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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Redmont Bar Association

Redmont Bar Association

Citizen
Change Maker
Joined
Nov 19, 2022
Messages
170
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION​


The Redmont Bar Association (Chair Unseatedduke1)
Plaintiff

v.

Royalsnakee
Defendant

COMPLAINT

Under the provisions outlined in the Super Modern Legal Board Act, the Redmont Bar Association initiates this legal action seeking the disbarment of Royalsnakee. Royalsnakee, the attorney in question, has demonstrated a consistent disregard for the established standards mandated by the SMLBA, the RBA charter, and court protocols. In the case of Royalsnakee v. IIKermitII [2024] DCR 7, the attorney exhibited egregious misconduct by repeatedly speaking out of turn on TEN occasions. The defendant displayed blatant disrespect towards the presiding officer by using vulgar language, stating, "MOVE YOUR ASS." Royalsnakee faced charges of contempt of court and continuously flouted procedural rules. Royalsnakee also failed to provide a closing statement, resulting in a second contempt of court charge. In the case of Royalsnakee v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 23, the defendant received a warning for disruptive behavior. Despite being granted a 72-hour period to file an opening statement on March 8th, 2024, the defendant failed to comply, resulting in a delay of nine days without progress in the case. This failure to adhere to court directives reflects a pattern of disregard for legal proceedings. In the case of Dimitre077 v. Freeze29 [2023] FCR 35, Royalsnakee , was found in contempt of court for speaking out of turn. The judge also advised the plaintiff in the case to seek alternative legal representation due to Royalsnakees inadequate performance. Following this, the judge held Royalsnakee in contempt of court for another separate offense. In [2023] FCR 35 - Appeal Request - [2023] SCR 10 the judge charged Royalsnakee 1 count of frivolous cases due to the egregious nature of the appeal. In addition to these legal infractions, Royalsnakee has also engaged in numerous ethical violations, including hurling derogatory slurs at RBA members and launching verbal attacks against fellow attorneys. This attorney was also dismissed from a law firm for inadequate representation of a client, as evidenced in FCR 23 by the failure to file an opening statement, thereby misrepresenting their abilities and wasting the court's time. 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. Royalsnakee has failed to meet these standards in every aspect, exhibiting a consistent disregard for the law, ethical principles, and the professionalism expected of an attorney.

I. PARTIES
  1. The Redmont Bar Association
  2. Royalsnakee

II. FACTS
  1. In the case of "Dimitre077 V Freeze29 [2023] FCR 35," Royalsnakee provided inadequate representation for their client, was held in contempt of court twice, and repeatedly disrupted court proceedings by speaking out of turn.

  2. In the appeal [2023] FCR 35 - Appeal Request - [2023] SCR 10 the court charged Royalsnakee for filing a frivolous case.

  3. In the case of "Royalsnakee v. IIKermitII [2024] DCR 7," Royalsnakee violated court decorum by speaking out of turn on ten occasions, disregarding established court procedures, and was held in contempt of court. Royalsnakee also failed to provide a closing statement, resulting in a second contempt of court charge.

  4. In the case of "Royalsnakee v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 23," Royalsnakee received a warning for speaking out of turn and was granted a 72-hour period to submit an opening statement. Despite the allotted time, Royalsnakee failed to file the statement within the given timeframe plus nine days, resulting in a waste of court resources and a misrepresentation of themselves.

  5. An investigation into Royalsnakee's conduct was conducted by the RBA ethics committee. During the hearing, Royalsnakee displayed a lack of cooperation, rudeness, and defensiveness, further highlighting their disregard for professional and ethical standards.

  6. Royalsnakee engaged in derogatory behavior towards members of the Redmont Bar Association (RBA), using offensive slurs against them.

  7. Royalsnakee stated his intention to disclose confidential conversations from his prior tenure at the Redmont Law Firm.

  8. Over the past year, Royalsnakee's conduct as an attorney has been concerning. They have faced contempt of court charges on four occasions, faced a frivolous case charge, displayed a pattern of speaking out of turn over 15 times, and delivered substandard representation to clients, ultimately resulting in their termination from the RLF for inadequate performance.



