Court charge and that such a fine would be doubled due to it being a serial crime (see P-002).
3. An investigation was conducted and referred to the RBA Ethics Committee to review, certify, and approve (see P-003).
4. The plaintiff’s council placed a vote to refer the matter to the Ethics Committee on 07/25/2024, it passed on 07/26/2024 (see P-004).
5. The plaintiff’s Ethics Committee approved the following charges from the referral investigation: Multiple Perjury Charges; Excessive Contempt of Court Charges; Conduct unbecoming of a lawyer; Excessive breach of the Ethical Doctrine (see P-005).
6. On 07/21/2024, the defendant attacked the presiding judge for making “a faulty assumption about how tax law works contrary to how it actually does” (see P-006).
7. On 07/11/2024, the defendant was charged with contempt of court for failing to provide their answer in a timely fashion (see P-007).
8. On 07/08/2024, the defendant used language that the judge considered snarky that were "distracting in nature and interfere with the orderly process of the court" (see P-008).
9. On 07/10/2024, the defendant had a perjury objection sustained against them (see P-009).
10. On 07/12/2024, the presiding judge of the case stated that the defendant had clearly perjured themself (see P-010).
11. On 07/04/2024, the presiding judge found the defendant in contempt of court and admonished the defendant for poor courtroom etiquette (see P-011).
12. On 05/31/2024, the presiding judge found the defendant in contempt of court (see P-012).
13. On 07/19/2024, the defendant was reprimanded for speaking out of line and being rude to the judge (see P-013).
14. On 06/01/2024, the defendant was admonished by the judge for cursing at and disrespecting the presiding judicial officer. The defendant said to the judge “Don't be all hard ass on me.” The defendant was given a contempt of court charge (see P-014).
15. On 06/02/2024, the defendant was charged with contempt of court for failing to respond on the behalf of a plaintiff they were representing (see P-015).
16 On 05/09/2024, the defendant was charged with contempt of court for impeding court proceedings (see P-016).
17. On 05/01/2024, the defendant was charged with contempt of court for failing to provide a closing statement (see P-017).
18. Relating to fact 17, the defendant had their appeal for the 05/01/2024 contempt of court charge denied by the Supreme Court of Redmont.
19. On 04/07/2024, the defendant was charged with contempt of court and reprimanded for failing to inform the court of their need for an extension to posting an opening statement and having an outburst before the court (see P-019).
20. On 07/23/2024, the defendant stated in #legal that if they would be disbarred, that they would ghost-write (see P-020).
21. On 01/01/2024, the defendant stated in #legal that if they would be disbarred, that they would ghost-write (see P-021).
22. Legal Fraud is defined as “The misrepresentation of one’s legal credentials, or lack thereof, or unauthorized practice in any Court of law under this act or future acts governing the legal practice” (see Act of Congress - Super Modern Legal Board Act).
23. RBA Ethical Doctrine defines 3.3 — Egregious conduct in court as “Egregious/unbecoming conduct within court proceedings may include, but is not limited to: disrespectful behavior towards the court, opposing counsel or parties; failure to comply with court orders or rules of procedure; making frivolous or misleading arguments; or engaging in conduct that undermines the administration of justice” (see P-022).
24. RBA Ethical Doctrine defines 3.4 — Perjury as “Perjury occurs when an individual knowingly makes false statements under oath or affirmation(s) during legal proceedings, including testimony in court.” (see P-022).
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Under section 9.3 of the Super Modern Legal Boards Act (as well as the subsequent Futurist Legal Framework Bill), if the RBA council passed a motion and the RBA ethics committee completed an investigation, then the plaintiff is allowed to disbar lawyers for one or more of the following violations (see Act of Congress - Super Modern Legal Board Act):
3. Under facts 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 (17 denied on appeal), and 19, the defendant has violated the law and was charged with contempt of court 8 times. The plaintiff has previously considered two contempt of court charges to be excessive (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Redmont Bar Association v. Royalsnakee [2024] FCR 38). The court has previously considered six charges of contempt of court to be excessive (it is not clear how many charges the court accepted, however, the argument for excessive contempt of court charges was considered, see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Redmont Bar Association v. Royalsnakee [2024] FCR 38). Additionally, any contempt of court relating to failure to comply with a court order or rules of procedure would also be a violation of 3.3 —Egregious conduct in court. This violation of the law is grounds for disbarment for excessively committing contempt of court.
