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

[HugeBob]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


tekkovvs (LilDigiVert and hugebob23456 representing)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:



I. PARTIES
1. tekkovvs
2. The Redmont Bar Association Council
3. The Attorney General
4. The Congress
5. LilDigiVert & Friends

II. FACTS
1. The Redmont Bar Association, a state organization, has applied a punishment against the Plaintiff without access to a fair trial.

2. The Redmont Bar Association, a state organization, has applied a punishment against the Plaintiff without opportunity to appeal.

3. While the Redmont Bar Association has provided reasoning for their decision, Plaintiff would like to dispute the reasoning as laughably insufficient (Exhibit A).

4. None of the Redmont Bar Association’s given reasons fall under the expressly codified Terms for Removal (Exhibit B).

5. The Plaintiff did not breach the RBA Ethical Doctrine, and if he did, the burden of proof for such violations falls upon the RBA (Exhibit C).

6. The RBA is given the power to create its own reasons to disbar citizens under the clause “bylaws set by the RBA.” (Exhibit B)

7. The RBA Council and Attorney General continuously disrespected and talked down to the Plaintiff in their line of questioning. This is a trend that has not gone unnoticed in the legal community, and is a larger symptom of the power structure of the RBA. In the status quo, the RBA acts almost as an executive/judicial cartel, existing in a space where it is a state organization but also perceives that it has authority beyond the constitution and extended law (Exhibit D).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Redmont Bar Association applies punishments in violation with the following 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 Redmont Bar Association applies punishments in violation with the following Constitutional Right:

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

3. This is not due to the RBA Council’s breach of the law, but rather the law’s breach of the Constitution. The Legal Board Act creates 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.

4. Of all three of the reasons given for the disbarment, none are codified breaches of conduct that could result in disbarment. 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.

5. The RBA’s ability to create its own rules for disbarment is extralegal. 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.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Legal Board Act be struck down as unconstitutional.

2. The Redmont Bar Association be dissolved.

3. The Plaintiff’s disbarment be overturned as unconstitutional.

4. All other past disbarments be overturned as unconstitutional.

5. $5,000.00 in damages to the Plaintiff for harm to reputation, loss of business, and emotional distress.

V. EVIDENCE

Exhibit A:

Exhibit B:
Act of Congress - Legal Board Act <-- THIS IS A LINK
5 - Terms for Removal
(1) Anyone may be subject to their ability to file a lawsuit for someone else being revoked should they breach the following;
(2) Lawyers must respect attorney-client privilege and cannot reveal information told in private by their client.
(a) Lawyers cannot be held accountable for conspiracy if practising the use of attorney-client privilege; with the exception of being involved in the conspiracy.
(b) Lawyers may break attorney-client privilege should the individual be involved in corruption or pose an imminent threat to the safety of others.
(3) Lawyers must ensure they are providing effective counsel in representing their clients in court.
(4) Lawyers must ensure they are abiding by any other procedure or terms set out by the courts.

Act of Congress - Legal Board Act <-- THIS IS A LINK
4 - Terms for Removal
(1) The additional grounds for which disbarment (terms for removal) should take place will be the following:
a. Committing a crime against a party during a case.
b. Harassment, insultment, and/or intimidation of a party in a case after being warned at least once.
c. All terms for removal listed here are not explicit to the removal or punishment of the legal professions; lawyers will be subject to the ethics doctrine, Legal Board Act, and bylaws set by the RBA.
(2) These additions shall collaborate with the terms under Section V of the Legal Board Act.

Exhibit C: RBA Ethical Doctrine <-- THIS IS A LINK

Exhibit D: RBA-Tekko Interview <-- THIS IS A LINK

Proof of Consent to Represent:

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 5th day of November 2021

 

[Wuutie]

WRIT OF SUMMONS

The Defendant,
@Attorney General, is required to appear before the court in the case of tekkovvs v. The Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures.​

 

[Wuutie]

I am open for an in-game trial. Do both parties like that as well?

 

[HugeBob]

The Plaintiff and their representation have considered this suggestion, and have decided that it is not in our best interests. We believe that an in game trial would run the risk of details being overlooked and records being lost, both of which are potentially dangerous in a trial considering the constitutionality of a bill, especially on the basis of the constitutionally codified rights and freedoms.

