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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Towloo said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION

Leading, your honor. "A leading question is a question that suggests the particular answer or contains the information the examiner is looking to have confirmed" (The objections guide). The questions suggests that if a player is temporarily deported, they can still access the forums, therefore it is a leading question.
Click to expand...
Given the 24 hours are up for the Plaintiff to respond to the objection, I will now be ruling on this.

The Objection is Sustained and the Plaintiff is to reword the question.
 
Follow-Up:

1. Which staff members have the authority to ban someone from the forums?

Reworded question:
2. Under what circumstances is someone banned from the forums?
 
@End Please respond to the questions.
 
1. Which staff members have the authority to ban someone from the forums?
I believe Administrators+

2. Under what circumstances is someone banned from the forums?
It's case by case. It's rare for a player to be banned from forums. However, the most common occurrence of a forum ban is for an alt account or a permanent ban.
 
Follow-up:

1. Could you ask all staff members with that rank and above if they recall banning Royalsnakee from the forums since January 2024? @End
 
  • Aye
Reactions: End
We have no records suggesting that royalsnakee was banned.
 
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS

1) Can you be 100% sure that a staff member didn’t ban royalsnakee from the forums?
 
Towloo said:
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS

1) Can you be 100% sure that a staff member didn’t ban royalsnakee from the forums?
Click to expand...
@End please answer the questions when you have the chance.

Also for future reference please ping End when you ask a question.
 
Towloo said:
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS

1) Can you be 100% sure that a staff member didn’t ban royalsnakee from the forums?
Click to expand...
We have no records suggesting that royalsnakee was banned.
 
OBEJCTION
Non-responsive

1) The definition of Non-responsive is, "the witness's response constitutes an answer to a question other than the one that was asked, or no answer at all." I specifically asked the witness if they were 100% sure that royalsnakee wasn't banned. This constitutes a Yes or No answer, and the witness has just repeated their previous answer to a different question.
 
Towloo said:
OBEJCTION
Non-responsive

1) The definition of Non-responsive is, "the witness's response constitutes an answer to a question other than the one that was asked, or no answer at all." I specifically asked the witness if they were 100% sure that royalsnakee wasn't banned. This constitutes a Yes or No answer, and the witness has just repeated their previous answer to a different question.
Click to expand...
No. You got an answer that is the equivalent to a no. Thus this Objection is rejected.
 
Staff Team said:
We have no records suggesting that royalsnakee was banned.
Click to expand...
OBJECTION
Non-responsive

1) After reviewing this answer, I realize that it did not answer the question asked by the prosecution. The question asked was, "Could you ask all staff members with that rank and above if they recall banning Royalsnakee from the forums since January 2024?" But the answer given was in reference to records, not staff's recollection.
 
RelaxedGV said:
No. You got an answer that is the equivalent to a no. Thus this Objection is rejected.
Click to expand...

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

It was previously mentioned by End (See Staff: Insight) that they don't keep records, thus why there would be no records. If there are no records for all forum bans, of course there are no records suggesting that the defendant was banned from the forums. The question is if the staff team can be absolutely sure that royalsnakee wasn't banned. Every single Redmont citizen does not have records of forum bans, and we simply request that the Staff Team replies with a, "Yes," or, "No," answer.
 
Towloo said:
OBJECTION
Non-responsive

1) After reviewing this answer, I realize that it did not answer the question asked by the prosecution. The question asked was, "Could you ask all staff members with that rank and above if they recall banning Royalsnakee from the forums since January 2024?" But the answer given was in reference to records, not staff's recollection.
Click to expand...
Due to the 24 hours being up the Plaintiff has forfeited their ability to respond. This Objection is overruled as the question is still being answered.

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

It was previously mentioned by End (See Staff: Insight) that they don't keep records, thus why there would be no records. If there are no records for all forum bans, of course there are no records suggesting that the defendant was banned from the forums. The question is if the staff team can be absolutely sure that royalsnakee wasn't banned. Every single Redmont citizen does not have records of forum bans, and we simply request that the Staff Team replies with a, "Yes," or, "No," answer.
Click to expand...
No. You still got an answer that is basically a no. I am not having the Staff Team answer basically the same question with a simple no. That wastes everyone's time.