4. Under facts 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, and 19, the defendant has violated the RBA Ethical Doctrine charge 3.3 —Egregious conduct in court. By engaging in abusive tactics towards judicial officers, the defendant showed a lack of consideration for their authority. His conduct was unbecoming of a lawyer and disrespected the court. This violation of the law is grounds for disbarment for excessively committing violating the RBA Ethical Doctrine.
5. Under facts 20 and 21, the defendant shows a clear willingness to practice the law regardless of whether or not they were licensed to do so. This would constitute Legal Fraud. While the plaintiff cannot prosecute this because it is an indictable offense, the plaintiff wishes to submit this as a claim for relief to request an injunction barring the defendant from working in or joining any legal or legal adjacent job to prevent them from breaking the law.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
V. EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
Emergency Injunctions are made with the goal of preventing harm (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23). Per the Act of Congress - Judiciary Act, "(b) Emergency - Injunctions that are issued before the court has tried a case to prevent harm. If the applicant fails to file a lawsuit within 4 hours of requesting an emergency injunction the order will be null and void." Given the nature of this complaint and potential for continued violations of the Super Modern Legal Boards Act and The Futurist Legal Framework Bill as the defendant is currently representing people in court. We request that the defendant have his 2 month disbarment from the practice of law begin now and extend for the duration of the case, with time served counting towards the overall disbarment period. We request that this prevent him from:
(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)
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 5th day of August, 2024.
P-001:
Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Nacholebraa [2024] FCR 109
P-002:
Alternative to the screenshot is the discord link: Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games
P-003:
Referral for Ethics Investigation
P-004:
Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games
P-005:
(The plaintiff cannot place a link as it is in a private channel)
P-006:
Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Nacholebraa [2024] FCR 109
P-007:
Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Alexanderlove [2024] FCR 102
P-008:
Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Alexanderlove [2024] FCR 102
P-009:
Lawsuit: Adjourned - AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99
P-010:
Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Alexanderlove [2024] FCR 102
P-011:
P-012:
Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. xLayzur [2024] SCR 1
P-013:
Lawsuit: In Session - smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 103
P-014:
Lawsuit: Dismissed - Starlight0661 v. bibsfi4a [2024] FCR 71
P-015:
Lawsuit: Dismissed - Starlight0661 v. bibsfi4a [2024] FCR 71
P-016:
Lawsuit: Adjourned - Steveshat v. Vanguard [2024] FCR 62
P-017:
Lawsuit: Adjourned - Aladeen v. Redmont Bar Association [2024] FCR 46
P-018:
Appeal: Denied - FCR 46 - Contempt Appeal Request
P-019:
Lawsuit: Dismissed - Thegoatt123 v. Crimson Dawn Construction [2024] FCR 42
P-020:
Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games
P-021:
Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games
P-022:
docs.google.com
CIVIL ACTION
Redmont Bar Association (Represented by Chair Matthew100x)
Plaintiff
v.
AlexanderLove
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
Under the Super Modern Legal Board Act (see Act of Congress - Super Modern Legal Board Act) and subsequent The Futurist Legal Framework Bill (see Act of Congress - Super Modern Legal Board Act), the plaintiff is charged with process of disbarment of lawyers. On 07/21/2024, the defendant, in his capacity as a prosecutor, launched a prosecution against Nacholebraa with the intention of attacking the Bank of Reveille (see P-001). In doing so, the defendant opened up the government to over $2,600,000 million dollars of liability. The defendant admitted that the case was launched intentionally full-well knowing that he could likely be charged with 15.5 - Contempt of Court (see Act of Congress - Miscellaneous Offenses Act) and have the fine be doubled since it was a serial crime (see P-002). The defendant showed a complete lack of remorse and called this action one of his “tactics”, leading to the plaintiff’s investigation over the defendant’s conduct as a lawyer.
