Lawsuit: In Session Redmont Bar Association v. Royalsnakee [2024] FCR 38

No I only respond rudely to people who are rude to me and that deserve it
 
Your honor, I apologize for the late message: the defense has no further questions.
 
Alright, the Plaintiff now has 48 hours to ask questions.
 
Your honor, I would like to file an amicus brief.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

Good day, your honor.

Today, I approach you as a friend of the courts. I seek to provide legal analysis of some key terms and this case, without arguing for either party.

Key Terms
Disbarment: The revocation of "the practicing license of a lawyer through a lawsuit after an investigation and majority vote of the RBA Council, including the RBA Chairperson."
Source: Act of Congress - Super Modern Legal Board Act

Excessive: "Exceeding what is right, proportionate, or desirable; immoderate, inordinate, extravagant."
Source: Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford Dictionary - the legal dictionary of Redmont according to the Clarity Act)

Disbarment Requirements
Cause for disbarment are strictly limited to the following:
  • Excessively committing perjury
  • Breaching Attorney-Client privilege three or more times
  • Excessively filing frivolous court cases
  • Excessively committing contempt of court
Source: Act of Congress - Super Modern Legal Board Act

On The Definition of Excessive
When asking whether something is excessive, or in excess, there is simply no absolutely correct way to approach the answer. A completely textualist interpretation would say that committing Contempt of Court one time is excessive, since it is never (or at least, nearly never) "right" or "desirable" to commit this crime. Going with this interpretation, nearly every lawyer in Redmont could be disbarred.

On the other hand, even with a textualist approach, it could require tens of charges to be considered "extravagant" or "exceeding what is proportionate."

The definition is quite broad, and requires an alternative method of Judicial Interpretation.

On Royalsnakee's Contempt of Court
If I understand this lawsuit correctly, royalsnakee has "faced contempt of court charges on four occasions." Your honor, I received 2 contempt charges in just 2 months (June-July 2023) followed by multiple contempt charges given to the Commonwealth when I was Attorney General.

Whilst I won't speak on whether royalsnakee or myself is eligible for disbarment, I ask you to consider royalsnakee's year-long history and compare it with my own.

On Equal Treatment Under The Law
If royalsnakee is found to be eligible for disbarment, the precedent set would require the RBA to thoroughly investigate many other lawyers with similar histories (because the Constitution guarantess and requires equal application of law), and possibly even disbar them. Some of these lawyers could be very prominent lawyers such as myself or Attorney General Snowy_Heart, who recently racked up multiple Contempt of Court charges.

On The Other Reasons For This Lawsuit
This lawsuit does not allege perjury - and certainly not excessive perjury.
This lawsuit alleges a single frivolous case, which may or may not be considered "excessive."
This lawsuit does not allege breach of Attorney-Client privilege.

In Summary
The primary issue in this lawsuit is whether royalsnakee "excessively committed Contempt of Court." The definition of excessive is quite broad, and is ultimately going to be a decision that this court must decide. The precedent of this case will have far-reaching effects, so it is important that any lawyer be watching this case closely.

Thank you, your honor.
 
Questions for royalsnakee:

1. Is it accurate that you've received a contempt of court charge in each case where you've served as legal counsel?

We will have follow up questions
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

The defense moves that the question made by the prosecution be struck from the record, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1) The question was posted after the alloted time had expired, and therefore the prosecution has spoken out of turn
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Your Honor, Please accept our apologies for the delay; we were lost in reviewing the amicus brief.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

The defense moves that the question made by the prosecution be struck from the record, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1) The prosecution has spoken out of turn, as they were not told to make a response by you, your honor.
 
Your honor, I respectfully request to change "the question" to "the response to the previous motion to strike." This was my error completely.
 
Towloo said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

The defense moves that the question made by the prosecution be struck from the record, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1) The prosecution has spoken out of turn, as they were not told to make a response by you, your honor.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, we were merely reacting to the motion to strike. Last time I checked, we're not obligated to be instructed to respond before doing so. Hence, in line with this assertion, we're simply addressing the motion.
 
Your honor, may I say something that might clear confusion?
 
Before I answer any of this, this is a Court Room. Not a channel in Discord. This is not the place to be holding what looks to be a basic conversation. There are no rebuttals to a rebuttal unless instructed or Objecting to said rebuttal.

Now, the Amicus Brief did not play a part in the questioning at this current stage of the trial. However given the severity of the case and what is being alleged from the Plaintiff I will allow this question to slide (Motion to Strike is Rejected). I will not be doing this again. Do be prompt.

@royalsnakee you have 48 hours to answer the question or you will be held in contempt.

The Plaintiff also shall have 48 hours to provide additional questions after every one of royalsnakee's responses along with royalsnakee having the same 48.
 
Hi I will answer the questions :)

No I have not received a contempt of court charge in every single court case and if you haven't noticed I have never lost a court case, because I know my ways around the law but I am a new attorney and I am just learning and new to the legal field trying to catch a break and trying to learn the ways to be better and better and I have been mentored by some very good and talented people like the Attorney General Snowy__Heart who are amazing lawyers and I am trying to become the Future Attorney General, So I'm asking you as a New Player and a New Lawyer to cut me a break.
 