The Defense also has 24 hours to give more questions or declare they have none before we move on.
 
RelaxedGV said:
Due to the 24 hours being up the Plaintiff has forfeited their ability to respond. This Objection is overruled as the question is still being answered.


No. You still got an answer that is basically a no. I am not having the Staff Team answer basically the same question with a simple no. That wastes everyone's time.

The Defense also has 24 hours to give more questions or declare they have none before we move on.
Click to expand...
Given it has been 24 hours and no response has been given by the defense, we will be moving forward.

The Plaintiff has 72 hours to present their Closing Statement.
 
Your Honor, We would like to request an additional 24 hours to post our closing statement as you know this is a large case and we want to be very detailed.
 
Redmont Bar Association said:
Your Honor, We would like to request an additional 24 hours to post our closing statement as you know this is a large case and we want to be very detailed.
Click to expand...
You have an additional 24.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT​


Your Honor, Members of the Commonwealth reviewing this case today,

I would like to address many points made within this case and many points made in the AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF by Mr. Dartanman.

I would first like to begin with the points made by Mr. Dartanman. While I agree with him that this case is precedent-setting, the RBA concurs that today's case is essential to ensure future lawyers are held accountable for their actions in the courtroom. Mr. Dartanman suggests that the court should review the defendant's history as a lawyer and the contempt of court charges. Over the course of one year, the defendant has been charged with contempt in every single case except one, in which he still received a warning. Mr. Dartanman attempts to compare his and the former attorney general's history to that of the defendant being disbarred today. It's a good comparison except for the fact that the RBA doesn't investigate individuals unless a report is filed. This can be compared to the DOJ, which doesn't prosecute criminals unless they are reported and there is evidence. We appreciate Mr. Dartanman's report of himself and the former attorney general, and the RBA will investigate both individuals to determine if further investigation is needed.

The RBA is doing its best to treat everyone equally under the law, and we can assure this court that when a report is filed with the RBA, we will investigate it just as we have done with this case. Mr. Dartanman essentially argues that the court needs to determine what "excessive" means and that one instance could be excessive. While we won’t specify an exact number, when a lawyer has been charged with contempt in nearly every case they have been involved in except one, and charged with perjury in this very case, it should be beyond clear that it is excessive.

Now I will move on from the Amicus Brief and focus on points made during this case. Let’s start with the defendant's allegations that he was banned from DC forums. Not only did staff not back this up in a ticket, but in this very courtroom, staff confirmed there is no record of the defendant being banned from forums. The defendant lied to this court in an attempt to avoid liability for missing deadlines and failing to represent himself and his clients in court.

The defendant claims he has never lost a case, but that is another lie in this courtroom today. While we aren’t here to determine whether the defendant is a good lawyer or not, the defendant lying in this courtroom confirms that they do not care about court rules or procedures.

The only defense the defendant’s lawyer presented was that "excessive" could be less than the number of contempt of court charges made against the defendant. Let’s review: seven contempt of court charges, with almost one in every single case the defendant has worked on.

The defendant not only has seven contempt of court charges but also perjury charges, frivolous court case charges, and has threatened to release information protected by attorney-client privilege.

The defense attempted to state that the RBA was filing this suit for political reasons, but that is simply not true and honestly offensive, as the RBA is doing its best to make progress. The process of disbarring someone is not simple, and the RBA has standards in place to prevent the system from being abused. The ethics committee conducted an investigation (which the defendant wasn’t cooperative with), then voted to determine if disbarment was the right option, and then the RBA council voted, leading to this lawsuit for a judicial officer to decide on. Not only that, but the disbarment caps at two months. What we are asking for in the claims for relief is to educate the defendant more about the law through an RBA class, covered by the RBA, to help them in the future. Our goal here is to help improve the legal community.

Each aspect of this case from start to finish has been straightforward: did the defendant excessively break the law with contempt of court charges? While that is up to this court to decide, I would like to remind this court that each case is different. Evaluating someone's career compared to the number of disbarments is a good idea. If someone has 50 cases under their belt and 7 contempt of court charges, the court and RBA would view it differently than a few cases over one year with a contempt of court charge in almost each one.

Thank you for your time.
 
