Lawsuit: Adjourned The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Alexanderlove [2024] FCR 116

[ko531]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Criminal Action


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution


v.


AlexanderLove
Defendant

COMPLAINT
Alexanderlove has been lose with the law for a while. As shown by the evidence of this case Alex has talked about committing legal fraud in the event that he gets disbarred. He has a policy in his law firm that will lead to a conflict of interest and he has failed to recuse from a motion to disbar him and has nayed the motion in hopes his vote leads to the motion failing which would be corruption if Alexander succeeds. Alexander has to be held accountable his conspiracies to commit multiple crimes before these conspiracies become offical criminal acts.


I. PARTIES

1. The Commonwealth of Redmont (Prosecution)
2. Alexanderlove (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. Dragon law has a policy stating "A person holding a lower package may be sued by us on behalf of someone with a higher package"
2. Dragon law has different retainer packages where the higher packages have less conflicts of interests
3. Alexander on Jul 23rd talked about ghost writing as a lawyer in the event he gets disbarred
4. Alexander on Aug 5th talked about ghost writing as a lawyer in the event he gets disbarred
5. On Aug 5th Alexander failed to recuse himself from a motion to disbar Alexanderlove and voted Nay on the same motion.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
2 Counts of conspiracy to commit legal fraud
1 Count of conspiracy to commit corruption
1 Count of conspiracy to commit Conflict of Interest

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. $10000 fine, 15 minutes in jail and a disbarment of 4 weeks for Conspiracy to commit legal fraud
2. $10000 fine and 10 minutes in jail for Conspiracy to commit Conflict of Interest
3. $10000 fine and 10 minutes in jail for Conspiracy to commit Corruption

V. Evidence

Act of Congress - Super Modern Legal Board Act

Spoiler: P-1

Spoiler: P-2

Spoiler: P-3

Spoiler: P-4

Spoiler: P-5

Spoiler: P-6

Spoiler: P-7

Edit: Spelling mistake

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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

@Alexander P. Love is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Alexanderlove. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures , including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[MichaelMouseStar]

Court Clerk Transcript:

---

IN-GAME TRIAL

Location: Redmont Courthouse

Case: The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Alexanderlove [2024] FCR 116

Date and Time: August 5, 2024 at 1:45 AM EDT

Presiding Judge: Unseatedduke1

---

Spoiler: Court Clerk Transcript

Mouse: All rise. The Federal Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont is now in session. The Honorable Judge Unseatedduke1 presiding.

Unseatedduke1: Thank you, everyone. We're here today in the Federal Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont to hear the case of the Commonwealth of Redmont v. Alexander Love, case number FCR 116. Our bailiff is Towloo, and our clerk is Mouse. I encourage the public to review this case on the website as we proceed. Court is now in session. Will the prosecution please state their position?

ko531: We, the Commonwealth, are prosecuting AlexanderLove on two counts of conspiracy to commit legal fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit corruption, and one count of conspiracy to commit conflict of interest. Our requested sentencing is a $10,000 fine, 15 minutes in jail, and a four-week disbarment for conspiracy to commit legal fraud; a $10,000 fine and 10 minutes in jail for conspiracy to commit conflict of interest; and a $10,000 fine and 10 minutes in jail for conspiracy to commit corruption.

Unseatedduke1: Thank you. Will the defense please take their place?

AlexanderLove: Your Honor, the defense pleads not guilty on all charges.

Unseatedduke1: Would the defense like to present their position?

AlexanderLove: Your Honor, on Fact 1, stating that Dragon Law has a policy where a person with a lower package may be sued by us on behalf of someone with a higher package, we do not dispute this fact. However, we will note that this is out of context, and we'll go into more detail about that. On Fact 2, stating Dragon Law has different retainer packages where higher packages have fewer conflicts of interest, we dispute this as the term "conflict of interest" was taken out of context, especially in its legal meaning. On Fact 3, regarding Alexander discussing ghostwriting as a lawyer on July 23 if he is disbarred, the defense affirms this but notes that he only talked about it and didn't conspire to ghostwrite. On Fact 4, similarly, we affirm but state it was only discussing ghostwriting, not conspiring. Finally, on Fact 5, on August 5, Alexander failed to recuse himself from a motion to disbar Alexander Love and voted on the same motion. The defense affirms this fact.

Unseatedduke1: I'm sorry, could you repeat those last few facts? I had an issue.

AlexanderLove: On Fact 4, same as Fact 3, we do not dispute it but note it was only discussing ghostwriting, not conspiring. On Fact 5, I affirm that.

Unseatedduke1: Okay, with this being an in-game trial, we will not be having a three-day discovery period. Does either side wish to enter any new evidence or witnesses at this time?

AlexanderLove: No, Your Honor.

ko531: No, Your Honor.

Unseatedduke1: Thank you. We will now move on to opening statements. Is the prosecution ready?

