Lawsuit: Adjourned tekkovvs v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] FCR 114

Status
Not open for further replies.
Your honor, I am present.
 
I’m present, your Honor.
 
Your honor, I am present
 
I will proceed to questioning and hope that Drew appears soon:

1) Why did you vote to disbar Tekkovvs (if you were not in favor of the motion, put N/A for this question)?
2) Do you feel, as a leader within the legal field, that filing joke and frivolous lawsuits is ineffective counsel?
3) What are some other notable purposes/accomplishments within the RBA that aren't related to disbarment?
4) Following up on question three, do you feel the RBA has a broader mission than just disbarring people?
5) Do any of these other purposes contain a hint of rights violations?
6) Do you feel, as a lawyer, that you could find another job and make an income if you were disbarred?
7) Do you feel that it is a Constitutional right to have the ability to practice law?
8) The Constitution states "IX. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge." As a legal expert, while this clause citizens have the right to a trial, does it say that ALL punishments MUST go to trial?
9) Culminating all of your answers from the above, do you still feel that disbarment is Constitutional?
 
1. I voted to disbar tekkovvs due to his previous warning in court for frivolous lawsuits, his previous warning from the Bar for his misconduct. I did not think reversing his disbarral was necessary due to his lack of quality answers during the Council hearing.
2. Absolutely I do. It’s an abuse of the court system that makes a mockery of everyone in the legal field, especially himself, the judge, and the opposing counsel. Jokes are fine in the Minecraft setting, but the court system is meant to be the serious argument of law.
3. Compiling legal documents for easy access and educating lawyers on how to conduct themselves. The current RBA administration has been attempting to set up an education system for lawyers so that disbarrals are less common.
4. Absolutely. The RBA is meant to guide and govern. Not just punish.
5. No, they don’t. Everything is above board and is carried out as it should be. Nothing the RBA has done is unconstitutional. There’s as much of a hint of unconstitutionality from Congress establishing laws and governing Redmont as the RBA Council establishes rules and bylaws for governing the lawyers of Redmont.
6. Yes, I could. I’m a brewer and could make money off of supplying alcohol to people. Or I could find a different job if that turns out to be unprofitable.
7. It is not any more a constitutional right to practice law than to farm a field. Both are professions that you have to be qualified to carry out. If you take a quick gander at the constitution, nowhere does it guarantee the right of anyone to practice law.
8. No, it does not. Congress would be stripped of their right to impeach if it was applied this way. For the functional working of the Commonwealth to continue, it may not be interpreted in that way.
9. Yep.
 
1) After talks with the Council, it was shown there had been previous warnings for the behavior they continued.
2) Filing lawsuits as a joke is, in my opinion, legal malpractice and makes a circus of the court.
3) The RBA offers a great deal. We’re arguably the most transparent association within the server alongside offering resources to new and accomplish attorneys. The RBA serves much more purpose than just disbarments.
4) I believe disbarments represent only a tiny portion of the good this association offers.
5) They do not. They offer services geared towards further education within the legal field and a movement to complete transparency. No rights are violated by offering such.
6) The server is full of different opportunities to make money. Should it be builder, supplier, business owner, etc. a disbarment only serves to the improvement of the legal field, but should not prevent someone from income given the options the server grants.
7) There is no right to practice law. The right to pursue practicing law is there, but to abuse a position for laughs is not a right.
8) It does not. Should that be the case then every arrest would go to trial, yet they do not.
9) Yes. Disbarments are not only constitutional but necessary to protect the sanctity and legitimacy of the profession. Should there be no checks there would be an awful backup in the courts from frivolous cases, further demeaning those filed with a purpose.
 
Your honor wasn't I dismissed from the trial?
 
Yes you were, My apologies. Aladeen won't be attending this trial because of personal matters. He informed the Court of his problems. I dismiss him from this case. The only witness that needs to answer is @ItzBananaMuffin
 
@ItzBananaMuffin is found in contempt. He did not answer in the allocated time. I order the DoJ to fine him $250. This will rise to jail time if he does not appear within 36 hours.
 
Your Honor, I apologize for my absence, I had something come up with family that took me away from my computer for most of the past few days.
In answer to the questions,
1. As I stated in my vote for disbarment, I believed Tekkovv's actions to be unacceptable, especially given that he was warned prior to this incident for the same type of behavior.

2. Yes, I do feel that filing joke lawsuits is ineffective counsel.

3. I am unsure of the wording of this question, but I assume you mean benefits of its existence, and I will answer as such. I believe that it forms a useful organization for new and aspiring lawyers to find information about the legal career while also serving as a forum to moderate the field.

4. My answer to question 3 answers this as well, I do believe there is a broader purpose.

5. None of the other undisputed purposes contain any rights violations, however I would like to note that I believe this is in part because they provide information, as opposed to being purely interactive.

6. I would be able to make an income if I were disbarred, however it would not be at the same level.

7. I do not recall the Constitution providing for the right to practice law, no.

8. I interpret this clause to mean that if a citizen desires, a punishment must go to trial. I believe that any organization, either quasi- or entirely State controlled, holds the right to issue punishments. However, the recipient of the punishment should be able to challenge said organization to prove beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law the cause for this punishment. If it were not this way, every organization would essentially be a sovereign nation able to issue any punishments with no chance for fair, Constitutional treatment.

8. I feel that disbarment is Constitutional, but only provided that the accused have access to a method of challenging the disbarment in a court of law.
 
The Plaintiff may proceed with his questions.
 
Questions for all 3. Sorry for the amount of questions I'm asking I had a little too much free time on my flight today

1. For what specific term for removal in the Legal Board Act did you vote to disbar tekkovvs on?

2. Does the RBA define what "effective counsel" is anywhere in any of its resources?

3. If the answer to the above question is "no", why do you believe the RBA should decide what is "effective counsel" instead of a lawyer's client?