 

[Wuutie]

Then we will move on on forum and the Defendant has circa 29 hours left for a response

 

[JoeGamer]

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

Tekkovvs
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
The Defendant moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. This is a frivolous case originating from a fairly disbarred former lawyer with a documented history of filing frivolous cases and providing ineffective counsel. The case was merely filed to harass the Commonwealth and the RBA.
2. Several inaccuracies lie within this case that makes the Plaintiff’s case so disjointed that it cannot be allowed to proceed to trial:

1. The Plaintiff claims the Redmont Bar Association is a state organization. It is actually an independent organization founded by Congress, controlled by the legal board, not the state. It, therefore, is not a state organization and does not have to follow the same procedures a normal state organization does.
2. The Constitution specifies that people have the right to a trial, which the Plaintiff is currently exercising. The Commonwealth is not impeding upon this right, nor are all punishments required to go to trial. If that were the case, the DOJ would not be allowed to fine or arrest anyone without a trial. (See Criminal Jurisdiction Act)
3. The Constitution only guarantees people “the right to life, liberty, and security of the person.” A law license and membership in the RBA is not a Constitutional right and may be taken without 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 Plaintiff claims the punishments cannot be appealed, however, that is untrue as seen in the case AlexanderLove v. The Redmont Bar Association. In that case, AlexanderLove successfully appealed his disbarment, proving it indeed is possible to appeal it, and therefore the Redmont Bar Association is not violating this right. Additionally, the right says, at 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 between tekkovvs and the RBA was fully consensual, voluntary, and informal. “Disrespect” is not illegal nor is it grounds for a case. The RBA does recognize its limitations and did not compel tekkovvs to attend the interview.
7. The RBA did not punish a citizen for a crime. It carried out the powers given to it by the Legal Board Act in the pursuit of regulating the legal profession.

3. Because the case is frivolous in origin, and is riddled with horrendous inaccuracies, the case should be dismissed with prejudice.

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 8th day of November 2021

 

[Wuutie]

Does the Plaintiff like to present a rebuttal?

 

[HugeBob]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REBUTTAL TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Tekkovvs (LilDigiVert and hugebob23456 representing)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

REBUTTAL

For the convenience of the Judge and others reviewing this case, each of our rebuttals to each claim made by the Defendant will use the same numbering system.

1. The Defendant claims that this is a frivolous suit. A frivolous suit is a lawsuit which does not genuinely seek any sort of restitution or modification to law. This lawsuit has requested prayers for relief ranging from revoking an unjust disbarment to striking down a bill as unconstitutional, which certainly disqualifies arguments that this suit is frivolous. It can be reasonably assumed that the Attorney General knows and understands this, and chose to make this claim anyways. The Plaintiff would like to request that the Attorney General be charged with Perjury for this knowingly false claim.

2. The Defendant’s claimed “several inaccuracies” shall be rebutted individually:

1. The Defendant claims that the Redmont Bar Association is not a State organization, but rather an independent organization founded by the Congress. This is inaccurate. The Congress retains the power to alter the Redmont Bar Association in any manner it chooses through a simple Act of Congress, and the Redmont Bar Association is chaired by the Attorney General, a member of the Executive Cabinet that is both confirmed by the Senate and present in the Line of Succession for the Presidency. To claim that the Redmont Bar Association is independent is to say that your local McDonalds is independent.
2. The Defendant is correct in saying that this is a trial, however this is a trial in which the State is being prosecuted. The State chose to forgo a trial in the persecution of the Plaintiff, which has left us with no other alternative than to seek restitution through the Courts. The Defendant also brings up an excellent point in saying that the Criminal Jurisdiction Act outlines which cases go to trial and which do not, and the Plaintiff would like to add that this act also be struck down as unconstitutional as part of our Prayers for Relief, as the Constitution expressly guarantees the right to a trial for all citizens.
3. The constitution guarantees far more than “the right to life, liberty, and security of the person.” The Constitution contains hundreds of other words, guaranteeing the structure of the Government, the relationship between the branches, the powers of the branches, and the rights and freedoms guaranteed to all citizens which may not be abridged by the Government. Even if the Defendant’s inaccurate reading of the Constitution were correct, 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).
4. The Plaintiff refuses to accept that any crime was committed in the absence of a trial. That is unconstitutional, full stop.
5. This point presents an estoppel. In point 4, the Defendant cites a specific law that the Plaintiff had allegedly violated, but in point 5 the Defendant claims that the Plaintiff was never charged with violating a law. Either the State has charged the Plaintiff with violating the law in absence of a trial, or the State restricted a citizen’s guaranteed right to Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person in absence of any violation of law. Furthermore, AlexanderLove v. The Redmont Bar Association was a case in which an individual sued the State for a violation of rights, it was NOT an appeal. An appeal would require there to have been some prior trial in the Courts for which the decision would need to be appealed.
6. While the interview may not have been mandatory, the Plaintiff was informed that the interview may result in reinstatement, and therefore was blackmailed into attending the interview out of fear that their livelihood would be stripped from them without a fair trial. While the word “mandatory” was not used, to say that the interview was attended consensually is misleading.
7. The Plaintiff does not allege that what the Redmont Bar Association did was outside the scope of powers that were granted to it by the Legal Board Act, the Plaintiff is instead alleging that the powers granted to it by the Legal Board Act are outside the bounds of what is legal under the Constitution. The Plaintiff would be willing to accept an outcome in which the Redmont Bar Association is not dissolved, but clauses of the Legal Board Act which grant power to the Redmont Bar Association to enact punishments without due process and to codify its own requirements for the legal profession be struck as well as all past punishments being overturned.