Thank you, the Defense now has 72 hours to present their Closing Statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honor, may it please the court,

Many of the contempt of court charges were caused by a staff forum ban. Even assuming 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.” These subtle differences demonstrate that my client has not obtained excessive contempt of court charges, only repeated or multiple. The prosecution claims this legal action is out of “necessity,” while in reality, it is only to reinforce the perception that the Redmont Bar Association is all-powerful. No one is being put in danger here; this is a simple case of brute force being exerted upon my client, who has already been subjected to punitive measures by the staff, rendering further punishment null and void. A review of the cases involving my client reveals no intentional disregard for legal protocol, and it is clear the Redmont Bar Association is eager to exert its power over lawyers.

Firstly, the prosecution and the Redmont Bar Association Charter use specific wording. The prosecution refers to “repeated” or “multiple” charges, while the Charter uses “excessive.” It is commonly understood that “excessive” implies more than “repeated” or “multiple.” Without a clear definition of “excessive,” and given that the term generally implies more than “repeated” or “multiple,” the charges against my client do not meet the threshold for disbarment. Additionally, my client has already faced punishment for his actions, and it is speculative to claim he has a “blatant disregard for the law.” Only my client can determine his intentions, and his actions have been appropriately addressed.

The amicus curiae brief submitted to this court offers a comprehensive analysis of the term “excessive,” as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary and the Super Modern Legal Board Act. The brief highlights that “excessive” can mean “exceeding what is right, proportionate, or desirable; immoderate, inordinate, extravagant.” This definition is broad and subjective, requiring a nuanced judicial interpretation. The brief also points out that if “excessive” were interpreted too strictly, nearly every lawyer in Redmont could be disbarred for even a single contempt charge, which is clearly impractical and unjust.

Secondly, the claim regarding my client’s single frivolous court charge does not justify disbarment according to the Redmont Bar Association Charter, which uses the term “excessive.” A single frivolous court charge cannot be considered “excessive.”

Thirdly, seeking punitive damages amounts to double jeopardy. My client has already been punished by staff with a one-hundred-day deportation and is remorseful. Punishing him twice for the same incident is unjust. While some may argue that staff are not part of the government, the constitution recognizes that staff do have government roles and sometimes mix responsibilities, such as punishing behavior. My client has already received appropriate punishment, and he deserves only one penalty for his actions.
Fourthly, the prosecution’s claim that “these are not the actions befitting of an attorney” is irrelevant to the relief sought and is an unfair attack on my client’s character. The prosecution cannot determine my client’s intentions or inclination towards redemption without insight into his mind.

Lastly, there is reasonable doubt regarding my client’s alleged abandonment of his cases. The testimony from the staff team was ambiguous, as they only stated that they didn’t have records of royalsnakee’s forum ban (based on Staff: Insight, there are no records of any forum bans), and it is possible that a staff member, realizing their mistake, unbanned my client. There was no motive for my client to abruptly stop his legal practice, and the dates of the forum ban align with some of the contempt charges, further reducing their number and failing to meet the “excessive” threshold. As the amicus brief points out, if my client’s actions are deemed excessive, it would set a precedent requiring the RBA to investigate and possibly disbar other lawyers with similar histories, which would be an unjust and disproportionate application of the law.

In conclusion, even if my client was not forum-banned and chose to stop his legal practice, the number of charges is insufficient to justify disbarment. Additionally, my client has already been punished by the government (staff) with a one-hundred-day deportation for his actions. This constitutes double jeopardy and diminishes the need for further punitive damages. The Redmont Bar Association is evidently eager for lawsuits, and my client is the victim of an attack designed to belittle him with frivolous claims. The precedent set by this case will have far-reaching effects, and it is crucial that the court considers the implications carefully.

Thank you, your honor.
 
I will be presiding over the remainder of this case.

I will commence a review of the case and follow with a verdict in due time, thank you for your patience
 
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECUSE

Your Honor, I respectfully request that you recuse yourself from this case because you were a witness, responding on behalf of the staff team of which you are a member. This makes you partial to the case. The constitution guarantees an impartial judge, so I ask that you step down from this matter.
 
My apologies for the delay in getting back to you - we've been busy on the courts catching up on cases and making administrative reforms which has eaten up my time.

Had I appeared as a witness in my personal or professional capacity, I would have accepted this motion.