III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
  1. The defendant violated the law and was held in contempt of court twice in Royalsnakee v. IIKermitII [2024] DCR 7. This violation of the law under the SMLBA is grounds for disbarment for excessively committing contempt of court.

  2. The defendant violated the law and was held in contempt of court twice in Dimitre077 v. Freeze29 [2023] FCR 35. This violation of the law under the SMLBA is grounds for disbarment for excessively committing contempt of court.

  3. The defendant violated the law and was charged with frivolous case in [2023] FCR 35 - Appeal Request - [2023] SCR 10. This violation of the law under the SMLBA is grounds for disbarment. Excessively filing frivolous court cases.

  4. The defendant violated court procedure in the case of Royalsnakee v. IIKermitII [2024] DCR 7 and Royalsnakee v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 23.

  5. The defendant failed to represent clients to the best of their ability and violated ethical standards.

  6. The defendant violated the law and was held in contempt of court in Redmont Bar Association v. Royalsnakee [2024] FCR 38. This violation of the SMLBA constitutes grounds for disbarment due to repeated contempt of court.

  7. The defendant violated the law and was held in contempt of court in royalsnakee v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 23. This violation of the SMLBA also warrants disbarment for repeated contempt of court.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
  1. Disbarment of Royalsnakee for a duration of two months, followed by a mandatory retesting procedure. Upon passing the retest, Royalsnakee may seek re-licensure.

  2. 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.

  3. Prohibition on Royalsnakee's engagement in any prosecutorial role, including special prosecutor assignments, at the DLA for the duration of the two-month disbarment period.

  4. Punitive damages are sought for outrageous behavior, including repeated violations of the law on seven occasions, verbal attacks against fellow attorneys, and the use of derogatory language directed at the RBA. We request a fine of $15,000 as recompense.

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 17th day of March 2024
 
Last edited:
Seal_Judiciary.png


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

@royalsnakee is required to appear before the court in the case of the Redmont Bar Association v. Royalsnakee. Failure to appear within 72 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, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION​

Your Honor,

The 72-hour period provided to the defendant has elapsed. The Redmont Bar Association respectfully requests that you find the defendant in contempt of court and proceed with issuing a default judgment following the terms outlined in the Writ of Summons.

Thank You
 
Redmont Bar Association said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION​

Your Honor,

The 72-hour period provided to the defendant has elapsed. The Redmont Bar Association respectfully requests that you find the defendant in contempt of court and proceed with issuing a default judgment following the terms outlined in the Writ of Summons.

Thank You
Click to expand...
@royalsnakee is hereby found in Contempt of Court and I order the DOJ to fine/jail accordingly.

Now, this case will not be entering summary judgement. Due to the nature of the case wishing to disbar an attorney and bar them from the position, I see this as needing a public defender to defend them.

Given that we will be going into recess pending a Public Defender.
 
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER​

Your Honor,

Under the Public Defender Program, a public defender is only appointed in the following circumstances:

  • In a criminal case that would otherwise result in default judgment.
  • In a civil case that would otherwise result in default judgment, and the defendant has no Forums account and no Discord account in the DemocracyCraft Discord server.
  • In a civil case that would otherwise result in default judgment, and the defendant is legally inactive (having less than 6 hours of playtime in the last 30 days).
  • When the defendant requests a public defender.
Since none of these criteria apply to the present case, the RBA respectfully requests that you issue a summary judgment as outlined in the Writ of Summons.
 
Firstly, I'd like to apologize for how long this has taken me to publish. I had irl commitments and other taking up time which delayed the posting of this.

The Motion to Reconsider will be overruled and there are multiple reasons for this:

1. Your attempting to not only remove their profession but also bar them from holding it. This can be argued is in a similar manner as say Corruption or Treason where you attempt to bar someone from office which is a criminal case. This although yes a civil case, is attempting to do the same thing just with a different form of punishment. This is not an attempt to bar someone from holding office rather, bar someone from holding a profession.

2. Public Defenders are under the discretion of the Presiding Judge, those listed are ones that we must get a Public Defender for. Beyond that we can still order a Public Defender and given again, you are attempting to remove someone's ability to hold a profession until they take a course, I saw this as a need for a Public Defender.