3. I have above debunked each and every point in which the Defendant has claimed this case is inaccurate or frivolous in nature. At the very least, this case should be argued formally in Court.

ADDITIONS TO PRAYERS FOR RELIEF

1. The Criminal Jurisdiction Act be struck as unconstitutional

REQUESTED CHARGES AGAINST DEFENDANT

1. One count of Perjury

Furthermore, while we respect that this Motion to Dismiss was filed within the allotted timeframe, we would like to request that the Defendant be more expedient throughout the remainder of this case. While we would appreciate the win, a default judgement is not good for the Commonwealth in the context of a constitutional case.

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 8th day of November 2021

 

[HugeBob]

While the Plaintiff retains the floor, I would like to submit the following screenshot as evidence:

This is relevant because the Defendant has claimed that the Redmont Bar Association is not a State organization, and yet the State is making binding decisions within the organization without authorization from the internal leadership. Even if the Redmont Bar Association were originally intended to function independent of the State, the Attorney General does not abide by or otherwise respect those intentions, and the Redmont Bar Association certainly operates as a State organization in practice.

 

[JoeGamer]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION

Tekkovvs (LilDigiVert and hugebob23456 representing)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

OBJECTION

Your honor,
The plaintiff has claimed that the Attorney General chairs the Redmont Bar Association. This is simply untrue. In §8.2 of the Legal Board Act, it details the following: "(2) The Chairman of the DC Bar Association shall be elected by the board every two months." The Redmont Bar Association Chairman is elected through a vote led by the Attorney General.

In The Commonwealth of Redmont (Sumomc Prosecuting) Vs. itzRazubi [Case no. 13-07-2021], former justice Matthew100x upheld the constitutionally of Criminal Jurisdiction Act with his verdict.
This Case is dismissed because the Court does not have jurisdiction due to the Amend the Criminal Jurisdiction Act, "The Court shall have jurisdiction over all summary and indictable offenses, alongside all DEC offenses, whereby a fine of over $500, or jail time of over 30 minutes is imposed, subjection to subsection 3."
REQUESTED CHARGES AGAINST PLAINTIFF
1. One count of Perjury

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.

 

[HugeBob]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION

Tekkovvs (LilDigiVert and hugebob23456 representing)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

OBJECTION

While the Defendant has accurately objected that the Redmont Bar Association is meant to be chaired by an elected Board, the evidence I have submitted in my rebuttal clearly demonstrates that the Attorney General, in practice, chairs the Redmont Bar Association. Whoever makes final, binding decisions is in charge, and that person is the Attorney General. My McDonalds comparison stands.

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.

 

[Wuutie]

Both objections will be denied. Also, the motion to dismiss will be denied because of the fact that this is a matter that needs to be put forward and can't be dismissed because of the reasons given. We will now proceed with the opening statement of the Plaintiff.

 

[Wuutie]

The Plaintiff has 24 hours to post his opening statement.

 

[HugeBob]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


tekkovvs (LilDigiVert and hugebob23456 representing)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth
Defendant

OPENING STATEMENT

It is the opinion of the Plaintiff that we have sufficiently made our case in our Complaint. This case will ultimately be decided on whether the RBA is a state organization or truly independent. While we recognize that the RBA was originally intended to function independent of the State, it is our opinion that this vision was never realized.

The organization may be, at any time, amended or fully abolished by the Government through a single Act of Congress. This is not the case for independent organizations such as non-profits and companies. The Government created the RBA, which is similarly not the case for independent organizations. The Government has codified a set of internal governance rules and powers for the organization, which is not the case for independent organizations. The Attorney General, a Cabinet level official that is subject to Senate Confirmation and Impeachment, while originally meant to hold strictly organizational powers, broadly uses their powers to influence the day to day operations of the RBA long after its initial organization.