However, due to my appearance as a member of staff (posted from the staff account), I am not satisfied that providing server data on behalf of the staff team warrants impartiality. The questions asked of the staff team and answered by me were to the point, did not offer an opinion, and based on server logs.

The staff team is completely separate to government and therefore I will be denying this motion to recuse.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Redmont Bar Association v. Royalsnakee [2024] FCR 38

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION

  1. The Plaintiff seeks the disbarment of Royalsnakee through the powers vested in it by the Super Modern Legal Board Act. The Plaintiff seeks this legal remedy due to the defendant's failure to meet the ethical and practicing standards set by the SMLBA, RBA charter, and court protocols.

  2. In support of their case, the plaintiff has referenced a number of cases where they claim that the Defendant has violated the law, court procedure, or failed in their representational duties.

  3. The Plaintiff seeks disbarment as necessary to uphold the integrity of the legal system and to impart punitive damages as a deterrence for future misconduct.
II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
  1. The Defence claims that skill should not be a factor in determining this case and argued that the defendant was enthusiastic in representing their clients to the best of their ability.

  2. The Defence contests that there is no clear definition of 'excessive' in law, suggesting that four contempt charges may not qualify as excessive.

  3. The Defence claims that some of the contempt of court charges were a result of staff-related forums access issues - during which the defendant was unable to post anything onto the forums - not intentional disregard for the courts.

  4. The Defence argues that legal action with double jeopardy their client as they have already been punished by staff for their actions, which should nullify any additional punitive damages sought by the prosecution.

  5. That the RBA's pursuit of this case is not for the purposes of addressing genuine legal concerns.

  6. Witness testimony suggests that the defendant was not banned during the period which they claimed.
III. THE COURT OPINION
​
When considering this case, I stepped through a number of legal tests to come to my verdict.​
​
Does the RBA have the power to disbar legal professionals? If so, under what circumstances?​
One of the four legislated duties of the RBA is to ensure the quality of lawyers and disbarring unethical lawyers through lawsuits. Further, in the SMLBA:​
​
(3) The Redmont Bar Association shall be permitted to revoke the practicing license of a lawyer through a lawsuit after an investigation and majority vote of the RBA Council, including the RBA Chairperson. Cause for disbarment are strictly limited to the following:​
  • 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.
I am satisfied that the RBA holds the necessary legal authority to disbar in circumstances where a legal professional is acting in an excessively unbecoming manner which brings disrepute onto the institution and onto the legal fraternity, particularly when this has a negative impact on the clients they are representing.​
​
What is excessive?
The Clarity Act provides that excessive be defined as:​
​
Of qualities, states, actions, magnitudes, etc. Exceeding what is right, proportionate, or desirable; immoderate, inordinate, extravagant.​
​
In determining whether the actions were excessive, I considered the nature of the actions and not only the quantity. In this case, I was satisfied that the defendant's actions were excessive. It has become clear to me that in reviewing the evidence, and during the conduct of this case itself, that the Defendant displayed little remorse or accountability for their actions, their behaviour, and for the law and legal protocol. I was satisfied that the comments made by the plaintiff, including slurs, amounted to an excessive nature and when considered with quantity, were worthy of disbarment under the provisions of the SMLBA.

There are many contextual factors that weigh in on the equal application of the law. While other lawyers may have received numerous charges or infractions while practicing, I am yet to see a collection of evidence exceed the malice and lack of legal principle presented.

On the issue of double jeopardy
I'm not satisfied that staff actions negate legal action.

On the issue of political motivation
The evidence presented and prayers for relief suggest that this is not the case.​
​
IV. DECISION

The Federal Court rules in favor of the Plaintiff with a modified prayer for relief:​
  1. Disbarment of Royalsnakee. The defendant is to be disbarred for a duration of two months from today's date. They will be eligible to take the publicly available legal exams at the end of this period.

  2. Legal training. The defendant must participate in and attend an RBA-led legal course prior to reattempting the exam.

  3. Damages. $5,000 to be paid to the RBA by the defendant for legal fees. I will be imposing nominal damages of $4,000 as well as a deterrent for this behaviour, to be paid to the RBA. I am not satisfied that the RBA as an organisation was harmed by this behaviour, therefore I am not willing to impose punitive damages.
The Federal Court thanks all involved.​

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top