4. Seeing that there are two members of the upcoming RBA council that were elected with one (1) vote, and under a dozen votes were cast in total, do you believe the RBA fairly represents all of Redmont's lawyers?

5. Being the apparent face of the legal profession and enforcer of ethics within the field, do you believe that the RBA's council members have an obligation to act professionally towards other lawyers in public and private?

6. Seeing that the RBA enforces the ethical code, do you believe that a lack of professionalism from the RBA and its council would hurt its reputation?

For questions #7 and #8, The RBA Ethical Doctrine Outlines:

The doctrine is the pathing stone to set the ethical code that should be practiced by lawyers. This helps improve the standards of how we should represent our clients and also conduct our legal profession in the highest manner.
Click to expand...

7. Do you believe that the RBA is well-represented and promotes "our legal profession in the highest manner" when its chairman makes statements like these in public?

1637812963720.png


8. Do you believe that the RBA is well-represented and promotes "our legal profession in the highest manner" when a council member makes statements like these in an RBA-sanctioned interview setting?

OA0VA2htleCvPSEv6YrZ8IBbp5j_jaSlg2u2V0pOtExLv6wtU1RPsogqrySItp6yv6KGoNQJrWJCl676GUejVxEUBiRh4qIxiAG7jFpb5bHGEL44QVz6xxqkzsr6XOTlPOBxf1oR
KQm7X7hRp7pz4a6dhGT3plYoPtPUXt8HAe13YjUrGWATl-XJfHERIuCZhAjKVNKPtVedWn90wIhn9MJlMYeuBo1qJAi4oxuIWRDKSrMwYyQO28MksVVguqbbgDHprOnVH2gu7vya

9. The RBA ethical doctrine outlines:

The council must never share conversation made by current or former council members to the public due to the interest in council privilege.

If a council member does breach the council privilege they should automatically be removed by the AG with an appeal that can be made through the ticket system and if the judgement is still one of breach of this duty then they shall never be allowed to run for a council or chairman election again.
Click to expand...
With this, would you agree that the RBA council violated its own doctrine in making its council chat public?

10. Under clause XIII under the constitution's "Rights and Freedoms" section does it not say everybody has equal benefit to the law?

11. Would the ability to file a lawsuit not be considered to be a benefit of the law which should be granted equally?

12. Can you name an instance in Redmont's history (other than the RBA) where Congress has given legislative powers to another entity?

13. In Admin23's answer, they write "There’s as much of a hint of unconstitutionality from Congress establishing laws and governing Redmont as the RBA Council establishes rules and bylaws for governing the lawyers of Redmont." This comparison is interesting because draws a parallel between the legislative branch and an alleged non-governmental, independent and autonomous organization. Do you believe that the RBA is truly independent from the state?

14. The Legal Board Act Outlines:

The RBA shall be required to post a statement of justification for the disbarment/suspension of any member, along with all pertaining evidence, within 3 days (72 hours) of the disbarment.
Click to expand...

Why did the RBA not post all pertaining evidence within 3 days of the disbarment, including any mention of previous warnings applied to tekkovvs and the "discussion with council members" (mentioned in the next question)?

15. Do you believe the first two vote justifications are sufficient enough to inform the public on the RBA's decision to revoke tekkovvs' practicing license?

1637815951013.png


Context for questions #16-17: In the past, cases such as Concerned Citizens v. xEndeavore and Canadian Union v. Vanquish_AP happened with judges hearing and engaging in cases that were conducted in a light-hearted manner (although the plaintiff would still argue that there is nothing funny about discrimination).

16. Did the RBA immediately warn, investigate or disbar any lawyers involved in either of these cases?

17. If judges have shown a willingness to hear cases of this nature in the past, why do you believe including humor in the nature of cases is grounds to disbar a lawyer?


That's all from me :)

EDIT: Question 6 wasn't written completely, my fault.
 
Last edited:
Objections, your honor.

Question 4 - Relevance
Question 5 - Relevance, as professionalism towards Tekkovvs is not a matter of debate and leads to no charge
Question 6 - Relevance, the RBA's reputation is not a factor of this case
Question 7 - Hearsay, the statement is out of court and is made by an individual, and the statement is not asserted by the RBA nor made in its capacity
Question 8 - Hearsay, the statement is out of court, and Relevance, Admin23's statement there, while arguably questionable, is not pinnacle in this case
Question 9 - False Statements, as the doctrine is referring to individuals leaking private chats
Question 10 - Perjury, the Constitution says "of the law" and not "to the law." This semantic, while subtle, is critical to the case as the Plaintiff will attempt to claim that "to the law" is synonymous with the right to practice law when the right's actual meaning is that all citizens are protected equally under the law
Question 12 - Relevance
Question 13 - Hearsay
Question 14 - Perjury, the RBA did indeed post all justifications and applicable evidence (there was none that was already not publicly available, and they made mention of the frivolous cases). The discussion with council members is not required as it is discussion, not evidence used to reach a verdict
Question 15 - Relevance, the degree of sufficiency is not something these witnesses can speak to nor is it relevant to the case; the RBA posted justification. The law does not say that it must post a strong degree of justification, but rather that justification shall be posted period
Question 16 - Speculation, this last RBA does not necessarily know what previous RBAs did nor are the actions of past RBAs relevant, as we are speaking about this most recent RBA term
Question 17 - Speculation, the Plaintiff is asserting that the witnesses believe that humor is grounds to disbar a lawyer. This is an exaggeration. The disbarment was made because of repeated frivolous court cases despite past warnings. Humor was not the reason
 
Your honor, may I offer a rebuttal to these objections? I believe I can offer sufficient context and justification for asking each of the questions the Defendant objected to.
 
You can give a rebuttal.
 