We believe this is made abundantly clear by the evidence we have presented thus far and would like to call a witness forward to elaborate on their experience within the RBA. But even if the RBA weren't a state organization, to say that the constitutionally guaranteed rights are only protected from persecution by the Government would give private corporations BROAD powers to simply ignore the Constitution.

WITNESSES

Bubba_Tea_

QUESTIONS FOR WITNESSES

1. If any, what is your role within the RBA?

2. Do you believe that, regardless of the legality of such a move, that the Attorney General could, in practice, make binding decisions on behalf of the RBA?

3. To the best of your knowledge, has the Attorney General made such decisions in the past? If so, please be specific.

4. Do you believe that the Congress could amend or dissolve the RBA through a simple Act of Congress?

5. Would it be fair to say that the Town of Aventura is more functionally independent from the Federal Government than the RBA?

6. In your opinion, do independent organizations have the power or authority to deny a lawful citizen from any of the rights expressly codified within the Constitution?

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. The Legal Board Act be struck down as unconstitutional

2. The Redmont Bar Association be dissolved

3. The Plaintiffs disbarment be overturned as unconstitutional

4. All other past disbarments be overturned as unconstitutional

5. $5,000.00 in damages

6. The Criminal Jurisdiction Act be struck down as unconstitutional

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 10th day of November 2021

 

[Wuutie]

The Defendant may present his opening statement within 72 hours please.

 

[JoeGamer]

You honor,

I request an additional 12 hours, as family from out of town came earlier than expected not giving adequate time to finish the opening statement

 

[Wuutie]

I will grant the extension

 

[JoeGamer]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT


tekkovvs (LilDigiVert and hugebob23456 representing)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth
Defendant

OPENING STATEMENT

Your honor, opposing counsel,

This is a case of radicalization for revenge. The Plaintiff, tekkovvs, was fairly disbarred by the Redmont Bar Association (RBA) for constantly filing frivolous and joke cases in Court, ignoring the RBA’s and Court’s formal warning, and offering ineffective counsel to the Canadian Union. However, the crux of this case lies in the constitutionality of the Legal Board Act. To begin, the Plaintiff is asking for an unreasonable prayer for relief: the Court cannot be asked to strike down an entire law when only certain clauses of it are in question for constitutionality. The Constitution lists many rights, however, the right to practice law is not one of them. Life, Liberty, and Security of Person can be obtained in ways other than practicing law. Liberty comes with balance as seen in the other laws. No person has the liberty to commit crimes. No person should have the liberty to abuse the Judicial system. Life and Security of Person, the Plaintiff would argue that law is necessary to make a wage in order to be fed and sheltered, however many other professions are available for this purpose. The Government does not need to provide all professions to everyone to guarantee this right is met. The revocation of a practicing license is not a legal punishment, but rather a method for remediating wrong-doing 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. Lastly, the Plaintiff cannot prove the damages. Emotional distress is just an excuse to raise the price tag, and there is no proof of loss of business or harm to reputation. In fact, the public seems to be very supportive and attentive of the Plaintiff. Asking for a strikedown of the Legal Board Act and for the RBA to be dissolved is extreme. Radicalization for revenge.
Thank you.

 

[Wuutie]

Please list all your witnesses within 48 hours. If you have none let The Court as well. When no post is posted within 48 hours we will move on without it.

 

[LilDigiVert]

(Is that directed towards just Joe or us as well?)

 

[Wuutie]

Sorry to not make that clear, this is towards both parties. Just want a list or no list.

 

[HugeBob]

The Plaintiff wishes to call the following witnesses, as we made known in our Opening Statement:

Bubba_Tea_

And we would like to ask the following questions:

1. If any, what is your role within the RBA?

2. Do you believe that, regardless of the legality of such a move, that the Attorney General could, in practice, make binding decisions on behalf of the RBA?

3. To the best of your knowledge, has the Attorney General made such decisions in the past? If so, please be specific.

4. Do you believe that the Congress could amend or dissolve the RBA through a simple Act of Congress?

5. Would it be fair to say that the Town of Aventura is more functionally independent from the Federal Government than the RBA?

6. In your opinion, do independent organizations have the power or authority to deny a lawful citizen from any of the rights expressly codified within the Constitution?

 

[Wuutie]

The Defendant failed to list his witnesses in time so we move on.

 

[Wuutie]

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

@bubbarc is hereby summoned to the Federal Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in Case No. 11-2021-05 as witnesses. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions from the Plaintiff and may also be cross-examined.

I would ask that the Defence provides a list of all the questions they want answered by each witness in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. When the Defence is ready, they may post questions to the witness.

I am hereby informing each witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies, pursuant of the Perjury Act.