3. This decision was not my decision alone, this was a decision made with fellow members of the Judiciary for insight and their take on the idea of bring a Public Defender as a whole. We deemed that a Public Defender is needed for this kind of case as at heart, this can be seen as a criminal trial which leads into my last point:

4. This case can be seen as a criminal trial or not in two ways, these are them listed:

The case is attempting to remove someone's ability to hold a profession and then block them from holding it, while this is not Supreme Court jurisdiction, the ability to bar someone from doing something such as hold public office, has been primarily used within criminal trials.
The case is a civil lawsuit given they are not attempting to charge the Defendant with any crime and beyond that, criminal charges can only be issued by the Department of Legal Affairs.

Now, I have opted for the first reasoning as to how I see this case. Although not strictly criminal, there are enough elements regarding the charges that warrant me seeing this as a hybrid of both. Asking for someone's ability to hold an office even if a profession, is inherently a remedy to someone breaking a serious law such as treason or criminal and although all reasons listed are minor, everyone deserves fair representation within lawsuits.

While this may be say a "bad interpretation" or "dumb interpretation" this is the interpretation that I saw fit. This trial is, and I understand I keep repeating myself, have criminal elements to it thus warranting a Public Defender in my eyes. Now should anyone wish to defend the Defendant I wish them to step forward.
 
Your honor, royalsnakee has acquired me as his legal counsel, I request a 48 hour extension to post the answer to complaint.
Screen Shot 2024-03-28 at 6.27.29 PM.png
 
You have 24 hours to provide an answer to the complaint.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT


Redmont Bar Association
Plaintiff


V


royalsnakee


ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1) The defense partially disputes this claim, and notes that the judge only stated that the plaintiff should find different legal representation if royalsnakee was too occupied. Additionally, if this has to do with the defendant's skill, skill isn't a reason to be disbarred by the R. B. A. (disputed: "Royalsnakee provided inadequate representation for their client")
2) The defense affirms this claim, however, notes that per the R. B. A. charter, the R. B. A. can only move to disbar a member with excessive frivolous court charges. As there is only one singular charge, it is irrelevant in this case.
3) The defense affirms this claim, however, notes that the second contempt of court charge was caused by a staff issue, and during that time the defendant was unable to post anything onto the forums.
4) The defense affirms this claim, however, notes that the failure to post on the forums was related to the same staff issue. It was a waste of court resources/time, but it was caused by staff issues.
5) The defense neither confirms nor denies this claim, as no evidence has been provided showing this behavior, and not knowing exactly what the defendant said (if anything) is key in this matter.
6) The defense neither confirms nor denies this claim, as no evidence has been provided showing this behavior, and not knowing exactly what the defendant said (if anything) is key in this matter.
7) The defense neither confirms nor denies this claim, as no evidence has been provided showing this behavior, and not knowing exactly what the defendant said (if anything) is key in this matter.
8) The defense affirms this claim, however, notes that there is no key definition for "excessive," and 4 contempt of court charges may not be excessive based on the court's ruling.


DEFENSES
1) The defendant's skill should not be taken into account in this case, as he is clearly enthusiastic in his court cases, and skill is not a reason for disbarment nor punitive damages. He is clearly representing clients to the best of his ability.
2) There is no clear definition of "excessive," and 4 contempt of court charges are likely not this.
3) Based on the fact that the SMLBA states "excessive," it's simple to understand that 1 frivolous court charge would not count as this.
4) As of now, there is no evidence to suggest that the defendant made rude claims toward the R. B. A. members nor gave the intention of disclosing confidential information.
5) Some of the contempt of court charges were caused by an unrelated staff issue during which the defendant was unable to post anything onto the forums.
 
Thank you, we will now be moving into Discovery, this will last 7 days.

Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use)​

All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission. Material must have been included within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible and the argument can be voided by the presiding judge.

Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol)​

A party may submit a list for witnesses at any time before the end of discovery. In order for a witness to be called during witness testimony, they must be announced under this rule, during discovery. Any witness may be objected to according to the objections laid out within rule 6.3.