REBUTTAL

4. Relevant. This case is about the constitutionality of the Legal Board Act and the extralegal powers of the RBA. The disbarment of the plaintiff is also being debated. This question is directly related to arguments made in Facts 1, 6 and 7 & Prayer for Relief 5. The Defendant asked questions about the inner-workings and work the RBA does and was permitted to do so, so it is only fair that we are able to as well.

5. Relevant. This case has explored how the extralegal powers of the RBA has harmed the plaintiff through Prayer for Relief 5. The make-up and professionalism of the RBA council is also essential to answering questions asked in the third Claim for Relief. The Defendant asked questions about the inner-workings and work the RBA does and was permitted to do so, so it is only fair that we are able to as well.

6. Relevant. Related to Prayer for Relief 5 and Claim for Relief 3. The reputation of the RBA is also key for the judge to answer Prayer for Relief 2. The Defendant asked questions about the inner-workings and work the RBA does and was permitted to do so, so it is only fair that we are able to as well.

7. Not hearsay. This screenshot was taken in the RBA discord's general lawyer chat and includes the chairman's comments towards another group of lawyers. The Chairman of the RBA within the RBA discord is very much an implied representative of the RBA, if not explicit. I would argue that these comments were made "in its capacity". No challenges were made to the relevance of this question. The Plaintiff would like to request that the Defendant be charged with Perjury for this knowingly false claim.

1637851181456.png

8. Not Hearsay. These statements were made during an interview where the Plaintiff was told he could answer some questions to have his punishment reduced; a central piece of evidence (that was provided in the original filing, i was just trying to not make yall go back and find it) to the arguments made about the appeal process. This questionable is also uniquely relevant to this case. See Fact 7, Claim for Relief 1, and Prayer for Relief 5. Even then, "Hearsay is permitted if the statement in question is evidence of a person’s reputation or character, or is an admission by the opposing party."

9. True statement. Please read the ethical doctrine (linked for your convenience), it does not mention nor imply personal conversations. The Plaintiff would like to request that the Defendant be charged with Perjury for this knowingly false claim.

10. These are the same. We can change the word "to" to "of" in the question if it's that big of a deal, although we would contend that the meaning does not really change.

12. This directly relevant to literally the entire case lol. A key argument of the plaintiff is that the Legal Board Act gives the RBA (unconstitutional) extralegal and extrajudicial powers that no other independent organization enjoys.

13. This statement was made literally 8 messages prior in this very courtroom. Even then, "Hearsay is permitted if the statement in question is evidence of a person’s reputation or character, or is an admission by the opposing party." As there has been debate over whether the RBA is a state organization or independent, this is potentially an important admission that must be clarified.

14. The RBA council did not include evidence or mention of previous warnings (a screenshot offered to the plaintiff in a private interview setting, NOT made publicly available like the Defendant claims in their objection) in the motion voting process or announcement, and 2/3 did not give a substantive justification in the voting alone. Furthermore, The first two votes in the screenshot provided did not mention frivolous cases at all. Are we looking at the same screenshot? The Plaintiff would like to request that the Defendant be charged with Perjury for this knowingly false claim.

15. The witnesses quite literally are the ones who provided the justifications for the RBA council votes (or lack thereof). Almost exclusively applicable for them to answer. This is also relevant because it speaks to the RBA's disbarment process, which is a pretty big part of this case.

16. The Legal Board Act and RBA existed before the current council, and precedent is important in evaluating the RBA's unconstitutional disbarment process. The objections guide says, "Expert witnesses who testify to provide particular knowledge are usually given greater exemption from" speculation objections; the RBA council would know if anyone. Instead of assuming the individual witnesses/RBA council do not know, we should give them an opportunity to answer. If they don't know, they can say that in an answer.

17. "despite past warnings" is not given in the justifications outlined by the RBA. The cases offered as example are arguably more "frivolous" (the donut v end one is quite the fun read). Furthermore, multiple members of the RBA council (who are also our witnesses) have implied that cases made in a humorous nature (not general humor in the courtroom) are unacceptable in the interview and their answers to the previous line of questioning.
 
For question 4: Overruled
Question 5: Overruled
Question 6: Granted
Question 7: Granted
Question 8: Granted
Question 9: Overruled and Overruled!
Question 10: Overruled
Question 12: Granted
Question 13: I will overrule this but I just want to know the real question and not what was said before so: Do you believe that the RBA is truly independent from the state?
Question 14: Overruled
Question 15: Overruled, important to the case
Question 16: Overruled, if you don't know please refrain from answering or if you are not 100% sure about it.
Question 17: Granted

The witnesses don't need to answer following questions: 7,8,12,17
 
1. I voted to disbar tekkovvs based on this:

“During the execution of the function, the lawyer is obliged to protect the reputation of the Court, the administrative bodies and other social bodies where he represents his client.”

Although I cannot speak on behalf of anyone else.

2. Not that I can recall, but I did not vote to disbar tekkovvs based on that, so I see this as irrelevant for myself.

3. I think that the RBA Council is elected by other lawyers for their abilities, so I would trust the Council more than the average lawyer, but I do not believe anyone to be God and be above fault. Mistakes are bound to occur, but from what I have witnessed, this is not a mistake from the Council.

4. Short of forcing lawyers to vote by threat of fines or jail time, there’s not much of a way to get higher voter participation. This isn’t the Council’s fault, but rather the fault of lawyers. They have the right to vote yet do not exercise such right.

5. I don’t know how “professional” is defined here, but I would say it depends. Outside of court, jokes are allowed, personal opinions are allowed, etc. Council members are not censored like judges.

6. No.

9. No, I do not. Council conversations may be disclosed if the Council decides it is okay to do so. That is meant for the protection of the Council if they discuss private matters, but the Council had decided that the Council chat and Council floor were not private matters. This clause is meant for individual Council members, or former Council members, disclosing conversations, not the Council as an institution.

10. It does.

11. No, it should not. We already have a problem with frivolous cases being filed, hence why we’re here in court today. If we had everyone open to this ability, court would be chaos.