The plaintiff found over 14 different potential violations of the law: 8 contempt of court charges, 1 perjury objection sustained (with another court confirming the defendant lied on the stand but did not sustain a perjury objection), 6 instances of violating 3.3 —Egregious conduct in court, and other violations and other potential violations of the law (see P-003). The defendant had been engaging in a series of abusive tactics and practiced in such a way that was unbecoming of his status as a lawyer. The plaintiff placed a vote and passed a motion for the plaintiff’s Ethics Committee to investigate the referral for ethics charges (see P-004). After an investigation, the plaintiff’s Ethics Committee approved the following charges (see P-005):
- Multiple Perjury Charges
- Excessive Contempt of Court Charges
- Conduct unbecoming of a lawyer
- Excessive breach of the Ethical Doctrine
As such, the plaintiff moves with this complaint. Reiterating the words in Redmont Bar Association v. Royalsnakee [2024] FCR 38, “The Redmont Bar Association upholds rigorous standards for legal practitioners, emphasizing professionalism both inside and outside the courtroom, adherence to court procedures, and zealous advocacy for clients.” The defendant has failed to meet these standards, “exhibiting a consistent disregard for the law, ethical principles, and the professionalism expected of an attorney” (see Complaint, Lawsuit: Adjourned - Redmont Bar Association v. Royalsnakee [2024] FCR 38), thus the plaintiff requests that the defendant be disbarred for two months.
I. PARTIES
1. The Redmont Bar Association
2. AlexanderLove
II. FACTS
1. On 07/21/2024, a lawsuit was launched by the defendant against Nacholebraa & the Bank of Reveille, opening the government up to over $2,600,000 dollars of liability (see P-001). That lawsuit would later be dropped via a Motion to Nolle Prosequi on 07/23/2024.
2. Also on 07/23/2024, the defendant explicitly said in #legal of the DemocracyCraft discord that he “was going to lose only 5k OR get the evidence I wanted” showing that he was intentionally launching cases full well knowing that he was conducting himself in such a way that he could get a Contempt of Court charge and that such a fine would be doubled due to it being a serial crime (see P-002).
3. An investigation was conducted and referred to the RBA Ethics Committee to review, certify, and approve (see P-003).
4. The plaintiff’s council placed a vote to refer the matter to the Ethics Committee on 07/25/2024, it passed on 07/26/2024 (see P-004).
5. The plaintiff’s Ethics Committee approved the following charges from the referral investigation: Multiple Perjury Charges; Excessive Contempt of Court Charges; Conduct unbecoming of a lawyer; Excessive breach of the Ethical Doctrine (see P-005).
6. On 07/21/2024, the defendant attacked the presiding judge for making “a faulty assumption about how tax law works contrary to how it actually does” (see P-006).
7. On 07/11/2024, the defendant was charged with contempt of court for failing to provide their answer in a timely fashion (see P-007).
8. On 07/08/2024, the defendant used language that the judge considered snarky that were "distracting in nature and interfere with the orderly process of the court" (see P-008).
9. On 07/10/2024, the defendant had a perjury objection sustained against them (see P-009).
10. On 07/12/2024, the presiding judge of the case stated that the defendant had clearly perjured themself (see P-010).
11. On 07/04/2024, the presiding judge found the defendant in contempt of court and admonished the defendant for poor courtroom etiquette (see P-011).
12. On 05/31/2024, the presiding judge found the defendant in contempt of court (see P-012).
13. On 07/19/2024, the defendant was reprimanded for speaking out of line and being rude to the judge (see P-013).
14. On 06/01/2024, the defendant was admonished by the judge for cursing at and disrespecting the presiding judicial officer. The defendant said to the judge “Don't be all hard ass on me.” The defendant was given a contempt of court charge (see P-014).