Failure to adhere to the timelines of this rule may subject that party to a contempt of court charge at the presiding judge’s decision. The presiding judge shall include a warning regarding the timeline when summoning the witness.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Amendments to the Complaint​

Your Honor,

We respectfully request permission to make amendments to the original complaint filed by the RBA, as follows:

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF (additions)
7. The defendant violated the law and was held in contempt of court in Redmont Bar Association v. Royalsnakee [2024] FCR 38. This violation of the SMLBA constitutes grounds for disbarment due to repeated contempt of court.

8. The defendant violated the law and was held in contempt of court in royalsnakee v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 23. This violation of the SMLBA also warrants disbarment for repeated contempt of court.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF (changes)
4. Punitive damages are sought for egregious behavior, including repeated violations of the law on five seven occasions, verbal assaults against fellow attorneys, and the use of derogatory language directed at the RBA. We request a fine of $5,000 $15,000 as recompense.

These amendments address situations that arose subsequent to the original filing of this case. Regarding the prayer for relief, we seek additional punitive damages to reflect the defendant's continued disregard for the law.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Discovery
​

Your Honor, the Redmont Bar Association respectfully requests to submit the following evidence:
1711750773095.png
(We have obscured sensitive language in the screenshot to maintain decorum in court. If the Court requires the unobscured version, please notify us.)

1711750951165.png
1711751092582.png
1711751303958.png
 
Redmont Bar Association said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Amendments to the Complaint​

Your Honor,

We respectfully request permission to make amendments to the original complaint filed by the RBA, as follows:

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF (additions)
7. The defendant violated the law and was held in contempt of court in Redmont Bar Association v. Royalsnakee [2024] FCR 38. This violation of the SMLBA constitutes grounds for disbarment due to repeated contempt of court.

8. The defendant violated the law and was held in contempt of court in royalsnakee v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 23. This violation of the SMLBA also warrants disbarment for repeated contempt of court.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF (changes)
4. Punitive damages are sought for egregious behavior, including repeated violations of the law on five seven occasions, verbal assaults against fellow attorneys, and the use of derogatory language directed at the RBA. We request a fine of $5,000 $15,000 as recompense.

These amendments address situations that arose subsequent to the original filing of this case. Regarding the prayer for relief, we seek additional punitive damages to reflect the defendant's continued disregard for the law.
Click to expand...
I'll grant the Amendments to the Complaint. Please notify the Court once you had edited these in.
 
Your Honor, the Redmont Bar Association respectfully requests to submit the following evidence:
IMG_0981.jpg
 
Your Honor, the Redmont Bar Association respectfully requests to submit the following evidence:

1712184385668.png
 

Attachments

  • 1712184382584.png
    1712184382584.png
    17.7 KB · Views: 73
Your honor, the defense wishes to call royalsnakee to the stand.
 
Alright, with Discovery now over we will be moving into Opening Statements.

The Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide theirs.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLAINTIFF OPENING STATEMENT​



Ladies and Gentlemen of the Court,

Today, we gather in this esteemed chamber not merely to judge the actions of an individual, but to uphold the very pillars upon which the law stands. The Redmont Bar Association, the head of legal ethics and standards within our community, brings forth this case with a heavy heart, yet with an unwavering intent to resolve. Our pursuit is not one of vendetta, but of necessity – necessity born from the solemn duty to preserve the sanctity of our legal system. In legal history, there exists a code of conduct, a sacred covenant between an attorney and justice. It is a code that demands respect for the law, adherence to procedural norms, and above all, unwavering dedication to the cause of justice. Sadly, it is this very code that the defendant, Royalsnakee, has chosen to flout with reckless abandon.

Let us address the grave issue of repeated contempt of court. On multiple occasions, Royalsnakee has demonstrated a blatant disregard for the authority of this esteemed court. Contempt, not merely in words, but in actions – actions that betray the very law itself. We will hear of instances where decorum was abandoned, where the sanctity of legal proceedings was trampled. And yet, even in the face of censure, the defendant remained unrepentant, persisting in their disruptive behavior.