13. No, unfortunately, I do not believe the RBA is an independent entity. It would be fantastic if the RBA was independent of government interference, but alas, the law does not dictate this to be true.

The constitution is set on a system of separation of powers and checks and balances. Congress is the legislative body in which laws are created for the governing of players. No other branch of government may do this. Congress has created the Redmont Bar Association, and thus delegates a part of Congress’, and only Congress’, power. Congress may not delegated Executive powers or Judicial powers. The RBA has done its duty under Congress. Congress has set out to govern lawyers and their actions by way of the RBA, and the RBA has done that. The judicial system may intervene in the actions of the RBA due to the systems of checks and balances set out above. This trial is a way to appeal congressional actions. The RBA as an institution is not unconstitutional, but it is fitting within its bounds. The legal definition of a court trial (as we have no jury trials in DC) is:

“A trial in which the judge decides factual as well as legal questions, and makes the final judgment.”

The definition of a trial is:

“A judicial examination of issues of fact or law for the purpose of determining the rights of the parties involved.”

Under these definitions, the RBA cannot have a trial due to the fact that it is not an entity under the Judicial system. Although the RBA does have the ability to interview, investigate, and disbar when needed. Disbarral is much like congressional impeachment, although it is for lawyers and not for government officials.

14. There was an announcement of disbarment and all evidence was publicly available. The interview did not add anything of substance which could even be perceived as evidence due to the fact that tekkovvs had not given anything to the Council which would change any minds either direction.

15. This question is misleading. I’m not an attorney representing either side so I will not present evidence but there was a discussion between Council members which came to the conclusion that there were two motions needed. The first being to disbar tekkovvs, and then remove tekkovvs’ practicing license. The removal of tekkovvs’ practicing license was to secure tekkovvs from abusing the court system with frivolous cases and to prevent any loopholes in the Council’s decision from being exploited. The two motions would effectively disbar tekkovvs, so both motion records should be presented instead of merely the second one.

16. I understand that the judge has stated we don’t have to answer if we don’t know here, and I’m not 100% sure, but I have an answer typed out if that’s necessary.
 
Last edited:
1. I also voted to disbar based on the following:

“During the execution of the function, the lawyer is obliged to protect the reputation of the Court, the administrative bodies and other social bodies where he represents his client."
I believe that filing joking lawsuits harms both the reputation of the lawyer's client as well as the Court. This is because the Court is thus reduced to the venue of a circus, instead of an establishment of justice.

2. I do not believe it does, to the best of my knowledge.

3. I believe that as the RBA serves as the major organization of the legal community, it would be absurd to propose that no standards of quality be upheld by it. There is a clear delineation between proper etiquette and improper. Furthermore, sir, per my answer to question 1, I believe that the misuse of the legal profession also harms the reputation of the Court, and is thus not just limited to the client's discretion.

4. I believe that low voter turnout is not the fault of the Council, and should not be held as such. If there were a low turnout for a Congressional or Presidential election, that Congress's laws would not be thrown out because of the voter turnout.

5. I believe that Council members should behave civilly when acting in an official function, and in that context alone. Private conversations do not need to be held to the same standard, but I think that when performing official duties I do my personal best to uphold the standard of professionalism.

6. I believe this objection was granted, so I will not answer. If I am mistaken please correct me.

9. No, I do not believe it would violate that since the Council itself voted to make the conversations public. Also, the change did not and does not apply retroactively, so no protected Council conversations were revealed.

10. Yes, it does.

11. No, it should not. At least not in the Federal Court, where the initial frivolous lawsuit was filed. The Court is a place to take things seriously, and so there should be at least some regulation to prevent the abuse of its functions.

13. I believe that the RBA is semi-independent from the State, as upheld many times in the Court.

14. The announcement was made through an official record of motions, and I cannot imagine what more one would want. There are reasons outlined in the justifications for voting, and the evidence was publicly available, since the Court, at least in my experience, is not an inaccessible site.

15. To the first one, I do believe it is appropriate as it is accurate, but I think that a little more insight could be wanting in the explanation. To the second one, it refers to a private conversation regarding the need for two motions, and as such I do not believe that it is sufficient for the purpose of explaining why tekkovv's license was revoked.

16. I am not sure, since I do not believe I was on the RBA Council at the time when either of the suits in question were filed.
 
Admin23 said:
1. I voted to disbar tekkovvs based on this:

“During the execution of the function, the lawyer is obliged to protect the reputation of the Court, the administrative bodies and other social bodies where he represents his client.”

Although I cannot speak on behalf of anyone else.

2. Not that I can recall, but I did not vote to disbar tekkovvs based on that, so I see this as irrelevant for myself.

3. I think that the RBA Council is elected by other lawyers for their abilities, so I would trust the Council more than the average lawyer, but I do not believe anyone to be God and be above fault. Mistakes are bound to occur, but from what I have witnessed, this is not a mistake from the Council.

4. Short of forcing lawyers to vote by threat of fines or jail time, there’s not much of a way to get higher voter participation. This isn’t the Council’s fault, but rather the fault of lawyers. They have the right to vote yet do not exercise such right.

5. I don’t know how “professional” is defined here, but I would say it depends. Outside of court, jokes are allowed, personal opinions are allowed, etc. Council members are not censored like judges.

6. This is so poorly written that I cannot understand what you mean and I cannot answer your question properly.

9. No, I do not. Council conversations may be disclosed if the Council decides it is okay to do so. That is meant for the protection of the Council if they discuss private matters, but the Council had decided that the Council chat and Council floor were not private matters. This clause is meant for individual Council members, or former Council members, disclosing conversations, not the Council as an institution.

10. It does.

11. No, it should not. We already have a problem with frivolous cases being filed, hence why we’re here in court today. If we had everyone open to this ability, court would be chaos.