15. On 06/02/2024, the defendant was charged with contempt of court for failing to respond on the behalf of a plaintiff they were representing (see P-015).
16 On 05/09/2024, the defendant was charged with contempt of court for impeding court proceedings (see P-016).
17. On 05/01/2024, the defendant was charged with contempt of court for failing to provide a closing statement (see P-017).
18. Relating to fact 17, the defendant had their appeal for the 05/01/2024 contempt of court charge denied by the Supreme Court of Redmont.
19. On 04/07/2024, the defendant was charged with contempt of court and reprimanded for failing to inform the court of their need for an extension to posting an opening statement and having an outburst before the court (see P-019).
20. On 07/23/2024, the defendant stated in #legal that if they would be disbarred, that they would ghost-write (see P-020).
21. On 01/01/2024, the defendant stated in #legal that if they would be disbarred, that they would ghost-write (see P-021).
22. Legal Fraud is defined as “The misrepresentation of one’s legal credentials, or lack thereof, or unauthorized practice in any Court of law under this act or future acts governing the legal practice” (see Act of Congress - Super Modern Legal Board Act).
23. RBA Ethical Doctrine defines 3.3 — Egregious conduct in court as “Egregious/unbecoming conduct within court proceedings may include, but is not limited to: disrespectful behavior towards the court, opposing counsel or parties; failure to comply with court orders or rules of procedure; making frivolous or misleading arguments; or engaging in conduct that undermines the administration of justice” (see P-022).
24. RBA Ethical Doctrine defines 3.4 — Perjury as “Perjury occurs when an individual knowingly makes false statements under oath or affirmation(s) during legal proceedings, including testimony in court.” (see P-022).
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Under section 9.3 of the Super Modern Legal Boards Act (as well as the subsequent Futurist Legal Framework Bill), if the RBA council passed a motion and the RBA ethics committee completed an investigation, then the plaintiff is allowed to disbar lawyers for one or more of the following violations (see Act of Congress - Super Modern Legal Board Act):
- Excessively committing perjury
- Breaching Attorney-Client privilege any amount of times
- Committing legal fraud any amount of times
- Excessively filing frivolous court cases
- Excessively committing contempt of court
- Excessively violating the RBA ethics doctrine, which shall consist of reasonable ethics guidelines. Guidelines that are not reasonable nor prudent shall be struck by the Court in any disbarment surrounding such guidelines.
3. Under facts 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 (17 denied on appeal), and 19, the defendant has violated the law and was charged with contempt of court 8 times. The plaintiff has previously considered two contempt of court charges to be excessive (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Redmont Bar Association v. Royalsnakee [2024] FCR 38). The court has previously considered six charges of contempt of court to be excessive (it is not clear how many charges the court accepted, however, the argument for excessive contempt of court charges was considered, see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Redmont Bar Association v. Royalsnakee [2024] FCR 38). Additionally, any contempt of court relating to failure to comply with a court order or rules of procedure would also be a violation of 3.3 —Egregious conduct in court. This violation of the law is grounds for disbarment for excessively committing contempt of court.
4. Under facts 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, and 19, the defendant has violated the RBA Ethical Doctrine charge 3.3 —Egregious conduct in court. By engaging in abusive tactics towards judicial officers, the defendant showed a lack of consideration for their authority. His conduct was unbecoming of a lawyer and disrespected the court. This violation of the law is grounds for disbarment for excessively committing violating the RBA Ethical Doctrine.
5. Under facts 20 and 21, the defendant shows a clear willingness to practice the law regardless of whether or not they were licensed to do so. This would constitute Legal Fraud. While the plaintiff cannot prosecute this because it is an indictable offense, the plaintiff wishes to submit this as a claim for relief to request an injunction barring the defendant from working in or joining any legal or legal adjacent job to prevent them from breaking the law.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
- Disbarment of Defendant for a duration of two months, followed by a mandatory retesting procedure. Upon passing the retest, the defendant may seek re-licensure.