We must also confront the specter of frivolous litigation. The defendant stands accused of abusing the legal system, of treating justice as a mere pawn. Frivolity, a term that belies the gravity of their actions – actions that not only waste the resources of this court but also undermine the integrity of our judicial process. We cannot ignore the disturbing pattern of ethical issues that have come to light. Derogatory slurs, threats of confidentiality breaches – these are not the actions befitting of an attorney. And yet, Royalsnakee has shown no remorse, no inclination towards redemption. Your Honor, the evidence before us paints a picture of a legal practitioner gone astray. A path littered with broken norms, shattered ethics, and a blatant disregard for the very essence of the law. It is our obligation to ensure that such issues do not go unpunished.

In this case, the defense will attempt to shift the narrative, portraying the past as distant and irrelevant, while asserting that the defendant has taken on a newfound path. Such assertions do not align with recent events; they remain pertinent and have happened within a relatively short time frame. The defense may argue that the defendant's lack of access to forums during their temporary ban absolves them of any responsibility. Yet, this assertion lacks merit, as evidenced by a staff ticket indicating that players are only banned under specific circumstances, none of which apply to the defendant.

We ask for disbarment, not as an act of vengeance, but as a necessary measure to safeguard the integrity of our legal profession. Punitive damages, not as a means of retribution, but as a deterrent against future issues.

Thank you.
 
Thank you, the Defense now has 72 hours to provide their Opening Statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your honor, may it please the court,

Many of the contempt of court charges were caused by a staff forum ban. Even assuming that they weren’t, the prosecution’s wording compared to the Redmont Bar Association Charter is distinct, as the prosecution uses, “repeated,” and, “multiple,” while the Charter uses, “excessive.” Two very subtle differences that show that my client has not obtained excessive contempt of court charges only repeated or multiple. The prosecution attempts to explain that this legal action is out of, “necessity,” while in reality, it is only to strengthen the belief that the Redmont Bar Association is all-powerful. No one is being put in danger here, and this is a simple case of brute force being smitten upon my client, brute force that has already been put on him by staff, making the punitive damages already upheld, and therefore making it null and void. It is clear when looking through the cases involving my client, that my client is not intentionally abandoning legal protocol, and the Redmont Bar Association is thirsty to hammer down on lawyers to show off their strength.

Firstly, the prosecution and the Redmont Bar Association Charter use exact wording. While the prosecution results in wording such as “repeated,” or “multiple,” the Redmont Bar Association Charter uses “excessive.” It is common knowledge that “excessive,” is generally associated with being more than “repeated,” or “multiple.” As of now, there is no clear definition of “excessive,” but the prosecution has outlined that my client has obtained repeated/multiple charges of contempt of court, and due to there being no definition, and that the term “excessive,” is generally associated with being more than “repeated,” or “multiple,” the amount of contempt of court charges are not enough to warrant disbarment. Additionally, although my client has violated the law, he has already been punished for these actions. It is based solely on speculation that my client has a “blatant disregard for the law,” as only he can decide whether or not he disregards the law, and his actions have already been properly dealt with.

Secondly, the defendant’s claim of my client’s single frivolous court charge also does not align with a reason for the Redmont Bar Association to disbar. There is very exact wording in the Redmont Bar Association Charter: “excessive.” I hope I do not have to tell you, but a single frivolous court charge would not be considered as “excessive.”

Thirdly, the prosecution seeking punitive damages is clearly double jeopardy. My client has been deported by staff for his actions and is remorseful. Why should my client be punished for the same incident twice? The prosecution may argue that staff are not officially part of the government and that the courts haven’t properly punished my client, however, it is seen in the constitution that staff are indeed a part of the government, and although they generally have different roles, they sometimes mix responsibilities, such as punishing behavior. They have already properly punished my client for his behavior with a one-hundred-day deportation, and my client only deserves one punishment for a single act of behavior (See the submission made by the defense during discovery).

Fourthly, the prosecution states, “these are not the actions befitting of an attorney.” My client’s skill should not be taken into account as it doesn’t strengthen any prayers for relief that the prosecution is seeking and is only an attack on my client to portray him as “evil.” Can the prosecution read my client’s mind? Absolutely not. The prosecution has no grounds to state that, “[Royalsnakee has] no inclination towards redemption,” as he has absolutely no idea whatsoever about what my client is/isn’t inclined to do.