Once the witnesses have been questioned, the opposing party will have the opportunity to cross-examine.​

 

[bubbarc]

Your honor I am present and have reviewed the case.

 

[Wuutie]

The questions of the Plaintiff are listed before summon.

 

[bubbarc]

1. I am the chairman of the Journal Committee in the RBA

2. The Attorney General has enough of an influence over the execution of the RBA's bylaws that, while not necessarily legal, he could in theory override a decision of the RBA council

3. Yes, in case No. 10-2021-02, AlexanderLove v. The Attorney General he has indeed used this power

4. Yes, easily, it has been done so in the past several times, one wouldn't have to look far in the act to find an amendment

5. As a member of Aventura's assembly I believe so, the Attorney General has near direct oversight over the RBA, whereas the Secretary of State usually leaves the town to it's own devices

6. No, I do not feel any organizations should or do have the power to deny someone their rights

 

[HugeBob]

Your honor,

May we move to closing statements?

 

[Wuutie]

The Defense will have a chance to list questions for the witness first. Attorney General @JoeGamer got 36 hours to present a list.

 

[JoeGamer]

Your honor,

State Prosecutor Alexander Love will take over for the duration of this case.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, I will have a list within the allotted time. Bear with me as I am familiarizing myself with the case. I, however, noticed that the defense did not call witnesses possibly in the midst of this transition. I wish to call Drew_Hall, Admin23, ItzBananaMuffin, and Aladeen21 to the stand however to testify as witnesses. Questioning can happen seamlessly and concurrently with cross examination so I wouldn’t think it would be a burden on the Court. Thank you.

 

[HugeBob]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION

Tekkovvs (LilDigiVert and hugebob23456 representing)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

OBJECTION

Your honor,
The Defendant had ample opportunity to call witnesses and failed to do so in a timely manner. For them to present questions to the witnesses already summoned would be perfectly acceptable, however the Defendant willingly chose not to call witnesses when given the opportunity to do so. Both parties were given 48 hours to call witnesses and the Defendant's attempt to call witnesses after 96 hours is preposterous. Under no circumstances should this be an acceptable practice, we urge the Judge to enforce their own well established deadlines. The Defendant clearly has no respect for the Court of Law, and certainly not for this specific lawsuit as they have demonstrated a lack of urgency time and time again. This is a strategy to actively delay the lawsuit and cannot be allowed to continue.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION

Tekkovvs (LilDigiVert and hugebob23456 representing)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

OBJECTION

Your honor,
The Defendant had ample opportunity to call witnesses and failed to do so in a timely manner. For them to present questions to the witnesses already summoned would be perfectly acceptable, however the Defendant willingly chose not to call witnesses when given the opportunity to do so. Both parties were given 48 hours to call witnesses and the Defendant's attempt to call witnesses after 96 hours is preposterous. Under no circumstances should this be an acceptable practice, we urge the Judge to enforce their own well established deadlines. The Defendant clearly has no respect for the Court of Law, and certainly not for this specific lawsuit as they have demonstrated a lack of urgency time and time again. This is a strategy to actively delay the lawsuit and cannot be allowed to continue.

Objection your honor, this is an invalid objection pursuant to the objections guide, so I am objecting on the grounds of Court Procedure. I am not breaching court procedure by requesting these witnesses be called. In fact, I am actually within procedure as I am the defendant and am supposed to be allowed to call witnesses after the Plaintiff. Additionally, there was a change in counsel, which, per precedent, past Courts have demonstrated there is a necessity for leniency towards. I ask that you grant my request and overrule opposing counsel’s improper objection. I also ask the Court to remind the Plaintiff that this is not the place for slanderous assumptions as made in the last two sentences of the Plaintiff’s objection. Thank you.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

1. I am the chairman of the Journal Committee in the RBA

2. The Attorney General has enough of an influence over the execution of the RBA's bylaws that, while not necessarily legal, he could in theory override a decision of the RBA council

3. Yes, in case No. 10-2021-02, AlexanderLove v. The Attorney General he has indeed used this power

4. Yes, easily, it has been done so in the past several times, one wouldn't have to look far in the act to find an amendment

5. As a member of Aventura's assembly I believe so, the Attorney General has near direct oversight over the RBA, whereas the Secretary of State usually leaves the town to it's own devices

6. No, I do not feel any organizations should or do have the power to deny someone their rights

Your honor, I object to parts of this testimony as follows:

1) Relevance - The Defense fails to see how his role within the RBA is relevant to this case.
2) Perjury - Pursuant to AlexanderLove v. The RBA, which the witness is clearly familiar with as he cites it later, it is proven that the Attorney General CANNOT override a decision of the RBA council. This would be like saying that “the Vice President can in theory override a decision of the Senate“ which is untrue, and impeachable if the VP tried something like that. The Attorney General would suffer a similar outcome due to the binding precedent of this case. As the witness is a former Judge and is familiar with the case, he clearly knows this and intentionally is trying to mislead the Court by manipulating facts. I move to impeach the witness.
3) Perjury - It is a proven fact that from this case, the AG does not have any sort of “power” to do anything. Framing the answer in this way is intentionally misleading. I move to impeach the witness.
4) Relevance - The power of Congress to amend or repeal a law is not relevant to this case.
5) Relevance, Narrative and Speculation - The Town of Aventura has nothing to do with this case. Additionally, the witness gave more testimony and fact than the question called for. Finally, the witness has no basis for claiming that the Attorney General has “near direct oversight over the RBA” making the entire statement speculation.
6) Relevance and Opinion - This question is irrelevant to the case as a single person’s opinion offers no factual evidence.

I thus ask that the witness’s testimony is struck from the record.

 

[HugeBob]

Your honor, I object to parts of this testimony as follows:

1) Relevance - The Defense fails to see how his role within the RBA is relevant to this case.
2) Perjury - Pursuant to AlexanderLove v. The RBA, which the witness is clearly familiar with as he cites it later, it is proven that the Attorney General CANNOT override a decision of the RBA council. This would be like saying that “the Vice President can in theory override a decision of the Senate“ which is untrue, and impeachable if the VP tried something like that. The Attorney General would suffer a similar outcome due to the binding precedent of this case. As the witness is a former Judge and is familiar with the case, he clearly knows this and intentionally is trying to mislead the Court by manipulating facts. I move to impeach the witness.
3) Perjury - It is a proven fact that from this case, the AG does not have any sort of “power” to do anything. Framing the answer in this way is intentionally misleading. I move to impeach the witness.
4) Relevance - The power of Congress to amend or repeal a law is not relevant to this case.
5) Relevance, Narrative and Speculation - The Town of Aventura has nothing to do with this case. Additionally, the witness gave more testimony and fact than the question called for. Finally, the witness has no basis for claiming that the Attorney General has “near direct oversight over the RBA” making the entire statement speculation.
6) Relevance and Opinion - This question is irrelevant to the case as a single person’s opinion offers no factual evidence.

1) The witness's role within the RBA is used to establish that the witness is qualified to give testimony on the internal workings of the RBA. It would be improper of the Plaintiff to call forward a witness that holds no position within the RBA and ask them to answer questions about the functions of the RBA.

2) This question very clearly stated that we were not asking the witness about the legality of the AG's powers to intervene in the RBA, as stated verbatim in our line of questioning. There exist two types of power, hard power and soft power. Hard power relates to an individual's legal authority that has been expressly codified, and which they wield under protection of the law. Soft power refers to an individual's ability to do something whether it be in disregard of the law or through other individuals who do hold the hard power to do something. The question posed to the witness was inquiring upon the AG's soft power within the RBA with intent to bring light to the fact that the AG does have, at least in practice, the ability to command the direction of the RBA.

3) You cannot "move to impeach the witness", that isn't what impeachment is nor is it something that you as a state prosecutor can do... I would say that the RBA should look into disbarring this prosecutor for ineffective counsel, however seeing as this prosecutor is the chairman of the RBA I find that to be an unlikely outcome. The line between the AG's office and the RBA blurs further.

4) The point made by this question was to establish that the State holds all final authority over the RBA. This is to demonstrate that it cannot be reasonably argued that the State both has 100% control over all final matters of the RBA down to how it functions internally, while simultaneously asserting that the organization is somehow independent of the State.

5) The relevance of this question was to establish that another organization, in this case the Town of Aventura, which is undoubtedly a State organization, holds a greater degree of independence from the Federal Government than the RBA. To claim that the Town of Aventura is not independent but the RBA is independent is a logical fallacy.

6) If the Defendant is willing to publicly on this thread make the claim that independent organizations such as corporations have the authority to deny lawful citizens from their constitutionally guaranteed rights, I will yield this point. I dare you.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

You cannot "move to impeach the witness", that isn't what impeachment is nor is it something that you as a state prosecutor can do... I would say that the RBA should look into disbarring this prosecutor for ineffective counsel, however seeing as this prosecutor is the chairman of the RBA I find that to be an unlikely outcome. The line between the AG's office and the RBA blurs further.