Follow-up:

1. Could you kindly provide a comprehensive list of all the cases where you have served as legal counsel?
2. Have you ever won a case?
3. When did you join DC?
4. At what point did you acquire your license to practice law?
 
RelaxedGV said:
Before I answer any of this, this is a Court Room. Not a channel in Discord. This is not the place to be holding what looks to be a basic conversation. There are no rebuttals to a rebuttal unless instructed or Objecting to said rebuttal.

Now, the Amicus Brief did not play a part in the questioning at this current stage of the trial. However given the severity of the case and what is being alleged from the Plaintiff I will allow this question to slide (Motion to Strike is Rejected). I will not be doing this again. Do be prompt.

@royalsnakee you have 48 hours to answer the question or you will be held in contempt.

The Plaintiff also shall have 48 hours to provide additional questions after every one of royalsnakee's responses along with royalsnakee having the same 48.
Click to expand...
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The defense moves that the ruling made by you, your honor, be reverted, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1) It is important to uphold the law, despite the circumstances. It is unacceptable to pardon the prosecution from this burden, as all citizens must be punished if blatantly breaking a law or request made by a court. Otherwise, why would judges issue 48 hour deadlines if attorneys are aware that they don't have to follow them? The punishment in this case is that the questions and responses be struck from the record, as laws must be enforced if they are laws.
2) Under the "MOTION TO STRIKE" section of the Motions Guide, it clearly states, "This motion is usually requested when the record contains information or language that is not admissible evidence." Due to the submission being submitted past the deadline and therefore inadmissible, like any other aspect of court, it should be struck from the record
 
Towloo said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The defense moves that the ruling made by you, your honor, be reverted, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1) It is important to uphold the law, despite the circumstances. It is unacceptable to pardon the prosecution from this burden, as all citizens must be punished if blatantly breaking a law or request made by a court. Otherwise, why would judges issue 48 hour deadlines if attorneys are aware that they don't have to follow them? The punishment in this case is that the questions and responses be struck from the record, as laws must be enforced if they are laws.
2) Under the "MOTION TO STRIKE" section of the Motions Guide, it clearly states, "This motion is usually requested when the record contains information or language that is not admissible evidence." Due to the submission being submitted past the deadline and therefore inadmissible, like any other aspect of court, it should be struck from the record
Click to expand...
The Plaintiff has 24 hours to file a response.
 
Your Honor,
The RBA's primary objective is to safeguard the integrity of lawyers and individuals within the legal profession. We recognize the defendant's desire to strike the original questions. However, it's important to acknowledge that you, as the judicial officer, have already rendered a decision with clear deliberation. A motion to reconsider should be entertained only if new information or questions have come to light. In this instance, you have already ruled to allow the question to be asked and answered. You explicitly stated that you wouldn't entertain it again, so we acted promptly in accordance with your directive. While we regret the timing of the questions being submitted, we refrain from offering excuses as we have already moved forward from this matter.

Thank you.
 
Redmont Bar Association said:
Follow-up:

1. Could you kindly provide a comprehensive list of all the cases where you have served as legal counsel?
2. Have you ever won a case?
3. When did you join DC?
4. At what point did you acquire your license to practice law?
Click to expand...
@royalsnakee you have 48 hours to answer the questions. This is the last reminder ping I will be giving. You are not dismissed until I state as such. Do provide answers within 48 hours or you will be held in contempt.

Towloo said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The defense moves that the ruling made by you, your honor, be reverted, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1) It is important to uphold the law, despite the circumstances. It is unacceptable to pardon the prosecution from this burden, as all citizens must be punished if blatantly breaking a law or request made by a court. Otherwise, why would judges issue 48 hour deadlines if attorneys are aware that they don't have to follow them? The punishment in this case is that the questions and responses be struck from the record, as laws must be enforced if they are laws.
2) Under the "MOTION TO STRIKE" section of the Motions Guide, it clearly states, "This motion is usually requested when the record contains information or language that is not admissible evidence." Due to the submission being submitted past the deadline and therefore inadmissible, like any other aspect of court, it should be struck from the record
Click to expand...
This Motion to Reconsider is rejected as I would have awarded the same to either side. This also goes without saying, I awarded extra time for yourself. Rather than moving forward after a 48 hour period I instead notified you regarding the need to state you have additional questions or you have none. This already is giving you ample time which I am giving the Plaintiff less of if anything. I also still affirm my original ruling.
 
1. Could you kindly provide a comprehensive list of all the cases where you have served as legal counsel?
to be completely honest I don't have access to every single exact case and that would take a long time
2. Have you ever won a case?
I've never lost a court case.
3. When did you join DC?
I think about a year ago
4. At what point did you acquire your license to practice law?
I got my lawyers license the first day I joined the server by doing it for hours and hours until I maxed out and got the rank
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top