Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The evidence from both sides regarding the voting is struck. I don't find it necessary.I do, your honor.
Your honor, every witness is a former client or a current employee of mine who can testify to my efficacy as a lawyer. I intend to use this testimony to outweigh any bad act I am accused of, and to prove that I am, always have been, and always will be an asset, not a liability, to the legal community.You may.
1. The case is linked to the thread. Yes, Plaintiff's counsel represented Nacholebraa in The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Nacholebraa [2024] FCR 109. As stated before, the plaintiff's counsel did not earn any legal fees in the past month.1. Isn't it true that the person representing the plaintiff, Matthew100x, was recently opposing counsel against AlexanderLove in a case within the past month where Matthew100x only earned $5,000 in legal fees when he thought he would be entitled to more than that?
The Emergency Injunction is denied. The request from the RBA essentially asks me to impose a disbarment before I have ruled on the case itself. This preemptive action would undermine the principle of a fair trial and due process. Currently, there is no immediate threat or harm that justifies such a drastic measure. The purpose of an emergency injunction is to prevent imminent harm, and in this situation, the conditions do not meet that threshold. The defendant's activities do not pose a direct or immediate danger that would warrant bypassing the standard judicial procedures. Therefore, we will proceed with the case as scheduled, ensuring that all parties have the opportunity to present their arguments fully and fairly before any decisions are made.
The defense wishes to respond to the motion if it would be granted.While I review this motion, please remember that the 72-hour timeline for the defendants' opening started right after the plaintiffs posting. @Jakovus
Overruled. Again, the RBA's request essentially seeks to impose a punishment or "disbarment" before this court has fully ruled on the matter, which I will not do in this case. If a client chooses to have Mr. Love represent them, knowing he is currently involved in a disbarment proceeding, that decision lies with the client. The same applies to the Commonwealth if they wish to hire him. Mr. Love has a long history of practicing law and is not a novice attorney filing frivolous cases to burden the courts or cause undue stress. You have the duration of this trial to substantiate the points raised in your Emergency Injunction. I encourage you to use this opportunity wisely.IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
The Court's denial of the requested Emergency Injunction overlooked the situation that the defendant has created. With the posting of the opening statement helping provide a timeline of the evidence. We demonstate the defendant's pattern of egregious misconduct and the imminent threat posed to the public and the integrity of the legal system. Thus, we submit this motion to reconsider the emergency injunction to protect the general public from the defendant. As stated previously, Emergency Injunctions are made with the goal of preventing harm (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23).
ARGUMENT:
The timeline presented clearly demonstrates a disturbing pattern of behavior by the defendant, spanning months and encompassing multiple instances of contempt of court, perjury, disrespect toward judicial officers, and disregard for ethical obligations. This is not a case of isolated incidents but a systematic erosion of professional conduct that warrants immediate action.
The defendant's recent actions, culminating in the frivolous lawsuit against Nacholebraa & Bank of Reveille with potential liability exceeding $2.6 million, demonstrate a willingness to risk significant harm for personal gain. This disregard for legal process and the potential for financial devastation to the parties he represents underscores the urgent need to prevent further harm by restricting his ability to practice law.
The RBA Ethics Committee's swift action in approving charges against the defendant, including perjury and egregious conduct within court proceedings, foreshadows an inevitable disbarment. Allowing him to continue practicing law during this pendency of proceedings risks irreparable harm to the public and undermines the efficacy of disciplinary measures.
The requested emergency injunction is narrowly tailored to address the immediate threat posed by the defendant's actions. It seeks only to prevent him from practicing law and engaging in related activities during the pendency of the disbarment proceedings, a temporary measure designed to safeguard the public interest.
CONCLUSION:
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court reconsider its decision regarding the Emergency Injunction and grant it in-part or in-full to protect the public from further harm and uphold the integrity of the legal profession.
DATED: This 16th day of August, 2024.