13. No, unfortunately, I do not believe the RBA is an independent entity. It would be fantastic if the RBA was independent of government interference, but alas, the law does not dictate this to be true.

The constitution is set on a system of separation of powers and checks and balances. Congress is the legislative body in which laws are created for the governing of players. No other branch of government may do this. Congress has created the Redmont Bar Association, and thus delegates a part of Congress’, and only Congress’, power. Congress may not delegated Executive powers or Judicial powers. The RBA has done its duty under Congress. Congress has set out to govern lawyers and their actions by way of the RBA, and the RBA has done that. The judicial system may intervene in the actions of the RBA due to the systems of checks and balances set out above. This trial is a way to appeal congressional actions. The RBA as an institution is not unconstitutional, but it is fitting within its bounds. The legal definition of a court trial (as we have no jury trials in DC) is:

“A trial in which the judge decides factual as well as legal questions, and makes the final judgment.”

The definition of a trial is:

“A judicial examination of issues of fact or law for the purpose of determining the rights of the parties involved.”

Under these definitions, the RBA cannot have a trial due to the fact that it is not an entity under the Judicial system. Although the RBA does have the ability to interview, investigate, and disbar when needed. Disbarral is much like congressional impeachment, although it is for lawyers and not for government officials.

14. There was an announcement of disbarment and all evidence was publicly available. The interview did not add anything of substance which could even be perceived as evidence due to the fact that tekkovvs had not given anything to the Council which would change any minds either direction.

15. This question is misleading. I’m not an attorney representing either side so I will not present evidence but there was a discussion between Council members which came to the conclusion that there were two motions needed. The first being to disbar tekkovvs, and then remove tekkovvs’ practicing license. The removal of tekkovvs’ practicing license was to secure tekkovvs from abusing the court system with frivolous cases and to prevent any loopholes in the Council’s decision from being exploited. The two motions would effectively disbar tekkovvs, so both motion records should be presented instead of merely the second one.

16. I understand that the judge has stated we don’t have to answer if we don’t know here, and I’m not 100% sure, but I have an answer typed out if that’s necessary.
Click to expand...
(My apologies for #6, I edited my reply and bolded the words that I forgot to add if you choose to go back and answer it)
 
I edited my response accordingly.
 
#1- "During the execution of the function, the lawyer is obliged to protect the reputation of the Court, the administrative bodies and other social bodies where he represents his client."

In my opinion this was not shown by the Plaintiff

#2- To my knowledge it does not.

#3- I believe effective counsel is accordance to the direct quote provided in my answer to Question 1.

#4- In my opinion I believe 14 votes for Chairman and 11 for Council is actually great. RBA has undergone a re-verification process recently to weed out inactive members. Given this, I believe the turnout was nice and that the people have spoken as to who they wish to represent them and the profession they work for.

#5- When acting in an official capacity I do believe Council and Chairman should act professionally. In conversations outside of an official capacity I believe Council can act how they please.

#9- I do not believe we did. Should it be anything confidential, like investigations or interviews, there is a non-public chat Council we will use. Making chats public was a point of public interest as well as a sentiment shared throughout Council. In an effort for transparency the Council voted to make our chats public. No topics discussed in Council chat are confidential because, as stated previously, there are non-public channels dedicated towards that. Along with this there was no public release of any past conversations of Council. I would like to add as well that this was done at the request of not only Council and the public, but a member of the Plaintiff's legal counsel as well, so, in my opinion and view, this was an attempted set-up to have the RBA to potentially violate in order to bring up in this lawsuit. It was an item in the agenda, but the fact a member of the Plaintiff's legal counsel suggested this only to have it brought up as a violation is questionable and, I believe, a nefarious motive to try and add a point to an already mediocre lawsuit filed in vengeance over personal feelings of the association.

#10- Yes

#11- I personally do not believe this. If that were the case exams should not exist to become a legal field professional as they grant the ability to represent others. A case could be made that personal representation is a right, but an ability to represent others or organizations is not.

#13- The RBA is a quasi-government organization. This is a precedent that has been upheld in the past in court throughout lawsuits against this association.

#14- In the Announcements channel there was an explanation given as to why the disbarment and removal of ability to practice law had taken place.

#15- Although the explanation given by myself could have had more insight I do believe it is a sufficient explanation of my reason for my vote as the announcement would give a detailed explanation of what transpired in those conversations. As to the second one I do not believe it is sufficient because it is in reference to private chats that would not have been brought up in our public announcement.

#16- I cannot answer to these questions because I was elected after these had taken place.
 
Then all witnesses have answered and I thank them for their time and patience. Does either party want to list new evidence? This is your last chance.
 
No, your honor.
 
The Plaintiff has no further evidence to submit.
 
We move on to closing statements then, I request the Plaintiff to present his closing statement within 48 hours.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

tekkovvs (LilDigiVert and hugebob23456 representing)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth
Defendant

Your honor,

Throughout this case we have explored and deliberated the legality and implications of a multitude of actions, organizations, and laws. Regardless of how you rule, this will be a landmark case in the right to trial and the right to appeal. It also decides the fate and the future of the Redmont Bar Association, the longest standing organization created and administered by the Federal Government in Redmont's history.

Everything discussed in this case was created with the best of intentions. The Legal Board Act created the Redmont Bar Association to encourage engagement in the legal profession, disbarments were created as a non-criminal punishment for poor legal representation, and the Criminal Jurisdiction Act was designed to not overburden the one Judge we had at the time.