Lastly, though there is no proof, it’s reasonable to assume that the defendant did not intentionally abandon his cases. Based on the “Staff Insight” submission made by the prosecution, it is possible to be forum-banned. There was no motive for my client to stop his legal practices cold turkey, and when looking at the dates, they match up. This would be the cause of some of the contempt of court charges, which would further lower the amount and make it certainly not, “excessive.”

In conclusion, even assuming that my client wasn’t forum-banned and “just decided” to stop his legal practice, the amount of charges isn’t enough to justify a disbarment. Additionally, my client has already been punished by the government, (staff) with a one hundred day deport, for his actions. This is a clear instance of double jeopardy that diminishes the need for punitive damages. The Redmont Bar Association is clearly hungry for lawsuits, and my client is the victim of an attack designed to belittle him for frivolous claims.
 
Alright, we will now be moving into Witness Testimony, given only the Defense called a Witness they will start.

I will be issuing summons shortly.
 
1712719404002.png


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

@royalsnakee is required to appear before the court in the case of Redmont Bar Association v. Royalsnakee. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a Contempt of Court charge.​
 
The Defense has 48 hours to provide questions to the Witness.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS


Redmont Bar Association
Prosecution


V


Royalsnakee
Defendant


QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS
1) Were you banned from the forums?
2) Did you intentionally abandon posting messages in the lawsuits you were involved in?
 
Towloo said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS


Redmont Bar Association
Prosecution


V


Royalsnakee
Defendant


QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS
1) Were you banned from the forums?
2) Did you intentionally abandon posting messages in the lawsuits you were involved in?
Click to expand...
For question 1 yes
2 no
 
OBJECTION
Perjury
​
Your Honor, the witness has just committed perjury by lying under oath. It has been clearly stated by staff that individuals are only banned from forums if they are permanently banned from the game. As evidenced below, Royalsnakee was not permanently banned. An official staff ticket confirms this statement. The witness's lack of credibility and blatant disregard for the law only compound their misconduct. We ask that you hold them in contempt, strike what they said and remove them as a witness.

staff.png
2024-04-10_10.23.50.png
 
The Defense has 24 hours to respond to the objection.
 
Your Honor, I have not committed perjury and as seen in the screenshot the ban is still active and also they are doing failrp by involving staff and taking a handled staff matter and trying to take it into a government matter, All due respect but this witch hunt started after I got into an argument with the RBA who happens to be the people who got me banned from the server for toxicity and now they are seeking all this stuff so the true question your honor should be if they need to be charged with contempt and also Corruption.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is clearly a witch hunt and they are lying and trying to get a banned player disbarred your honor. It doesn’t even make sense. Motion to dismiss.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure
​
Your Honor, the Redmont Bar Association does not have the authority to impose bans, as this falls under the purview of the staff. Temporary deportation does not equate to a forum ban, as evidenced by Royalsnakee's current activity on this forum. This procedural breach pertains to addressing his motion to dismiss, which should have been filed prior to the commencement of opening statements.
 
Alright, to make things easier, I will be granting the Objection for Breach of Procedure. There isn't an argument to be made regarding the statements either, Motion to Dismiss is to be done before Opening Statements and we are in Witness Testimony.

With that, I will still be allowing the 24 hours for the Objection regarding Perjury however, unless the Defense wants to confirm that the response put forth by the Witness is in fact that rebuttal they wish to use, they may still publish a response.

I am also issuing a complete and formal warning to Royalsnakee to not speak out of turn again. Unless you state you are representing yourself and have forgone your representation, you are merely a witness currently. I also warn you not to speak so harshly to the opposing side, the actions you did were via the Government and thus your ban is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the lawsuit.
 
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your honor,
Based on the "Staff Insight" image, xEndeavour, the owner of the server, clearly states that forum bans may be put in place if deemed necessary. It is still possible that a staff member deemed it necessary to forum ban the witness.
 
Redmont Bar Association said:
OBJECTION
Perjury
​
Your Honor, the witness has just committed perjury by lying under oath. It has been clearly stated by staff that individuals are only banned from forums if they are permanently banned from the game. As evidenced below, Royalsnakee was not permanently banned. An official staff ticket confirms this statement. The witness's lack of credibility and blatant disregard for the law only compound their misconduct. We ask that you hold them in contempt, strike what they said and remove them as a witness.