Objectionthe defendant has been found to have committed perjury on two occasions
ObjectionDefendant states in #legal Discord channel that they would ghost-write if disbarred (P-021).
ObjectionAugust 5, 2024: Defendant repeats statement in #legal Discord channel that they would ghost-write if disbarred (P-024).
Objectionopening government up to potential liability of over $2.6 million
Objectioneven admitting to intentionally risking contempt of charges to obtain evidence through discovery (P-001, P-002).
ObjectionMr. Love, do not delete anything in this courtroom, or you will be held in contempt.
Additionally, for both sides, all motions and objections made consecutively must be included in a single post. Any evidence should be posted using the "spoiler" feature.
CounterobjectionObjection
Perjury
The plaintiff is trying to deceive the Court. This is simply not true. One perjury objection was wrongfully sustained against me, and that SAME incident of alleged perjury that was later referenced in another case. There were not multiple instances of perjury, there was one incident that was cited in another case.
Furthermore, Rule 3.4 addresses perjury, defining it as knowingly making false statements under oath. The evidence will show that the defendant has been found to have committed perjury on two occasions:
07/10/2024: The defendant had a perjury objection sustained against them
07/12/2024: The presiding judge stated that the defendant had clearly perjured themself. While not an immediate charge nor sustained objection, it indicates judicial disapproval.. The defendant demonstrates a willingness to manipulate the truth.
CounterobjectionObjection
Perjury
The plaintiff keeps insisting that I said I would ghost write. I never said that so it is perjury, I even pointed it out before so now it is a deliberate lie. I said I could ghost write.
If a law says “could” vs. “would” it would be interpreted much differently. Why is it any different here?
Objection, Your Honor
Perjury
The defense moves to have the plaintiff counsel, Matthew100x, be lodged three sustained objections of perjury. In all of these pictures, it is only shown that the defendant discusses the possibility of ghost writing while the plaintiff boldly asserts that the defense stated that they would ghost-write. These are two very different ideas and the Chairman of the RBA reasonably knows the difference. He is attempting to deceive the Court through malice or recklessness by lying about the defendant's statements.
Counterobjection:
Nothing stated in the fact was a lie. The defendant said three times that they would be ghost writing.
P-20:
"Disbarring me doesn't really stop me either lol
I can just ghost write"
P-21
"Oh people have tried that before
Didn’t work
I just ghost write cases
It’s inconvenient but it’s not gonna stop me bud"
P-24:
"It does and it doesn't
I can find someone to ghost write for me"
In all three instances that the defendant stated there was a "lie", there is verifiable proof that the defendant clearly stated that they would ghost-write. The defendant is a lawyer and practices. Stating the loophole in the law currently to practice without a license three times is an indicative pattern that ghost-writing is what the defendant would do if disbarred.
CounterobjectionObjection
Perjury
Ditto
CounterobjectionObjection
Perjury and Assumes Facts Not in Evidence
2.6mil in liability was never a thing. Yet again, I am not sure where Matthew gets the idea that much money was ever at risk. The value of the case was originally nil as I didn’t establish any formal penalties. When I finally did, the liability was $5k, not $2.6mil. Therefore, this statement is erroneous and a lie, and should therefore be struck.
The prosecution is intent on going after the BOR’s balance using the defendant as a proxy. The Defendant is a citizen thus their counsel is able to collect a legal fee on this criminal case if the defendant is found not guilty. Defendant, as the proxy to BOR, is potentially liable for the BOR’s balance of over $13,000,000 dollars. The prosecution, in constructing their case, in both fact and exhibit, see the overall value of the case as conjoined with the BOR’s total balance. (see Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Nacholebraa [2024] FCR 109)
Objection
Perjury
The plaintiff’s lies are getting ridiculous at this point. I never said I was intentionally risking contempt, in fact I said that I didn’t think what I did could be considered contempt. I followed legal process completely. While some call my tactical maneuver unethical, it was legal and conformed to Court procedure. Therefore I had no expectation of receiving a contempt of Court charge. Just because a random lawyer like Matthew thinks it could be contempt does not mean it is. I was never charged with contempt by the presiding Judge.