But we've come a long way from those original ambitions. The Redmont Bar Association recently closed its board elections with fewer than 10 total votes, most lawyers don't know that the RBA exists and certainly are not present in the organization's Discord server. The RBA's public defender program has proven to be lackluster time and time again, and lawyers are almost exclusively given legal education after they've already passed the exams. Disbarment serves as a political tool to punish those that the RBA disagrees with, it is used liberally and in absence of justification. While the RBA is required to provide justification for disbarments, it is not required to provide "good" or "proper" justification, a distinction that they abuse regularly. The Criminal Jurisdiction Act creates a State where the accused are sent to prison on accusation. No trial, no jury, no judge, no verdict. The constitution was created with the right to a fair trial to prevent the State from making unfair or simply falsified arrests against the general public, and this Act not only gives the State the power to make arrests without trial, but mandates that arrests of a certain nature shall not go to trial.

Your honor, please take the time to review our complaint and opening statement again before your verdict for a more in depth examination of our perspective. For your convenience, a brief look at each Prayer for Relief and a summarization of our overall Claim for Relief can be found below. Thank you.

1. The Legal Board Act be struck down as unconstitutional.
As we have demonstrated thoroughly, the Legal Board Act created an organization with express powers in violation of the Citizen's Rights and Freedoms codified within our constitution, specifically rights IV and IX. To say that a law is unconstitutional is to say that it is incompatible with the constitution, and the Legal Board Act certainly fulfills that definition.

2. The Redmont Bar Association be dissolved.
The Redmont Bar Association has violated the constitutional rights of the Citizens. Whether the group be independent as the Defendant would argue, or an extension of the State as the Plaintiff would argue, there should not exist any organization, especially one created and maintained by the State, whose regular functions include the violation of rights.

3. The Plaintiff’s disbarment be overturned as unconstitutional.
The Plaintiff had a punishment applied to them without a fair trial and without opportunity to appeal by an organization that may not even be apart of the State. This has affected their livelihood as they have been unable to practice law, and therefore unable to earn a living, for the entire duration of this drawn out lawsuit.

4. All other past disbarments be overturned as unconstitutional.
Not only the Plaintiff today, but all previous disbarments were conducted on the same unconstitutional grounds and must be overturned in the interest of preserving the rights of man, and the freedom to seek security in one's self.

5. $5,000.00 in damages to the Plaintiff for harm to reputation, loss of business, and emotional distress.
For the entire duration of this case, the Plaintiff has been unable to practice law. This has resulted in a loss of revenue and, should the Courts find that the disbarment was unjust, it would only be fair that the Defendant compensate the Plaintiff for the damage caused to their personal financial stability.

6. The Criminal Jurisdiction Act be struck down as unconstitutional
The Criminal Jurisdiction Act, as demonstrated, codifies that certain crimes are to be handled by the Courts and certain crimes are not. The constitution clearly states that all citizens have the right to a fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge, and this piece of legislation is in direct violation with this right. How this law has remained in effect for so long is beyond me but it is time that we correct this error.

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 29th day of November 2021
 
Last edited:
The Defendant may present his closing statement within 48 hours as well.
 
May it please the Court,

Your honor, opposing counsel, this is a case of radicalization for revenge. The Plaintiff, Tekkovvs, is angry that he was lawfully disbarred and is searching for radical methods to evade his punishment. Under the Legal Board Act, he was lawfully disbarred for ineffective counsel and breaching the ethics doctrine. These facts were made clear between the evidence presented by both sides, both in the form of material and testimonial evidence. Let me begin by correcting a statement of the Plaintiff:

The Redmont Bar Association recently closed its special board election with more than 20 total votes (11 more than the Plaintiff would allege!), and most active lawyers know that the RBA exists and certainly are present in the organization's Discord server. The RBA's public defender program has given a current magistrate their starting legal experience and offered a defense to those who cannot afford to help themselves, and lawyers are provided legal education after they've already passed the exams as an effective attorney needs to learn far more skills than just what is covered on the exam. Disbarment serves as a method to discipline those that abuse their trust and privilege as a lawyer, it is used infrequently (only four times in history!) and with justification.

Let us remember who I am. I am AlexanderLove, a formerly disbarred attorney. Now I am the RBA's Chairman. I, of all people, know what it is like to be disbarred abusively. I successfully appealed it in Court, by exercising my right to a trial and won. There is a process for getting one's license back unless the punishment is deserved. The only reason Tekkovvs is attempting to shut down the RBA is because he knows he was disbarred fairly. He cannot attack the disbarment directly as it was warranted. His only resort is to try and claim that ALL disbarments are unconstitutional. So let us address that.

The Criminal Sentencing Act and other laws that provide for extrajudicial punishments are necessary as to not overburden the Court. The Department of Justice arrests several people daily. Imagine if several criminal trials were filed in the District and Federal Courts daily. The Judges already have nearly full dockets. Now, this issue aside, let us remember the privilege to practice law is just that. It is a privilege earned by taking the legal exams. If it were a right, these exams would not be necessary for the practice of law. Taking away one's privilege to practice law does not impinge upon their security of person nor life as they can find other jobs. Several lawyers on the stand testified that they could make a living from their side gig or just simply find a new job. Additionally, the Plaintiff misinterpreted one of the rights. "Equal benefit of the law" means that all citizens won't be discriminated against and that all laws apply to all citizens. For example, all murderers must be punished in the manner prescribed under law. The DOJ cannot fine one murderer $50 and another $100 for their first offense. This would be unequal. The right does NOT give everyone the right to practice law. Furthermore, the right to a trial exists whether it is before or after the punishment. The Constitution just guarantees the right to a trial. It does NOT say that a trial is necessary for a punishment to be issued first. The Plaintiff is appealing his charge in Court as we speak. Therefore he has been given his right to appeal and the RBA is not in violation of that right.

The Plaintiff claims the Legal Board Act should be struck from the law. This is obviously extreme as the only piece in question references disbarments. The existence of the RBA and all other non-disbarment-related matters have no unconstitutionality within them. The Plaintiff not only failed to prove how any part of the Legal Board Act was unconstitutional, but did not even attempt to prove this for the parts that do not mention disbarment. Therefore, the whole law in its entirety cannot be struck even if disbarments are ruled unconstitutional. Therefore, the defense asks that the Court do not consider dissolving the RBA. Whether or not it can disbar people, it existing is Constitutional.