- Mandate for the defendant to enroll in a legal course provided by the RBA, which must be completed during the disbarment period if re-licensure is sought.
- Prohibition on defendant from representing an individual or legal entity in any legal capacity for the duration of the two-month debarment period.
- Prohibition on defendant engagement in any prosecutorial role, including special prosecutor assignments, at the DOJ for the duration of the two-month disbarment period.
- Prohibition on defendant engaging in any legal or legal-adjacent role in any government department for the duration of the two-month disbarment period.
- Prohibition on the defendant working for or owning a law firm, in any capacity, for the duration of the two-month disbarment period.
- Prohibition on the defendant working as of-counsel or legal counsel in any capacity for any company for the duration of the two-month disbarment period.
- $5,000 dollars in legal fees (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Redmont Bar Association v. Royalsnakee [2024] FCR 38)
V. EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
Emergency Injunctions are made with the goal of preventing harm (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23). Per the Act of Congress - Judiciary Act, "(b) Emergency - Injunctions that are issued before the court has tried a case to prevent harm. If the applicant fails to file a lawsuit within 4 hours of requesting an emergency injunction the order will be null and void." Given the nature of this complaint and potential for continued violations of the Super Modern Legal Boards Act and The Futurist Legal Framework Bill as the defendant is currently representing people in court. We request that the defendant have his 2 month disbarment from the practice of law begin now and extend for the duration of the case, with time served counting towards the overall disbarment period. We request that this prevent him from:
- representing an individual or legal entity in any legal capacity for the duration of the two-month debarment period.
- engaging in any prosecutorial role, including special prosecutor assignments, at the DOJ for the duration of the two-month disbarment period.
- engaging in any legal or legal-adjacent role in any government department for the duration of the two-month disbarment period.
- working for or owning a law firm, in any capacity, for the duration of the two-month disbarment period.
- working as of-counsel or legal counsel in any capacity for any company for the duration of the two-month disbarment period.
(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)
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 5th day of August, 2024.
P-001:
Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Nacholebraa [2024] FCR 109
P-002:
Alternative to the screenshot is the discord link: Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games
P-003:
Referral for Ethics Investigation
P-004:
Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games
P-005:
(The plaintiff cannot place a link as it is in a private channel)
P-006:
Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Nacholebraa [2024] FCR 109
P-007:
Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Alexanderlove [2024] FCR 102
P-008:
Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Alexanderlove [2024] FCR 102
P-009:
Lawsuit: Adjourned - AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99
P-010:
Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Alexanderlove [2024] FCR 102
P-011:
Lawsuit: Dismissed Post in thread 'RylandW v. Krix [2024] FCR 94'
P-012:
Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. xLayzur [2024] SCR 1
P-013:
Lawsuit: In Session - smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 103
P-014:
Lawsuit: Dismissed - Starlight0661 v. bibsfi4a [2024] FCR 71
P-015:
Lawsuit: Dismissed - Starlight0661 v. bibsfi4a [2024] FCR 71
P-016:
Lawsuit: Adjourned - Steveshat v. Vanguard [2024] FCR 62
P-017:
Lawsuit: Adjourned - Aladeen v. Redmont Bar Association [2024] FCR 46
P-018:
Appeal: Denied - FCR 46 - Contempt Appeal Request
P-019:
Lawsuit: Dismissed - Thegoatt123 v. Crimson Dawn Construction [2024] FCR 42
P-020:
Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games
P-021:
Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games
P-022:
RBA Ethical Doctrine
Redmont Bar Association Ethical Doctrine Authored by the Ethics Committee Authoring Members - Drew_Hall, Mask3D_W0LF, Unseatedduke1 Est. April 2024 Lasted Updated - April 2024 INTRODUCTION This Ethical Doctrine encompasses the moral principles and professional standards that guide the con...
docs.google.com