View attachment 42794
View attachment 42795
Click to expand...
I will be overruling this objection, as although yes they were not perm deported and we cannot confirm they were banned from the forums due to the very evidence that was provided states that staff do not keep logs of Forum bans. Whether or not the Defendant was banned from the Forums or not we may never know thus the Objection although yes could be seen as perjury, ultimately I fail to see reason for this to be approved.
 
OBJECTION Assumes facts not in evidence.​

Your Honor, as you noted, it remains uncertain whether there is concrete evidence establishing whether the defendant was indeed banned from forums. Therefore, the assertion made by the defendant presupposes the truthfulness of an individual's claim without substantiating evidence.

MOTION TO STRIKE​

Your Honor, we respectfully request that the defendant's responses be stricken from the record. Their statement relies solely on personal assertions which are biased and without supporting evidence regarding their alleged forum ban, thus introducing facts not supported by the evidence presented.

MOTION TO CALL ADDITIONAL WITNESS(ES) AFTER DISCOVERY​

Your Honor, we respectfully seek permission to introduce a special witness after the discovery phase. We propose calling staff to the stand to address any ambiguity surrounding the evidence already presented. This would contribute to a clearer understanding of the case at hand.


Thank you.
 
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

The definition of "Assumes facts not in evidence" is the following: "the question assumes something as true for which no evidence has been shown." The question which I asked doesn't assume something to be true. The witness testimony is meant to shed light on whether it is true or not.
 
The Defense has 24 hours to respond to the Motion to Strike.

As for the Motion of Additional Witnesses, I will be granting this as it will clear up any issues regarding the deportation of Royalsnakee. I will issue summons after Royalsnakee's testimony as to keep everything organized.
 
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE

The point of a witness testimony is to ask witnesses questions about an incident. This doesn't mean that there has to already be concrete proof, as that would defeat the purpose of a witness testimony. In other words, the witness testimony, definitive or not, counts as proof.
 
Redmont Bar Association said:
OBJECTION Assumes facts not in evidence.​

Your Honor, as you noted, it remains uncertain whether there is concrete evidence establishing whether the defendant was indeed banned from forums. Therefore, the assertion made by the defendant presupposes the truthfulness of an individual's claim without substantiating evidence.

MOTION TO STRIKE​

Your Honor, we respectfully request that the defendant's responses be stricken from the record. Their statement relies solely on personal assertions which are biased and without supporting evidence regarding their alleged forum ban, thus introducing facts not supported by the evidence presented.

MOTION TO CALL ADDITIONAL WITNESS(ES) AFTER DISCOVERY​

Your Honor, we respectfully seek permission to introduce a special witness after the discovery phase. We propose calling staff to the stand to address any ambiguity surrounding the evidence already presented. This would contribute to a clearer understanding of the case at hand.


Thank you.
Click to expand...
So, for the Objection, I will be overruling this as if staff have no logs of it then we can only rely on testimony. Unless you wish to drop the argument entirely, we have to work with what we have.

As for the Motion to Strike, this also will be overruled given no real reason was given to strike the testimony. They questions did in fact provide more insight into the matter regarding forums ban and although it may have been from a bias source, if no other evidence can be provided or found then witness testimony is what remains from a bias source or not. Unless evidence can be made contradicting the testimony, this is what we have to use.

All of this will also be cleared up once Staff is summoned to testify.
 
@Towloo Please post anymore questions you have for Royalsnakee or we will be moving into Cross Examination.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS


Redmont Bar Association
Prosecution


V


Royalsnakee
Defendant


QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS
1) Do you represent your clients to the best of your ability?
 
@Towloo You have 48 hours to ask anymore questions or declare you have none. Should questions be asked, once those are answered you have 24 extra to ask anymore. Otherwise we will be moving straight into Cross Examination.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS


Redmont Bar Association
Prosecution


V


Royalsnakee
Defendant


QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS
1) Have you decided to recklessly abandon the path of lawfulness?
 
No I didn’t recklessly abandon the path of lawfulness.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS


Redmont Bar Association
Prosecution


V


Royalsnakee
Defendant


QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS
1) Did you ever make rude remarks when you were not put under pressure?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top