The Plaintiff is asking for monetary damages. Not only is mental distress exaggerated, the Plaintiff failed to prove any loss in clients or reputation. In fact, his reputation seems to be well in-tact given his popularity on the server and the fact he represents the people in the Congress of Redmont. Furthermore, precedent was set in AlexanderLove v. The Redmont Bar Association. "The Court believes that the compensation requested is unreasonable because the Redmont Bar Association is an entity outside the government that has no specific budget, and no way to make any money without government aid or donations, the Redmont Bar Association simply cannot cover the compensation requested." This should still hold true today.

The Criminal Sentencing Act says that by default, some citizens will be jailed immediately. This does not strip them of their right to a trial. They may seek a trial in which they can sue the DOJ for a false arrest, as seen numerous times throughout judicial history. This right remains whether the DOJ or RBA hands out a punishment. The right, again, ONLY specifies that a person may have a speedy and fair trial. It does NOT say that a trial is necessary for a punishment to be carried out.

Remember, this is a case asking for radical requests, motivated by revenge and spite. Radicalization for revenge. The defense asks that this Court be adjourned in favor of the Commonwealth, and that none of the prayers for relief are granted due to their extreme and erroneous nature. The defense has presented a preponderance of the evidence in this case: we have proved each of the Plaintiff's claims to be incorrect.

Thank you.
 
Thank you both parties for their closing statements in time. I will now consider a verdict, but this will take time because of the massive amount of points touched in this case. I hope to post it within 2-3 weeks.
 

Verdict


IN THE COURT OF COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

Case No. 11-2021-05-01

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1) The RBA applied a punishment to the Defendant without the opportunity for an appeal and without a trial to begin with. They violate hereby the Constitutional Right: IX. Any Citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge.
2) The reasoning of the removal of the Defendant is not sufficient and does not follow any of the reasons for removal, this written under Terms of Removal in the Legal Board Act. The RBA has applied a punishment to a citizen for a crime that they did not commit, for which there was no trial, and they cannot appeal.
3) The Plaintiff did not breach the RBA Ethical Doctrine.
4) The Redmont Bar Association applies punishments in violation of the following Constitutional Right: IV. All accused are entitled to appeal a charge made against them by the state.
5) The RBA is given too much power to control what reasons they can use to disbar citizens under the clause: “Bylaws set by the RBA”
6) Furthermore, is the RBA became more a judicial/executive cartel, where it's still a state organization but perceives to have power beyond the constitution and extended law. This is mainly because of the Legal Board Act which is poorly written with too much authority given to the RBA Council itself.
7) The RBA’s ability to create its own rules for disbarment is extra-legal. All legislative power is vested in the Legislature, and no law can grant any other entity Legislative authority, therefore making the Legal Board Act more unconstitutional.
8) Possession of a law license for a Lawyer would certainly be an essential part of pursuing Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person as it provides their entire means to practice their line of work (liberty) and earn a living (life and security).


II. DEFENDANT’S POSITION
1) The RBA is an independent organization founded by Congress and handles under the Legal Board Act. So this is why the RBA does not have to follow the same procedures as a normal state organization does.
2) The Constitution tells that every citizen has the right to a trial, the Plaintiff is exercising this so the Commonwealth of Redmont is not impeding on his Constitutional rights.
3) The law license given by the RBA to the lawyers is not a Constitutional right and may be taken away due process.
4) The Redmont Bar Association had proper justification for the disbarment of tekkovvs. The Legal Board Act §5.3 and §5.4 were both breached by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed informal and frivolous suits on behalf of the same client numerous times, even after being warned by the Court and the Redmont Bar Association. This is the very definition of ineffective counsel and failing to abide by Court procedures and terms.
5) The right for appealing was not violated since the Plaintiff can appeal the decision through a Court like in Case No. 07-2021-06, AlexanderLove v. The Redmont Bar Association. This proves that any citizen can appeal the decision made. Additionally, the right says, in the end, “a charge made against them by the state.” As stated before, the RBA is not a state organization, nor did it ‘charge’ tekkovvs with any crime.
6) The interview was consensual, voluntary, and informal. This is not grounds for a trial.
7) The revocation of a practicing license is not a legal punishment, but rather a method for remediating wrongdoing under the law. It does not physically take away a person’s property or freedom. It takes away a privilege granted by the Government in the first place. Therefore, the entire Legal Board Act and disbarments are indeed constitutional.
8) This case is fully based on revenge The Plaintiff is angry that he got lawfully disbarred and is searching for radical methods to avoid punishment.
9) A precedent was set in AlexanderLove v. The Redmont Bar Association. "The Court believes that the compensation requested is unreasonable because the Redmont Bar Association is an entity outside the government that has no specific budget, and no way to make any money without government aid or donations, the Redmont Bar Association simply cannot cover the compensation requested.

III. COURT’S OPINION

First of all, I will have divided all parts of this trial: Was Tekkovvs’ disbarment justified? , Does the RBA commit violations against the Constitution by disbarring people and giving lawyer licenses? Are other disbarments unconstitutional? , Conclusion

Was Tekkov’s disbarment justified?