Objection your honor, on the grounds of a breach of Court procedure:

The Plaintiff spoke out of turn for the entire rebuttal. One cannot respond to an objection without permission. Furthermore, this comment, in response to the third point, is a personal attack and erroneous in origin. “Impeaching the witness” in Court terminology means something different than impeaching in a Government sense. The Objections Guide even mentions impeaching the witness is a possibility in a Court sense. Impeachment of a witness is defined as: “the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a trial.” I move to strike the Plaintiff’s rebuttal from the record and have his counsel fined for contempt of Court.

 

[HugeBob]

Your honor, this is an invalid objection pursuant to the objections guide. I am not breaching court procedure by requesting these witnesses be called. In fact, I am actually within procedure as I am the defendant and am supposed to be allowed to call witnesses after the Plaintiff. Additionally, there was a change in counsel, which, per precedent, past Courts have demonstrated there is a necessity for leniency towards. I ask that you grant my request and overrule opposing counsel’s improper objection. I also ask the Court to remind the Plaintiff that this is not the place for slanderous assumptions as made in the last two sentences of the Plaintiff’s objection. Thank you.

Yea, because you waited for permission before responding to my objection ;-;

As much as I have enjoyed this bickering, the Plaintiff will await the Judge for further instruction.

 

[Wuutie]

ORDER! If anyone talks! I will found you in contempt! Dont just post whatever you want when I’m away/asleep! Give me some time to review all of this.

 

[Wuutie]

Both the State Prosecutor AlexanderLove and the Plaintiff's Council Hugebob are found in Contempt of Court with talking in Court without permission. Both will pay a fine of $250.

 

[Wuutie]

Objection your honor, this is an invalid objection pursuant to the objections guide, so I am objecting on the grounds of Court Procedure. I am not breaching court procedure by requesting these witnesses be called. In fact, I am actually within procedure as I am the defendant and am supposed to be allowed to call witnesses after the Plaintiff. Additionally, there was a change in counsel, which, per precedent, past Courts have demonstrated there is a necessity for leniency towards. I ask that you grant my request and overrule opposing counsel’s improper objection. I also ask the Court to remind the Plaintiff that this is not the place for slanderous assumptions as made in the last two sentences of the Plaintiff’s objection. Thank you.

Overruled, objection was clear to me.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION

Tekkovvs (LilDigiVert and hugebob23456 representing)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

OBJECTION

Your honor,
The Defendant had ample opportunity to call witnesses and failed to do so in a timely manner. For them to present questions to the witnesses already summoned would be perfectly acceptable, however the Defendant willingly chose not to call witnesses when given the opportunity to do so. Both parties were given 48 hours to call witnesses and the Defendant's attempt to call witnesses after 96 hours is preposterous. Under no circumstances should this be an acceptable practice, we urge the Judge to enforce their own well established deadlines. The Defendant clearly has no respect for the Court of Law, and certainly not for this specific lawsuit as they have demonstrated a lack of urgency time and time again. This is a strategy to actively delay the lawsuit and cannot be allowed to continue.

Overruled, but I understand the situation of the Plaintiff so I will limit the time for the Defendant's responses in the future of this trial. There was a change of Councils so The Court has shown in the past respect to this situation and gave them an extension.

Your honor, I will have a list within the allotted time. Bear with me as I am familiarizing myself with the case. I, however, noticed that the defense did not call witnesses possibly in the midst of this transition. I wish to call Drew_Hall, Admin23, ItzBananaMuffin, and Aladeen21 to the stand however to testify as witnesses. Questioning can happen seamlessly and concurrently with cross examination so I wouldn’t think it would be a burden on the Court. Thank you.

The witnesses will be called to trial after the Plaintiff's witness is dismissed from this case. You will when called 24 hours to list your questions, if not listed in the allocated time, we move on without it.

 

[Wuutie]

Objection your honor, on the grounds of a breach of Court procedure:

The Plaintiff spoke out of turn for the entire rebuttal. One cannot respond to an objection without permission. Furthermore, this comment, in response to the third point, is a personal attack and erroneous in origin. “Impeaching the witness” in Court terminology means something different than impeaching in a Government sense. The Objections Guide even mentions impeaching the witness is a possibility in a Court sense. Impeachment of a witness is defined as: “the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a trial.” I move to strike the Plaintiff’s rebuttal from the record and have his counsel fined for contempt of Court.