I was on my phone and it’s incredibly difficult to try and make several replies in one post and format it all properly.Objection
Breach of Procedure.
Defendant failed to follow the court's warning and instruction on procedure for objections.
Defendant failed to post opening statements within the allotted 72 hours. Instead of writing an opening statement, they have chosen to lodge 5 objections. Defendant should be barred from making the opening statement because they had time to pen something and instead chose to write the objections in place of an opening statement. Further, the defendant was specifically warned and given information about when to ask for an extension and failed to request one.While I review this motion, please remember that the 72-hour timeline for the defendants' opening started right after the plaintiffs posting. @Jakovus
Sustained. Mr. Love let's cut this list back to 1 client and 1 current employee.MOTION TO STRIKE
Your honor,
While the defendant is able to call whomever they want as a witness, I am struggling to see the relevance in all of these witnesses with the exception of AlexanderLove. For the sake of time and judicial economy, can an injunction be written ordering the defendant to have witnesses that are demonstrate relevancy to the case by either being a party to the case or material to a fact relevant to the case?
Motion to ReconsiderMr. Love has missed the deadline, so we will move on. I will issue witness summons and respond to the objections shortly.
Motion to ReconsiderSustained. Mr. Love let's cut this list back to 1 client and 1 current employee.
Your honor, the defense needs to submit an opening statement.I will be presiding over this case for the remainder of the process. Witness summons will come shortly.
OBJECTIONYour honor, the defense needs to submit an opening statement.
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure
A response here was not warranted.
Your honor, the defense needs to submit an opening statement.
Motion to Reconsider:Thank you, i overlooked it. You have 72 Hours to deliver your Opening Statement.
Motion to Reconsider:
Defendant is actively being awarded for his malfeasance. The rule is when a party refuses to timely comply with court procedure and fails to post an opening statement, they are denied the right to do so. In Ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 96, a motion to reconsider for contempt of court was denied, opening statement was also denied in court and explicitly struck due to being late (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 96). Defendant of this case appealed contempt of court charge for missing deadline to deliver a closing statement, the court refused to grant appeal and stated "While you may have chosen to not provide a closing statement, whether for strategic effect or not, you have wasted the Court's time and resources. Further, you have delayed the trial of the Defendant" (see Appeal: Denied - FCR 46 - Contempt Appeal Request). The defendant is delaying the trial by having additional time to post an opening statement. The defendant had the time and instead choose to post objections. Defendant is being awarded for his malfeasance by being granted new and additional time to post an opening statement past the initial deadline.
For the forgoing reasons, the plaintiff kindly requests this Motion to Reconsider be granted and the defendant be barred from posting a opening statement as was originally decided by the previous presiding judge.
The Defendant again fails to post an opening statement. When a new presiding judge comes onto the case, the plaintiff requests that the defendant @Alexander P. Love and his co-counsel @Jakovus be charged with contempt of court for being given an incredibly generous extension and still failing to post an opening statement.Thank you, i overlooked it. You have 72 Hours to deliver your Opening Statement.
I held off because the Court is in recess. The statement is ready when a new Judge resumes the Court.The Defendant again fails to post an opening statement. When a new presiding judge comes onto the case, the plaintiff requests that the defendant @Alexander P. Love and his co-counsel @Jakovus be charged with contempt of court for being given an incredibly generous extension and still failing to post an opening statement.
Motion to StrikeThe plaintiff's IX right is being violated. There are two additional justices who could take this case: The Honorable Acting Chief Justice @End or The Honorable Justice @Dr_Eksplosive. Can a new presiding judge please come onto this case so we can continue.
Motion to Dismiss
The RBA no longer exists, therefore there is no more standing for this case.