When looking at this specific topic we/The Court needs to ask me if the RBA violated any acts made by Congress, this means the Legal Board Act. In this specific act, there are some reasons set up as potential reasons for disbarring people. The Court specifically looks at sections 5.3 and 5.4. The Court will start with 5.3, the means of effective counsel in representing their clients in Court is that they must do the best what they can do in Court, this means in front of a person of the Judiciary. Also, does this means that he can need to give a good council in advising his clients on what to do next? This means go to Court or leave it. Since the burden of proof lies at the RBA, they failed to provide any evidence he did. Then we need to find the cases he presided over: [Case No. 11-2021-04], [Case No. 07-2021-23], [Case No. 06-2021-21], etc. This shows a history of frivolous cases but all the representation to their Clients: Canadian Union, Church of Pablo, … shows that the Plaintiff, tekkovvs, did represent their clients well in Court. So this point was not met and to conclude this is not a reason for the disbarment of tekkovvs. Furthermore, point 5.4 of the Legal Board Act does obligate the Council to follow the procedures or terms set by Court. We need to see at the terms set by the Courts. The Court is a vital institution in ensuring proper and effective justice. Therefore, there are some strict laws about how, when, and why to take action in the courthouse. One of the terms set out is filing frivolous court cases. Since a warning was issued by the RBA and since then not following the rules of the Courthouse (this in case No. 11-2021-04 and the appeal at the Supreme Court that was denied because of not having a license) the RBA is in his full right to disbar the Plaintiff following the Legal Board Act. However, since the case could not be appealed and the fight that the case was not frivolous, point 5.4 was not met. If the RBA waited until the Supreme Court answered on the Appeal of case No. 11-2021-04 and it was rejected. Point 5.4 would be met. Also was this the case that was put as precedent in the disbarment of the Plaintiff. In a conclusion, no point of Terms of Removal in the Legal Board Act was met even though he has a past of making frivolous court cases. The RBA issued a warning instead of disbarment. So Tekkovvs disbarment is unjustified.

Does the RBA commit any violations against the Constitution by disbarring people and giving lawyer licenses?

I want to list the rights and laws of the Constitution the Court will discuss during this section:

- Constitutional right IX: Any Citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge.

- Constitutional right IV: All accused are entitled to appeal a charge made against them by the state.

- XIV. Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

- The Legal Board Act created a system of extrajudicial punishments that are not presided over by an impartial Judge, and such punishments are permanent and cannot be appealed. This is an unconstitutional breach of rights.

The Court would like to express that it will always defend the rights and laws of the Constitution. If we need to find out that the RBA is a violation of the Constitutional right IX, we need to look at what happened. The Plaintiff got disbarred and could not appeal this decision within the RBA but needs to go through Court to fight this decision. The question the Court needs to ask himself is if disbarring a person of the bar is a case for trial in the first instance. The Court based this simply on the fact if the RBA falls under the term: a government organization, Is disbarring people the same as firing people of a business or government, and is having a license of great importance in practicing the job? The Court follows the ruling of Case No. 07-2021-06 as it states: "The Court believes that the compensation requested is unreasonable because the Redmont Bar Association is an entity outside the government that has no specific budget, and no way to make any money without government aid or donations.” This means that the RBA is not an actual government organization, but the government does support the RBA. Also, the Court finds the RBA not in the business field as well. This explains that licenses are another category than “hiring”. But are those licenses justified? The License is to prove to everyone is an educated lawyer but cannot be seen as something you need to have for practicing law. The RBA does not have the power to obligate the following: having a license is mandatory otherwise you cannot practice law. The Court can express they only want people with a license filing and defending in a specific Court whatsoever. However, the fact that disbarring people can be done when such rules are implemented by the Court – which happens now – gives the RBA’s council a position it cannot have. They rule over someone’s life and are not qualified to do this job, this is in violation of constitutional rights IX. and XIV. The Court agrees with the Defendant that not all punishments need to go to trial. The impact of disbarring a lawyer of the RBA is too big on the lawyer itself and the RBA’s Council is not qualified for such decisions. The Court follows the plea: possession of a law license for a Lawyer would certainly be an essential part of pursuing Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person as it provides their entire means to practice their line of work (liberty) and earn a living (life and security); because of this, a person of the Judiciary needs to handle such cases. The Court considered that they can get a living without the license by doing another job, but this is taking away the liberty and taking away their living in the legal field. However, giving licenses can be done by the Council of the RBA. The Court finds that such decisions need to be taken by a person of the Judiciary, that’s why the Court advice making another position within the Judiciary that handles all the possible disbarments. The RBA is however not in violation of the Constitutional right IV. because this decision could be appealed. To conclude, the Court finds the RBA in violation of Constitutional right IX and is threatening Constitutional right XIV when potentially disbarring people without giving the Defendant a fair trial. The Legal Board Act must be rewritten or deleted. The RBA has multiple goals and not only for licenses. Therefore the destruction of the RBA is off-limits.

Are the other disbarments unconstitutional?
Since all the disbarments of the past have specific reasons and different reasons the Court can’t rule that all disbarments need to be struck off the record. The Court gives the people disbarred the opportunity to fight this decision in the Courts.

Conclusion
Tekkovvs needs to be given back the license under special conditions. This is because the Court finds him not in violation of any of the terms set by the Legal Board Act. The reasoning you can find in point a. The License proves that you are a valid lawyer to the people and the Court wants to keep it that way. Any misstep in the future may be seen as a violation of the Court rules and his license can be taken away.
The RBA has the qualities and can give licenses to the lawyers that deserve it, but they can’t disbar people. This is otherwise in violation of Constitutional Rights IX and XIV. Congress or the Chief of Justice will need to find a new method to rule over such decisions.
I also would like to point out that the Plaintiff added a prayer for relief in his closing statement. The Court will not take this into account because filed too late and this was not the case for it. This is about the Criminal Jurisdiction Act and not about the RBA.

IV. VERDICT

I hereby rule in favor of the Plaintiff.

I order the following:

1)Legal Board Act needs to be struck or rewritten as soon as possible
2)Tekkovvs needs to get his license back
3 The RBA cannot judge over a potential disbarment of a lawyer with a license.

The Court asks that the procedure of this case will not be repeated in future cases. This was an absolute mess and will not be tolerated again.

The Court thanks each party for his time. This case is now adjourned.

 
I want to clarify: deleting means to me: A complete rewrite under a different name. Apologies for confusion and message.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top