Overruled

 

[Wuutie]

Your honor, I object to parts of this testimony as follows:

1) Relevance - The Defense fails to see how his role within the RBA is relevant to this case.
2) Perjury - Pursuant to AlexanderLove v. The RBA, which the witness is clearly familiar with as he cites it later, it is proven that the Attorney General CANNOT override a decision of the RBA council. This would be like saying that “the Vice President can in theory override a decision of the Senate“ which is untrue, and impeachable if the VP tried something like that. The Attorney General would suffer a similar outcome due to the binding precedent of this case. As the witness is a former Judge and is familiar with the case, he clearly knows this and intentionally is trying to mislead the Court by manipulating facts. I move to impeach the witness.
3) Perjury - It is a proven fact that from this case, the AG does not have any sort of “power” to do anything. Framing the answer in this way is intentionally misleading. I move to impeach the witness.
4) Relevance - The power of Congress to amend or repeal a law is not relevant to this case.
5) Relevance, Narrative and Speculation - The Town of Aventura has nothing to do with this case. Additionally, the witness gave more testimony and fact than the question called for. Finally, the witness has no basis for claiming that the Attorney General has “near direct oversight over the RBA” making the entire statement speculation.
6) Relevance and Opinion - This question is irrelevant to the case as a single person’s opinion offers no factual evidence.

I thus ask that the witness’s testimony is struck from the record.

1) Overruled this was indeed to set precedent for the next questions.
2) Overruled, this question was about influence and the witness did not say the AG can overrule the Council.
3) Granted, the answer was misleading and will be struck off the record. Impeachment is overruled.
4) Overruled, for me, this is important for a possible verdict outcome.
5) Granted, this is not relevant to this case at all. Aventura is a town, the RBA is an association.
6) Granted, no relevance to this case. But I agree that any lawful citizen can't be denied of their constitutional rights. If this would be the case, The Court will interfere.

 

[Wuutie]

I want now to continue this case but any move out of order will be punished severely. If I don't ask your statement or rebuttal, you don't answer. An objection can be filed any time after a statement was filed. I ask the State Prosecutor for their questions on the witness, @bubbarc .

 

[Alexander P. Love]

---

Bubba,

1) Isn’t it true that the Journal Committee Chairman is not really involved with the inner workings of the RBA?
2) Isn’t it true that the Attorney General cannot legally hold power over the RBA except in the initial organization of the board?
3) Isn’t it true that, as a lawyer, you could find other means to obtain money besides law?
4) Isn’t it true you see value in the RBA as an institution?
5) Isn’t it true that the RBA does far more than disbarment, including education and documentation?
6) Isn’t it true that these other responsibilities of the RBA certainly do not infringe upon anyone’s rights?
7) Isn’t it true that people get sent to jail and fined often without a trial?
8) Isn’t it true that, as a former Judge, if you had to preside over every single criminal case, and every criminal had to stand trial, that you’d feel overwhelmed and the Court would be far too packed with cases as several crimes are committed daily and handled by the DOJ?
9) As a former Judge, how would you handle a “lawyer” who continually and habitually made joke cases and overall disrespected the Court?

 

[bubbarc]

1. Yes
2. Legally no, however the plaintiff's questions were not based on legality
3. Not working as a lawyer, which is most lawyers' livelihood
4. I feel that the RBA has some value, but is easily replaceable and overly bureaucratic, further I fail to see the value behind denying somebody their right to an unbiased judge
5. Yes, while they do most of the committees and their chairmen change from month to month and don't really have a clear path to their goal
6. I feel it infringes upon people's right to a trial by an unbiased judge
7. Yes, while this does happen there is a constitutional appeals system
8. I fail to see the relevance to my testimony, the example of the DOJ falls short at sample size, there are three lawsuits per month at most which can be dismissed with ease, that being said yes, the courts would be overwhelmed
9. Briefly review the case, if it was obviously a joke dismiss the case and fine the plaintiff

 

[bubbarc]

8. ... there are three lawsuits per month at most...

Small clarification, I meant joke lawsuits not lawsuits in general

 

[Wuutie]

Thank you BubbaRC, you are dismissed from the case now.

 

[Wuutie]

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

@drew_hall , @Aladeen , @ItzBananaMuffin and @Admin23 are hereby summoned to the Federal Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in Case No. 11-2021-05 as witnesses. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions from the Plaintiff and may also be cross-examined.

I would ask that the Defence provides a list of all the questions they want answered by each witness in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. When the Defence is ready, they may post questions to the witness.

I am hereby informing each witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies, pursuant of the Perjury Act.

Once the witnesses have been questioned, the opposing party will have the opportunity to cross-examine.​

 

[Wuutie]

When all witnesses have answered, the State Prosecutor will have 24 hours to list his questions.

 

[Banana]

Your Honor, I am present and have familiarized myself with the case