AlexanderLove: Yes, we are, Your Honor.

Unseatedduke1: You may begin.

ko531: The Super Modern Legal Board Act defines legal fraud as the misrepresentation of one's legal credentials or unauthorized practices in any court of law. Under this Act and further acts governing legal practice, as seen by Exhibit P2 and P3, AlexanderLove has made public comments on two separate occasions about ghostwriting in the event of his disbarment. AlexanderLove would be attempting to bypass this disbarment by ghostwriting, which would effectively be practicing law under a new name. This fits the unauthorized practice in any court of law part of the legal fraud definition, as Alexander is essentially conspiring to practice law without credentials.

ko531: The definition of corruption is using a government position to gain an advantage inconsistent with official duties and the rights of others to unfairly benefit oneself or someone else. By being appointed or elected to a government position, a player agrees to serve the server over themselves. AlexanderLove, by not recusing and voting on his own disbarment motion, is not acting within his official duties. The Supermodern Legal Board Act states in Section 6.3 that if a council member has private interests that may interfere with their duties, they may recuse themselves until such interests no longer interfere. It further says in subsection I that a council member may voluntarily recuse themselves from a specific duty. AlexanderLove, as a well-established attorney, should understand when he has a private interest and when he should recuse, especially when the private interest is obvious, as it is in motion 31-24 of the RBA council, as seen in Exhibit P1.

ko531: This unofficial act directly benefits Alexander himself, as he is named in his departmental lawsuit and is attempting to maintain his power to practice law. This unofficial act makes it conspiring to commit corruption, as it has the potential to benefit Alexander.

ko531: The definition of a conflict of interest arises when an individual or entity engages in multiple interests, whether financial or otherwise, and fulfilling one interest could potentially compromise their ability to fulfill another. Alexander has multiple financial interests as a managing partner of Dragon Law. These clients are on retainer, meaning they are retaining the law firm for any potential legal protection. As shown in Exhibit P5, Alexander has implemented policies in Dragon Law that compromise their ability to fulfill the interests of one client for another because one client pays more. Dragon Law is responsible for representing each client to the best of their ability, and that does not include suing those clients on behalf of other clients. Alexander Love understands that this would be a conflict of interest, as shown in Exhibit P4, when advertising different retainers to potential clients, including the amount of potential conflicts of interest with the top package, including no conflicts of interest. This policy needs to be stopped before it is enacted and harms one of their clients.

ko531: All of these alleged crimes easily have the potential to go from conspiring to acts of the crimes themselves. This is why it is important to stop these conspiracies and hold Alexander accountable before it's too late.

ko531: That is all.

Unseatedduke1: Thank you. Is the defense ready to present its opening statement?

AlexanderLove: Yes, Your Honor.

Unseatedduke1: You may begin.

AlexanderLove: May it please the Court, Your Honor, opposing counsel, and ladies and gentlemen gathered here today for this sham case by the Commonwealth. Matthew 100x and Co have a longstanding grudge against the two masterminds behind this case. In this case, I am being charged with four counts of conspiracy. Now, conspiracy is the intent to commit a crime. However, there are two elements to that: intent and the act of committing a crime. So I'm going to break it down simply.

AlexanderLove: First, legal fraud is when one misrepresents legal credentials. If you look in the exhibits, I say that I could ghostwrite. I never say that I will or plan to. There is no sign of intent to ghostwrite. I just said it's an option. Whether legal or not, I did not comment on that. Even if I did plan on doing it, it wouldn't be illegal because I'm not misrepresenting my credentials. Someone with the credentials to post in court would be doing the posting, and I would only be acting as a consultant.

Unseatedduke1: Bailiff, Who was that?

Towloo: Can't tell without name.

AlexanderLove: It was either Dinosaur or Romero.

Towloo: It's invis.

Unseatedduke1: They’re invisible.

ko531: Oh wow.

Unseatedduke1: Alright, I’m gonna put some barrier blocks up. Audience members, you won't be able to leave, but no one else should want to come in. Oh, wait, aren't the barrier blocks up here? It doesn't matter.

Unseatedduke1: Okay, we can continue.

AlexanderLove: Thank you, Your Honor. Even if I did ghostwrite, I'm not misrepresenting my credentials because someone with the credentials would be posting. I'd only be acting as a consultant, not as someone representing a client. A person I would supposedly ghostwrite for could take or leave what I write, just like anyone right now could send a lawyer something to write, and the lawyer could choose to post it or not. So two things here: one, I didn't have intent, and two, even if I did have intent, it wouldn't be a crime. So the conspiracy falls apart on both elements.

AlexanderLove: Moving on to conspiracy to commit corruption, corruption is using a government position to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty. A couple of things here: is the RBA counselor a government position? This has been long debated, and I'm not going to comment on whether or not it is a government position. I feel the court has the opportunity to set some precedent here on that topic, but the more important element is doing something outside of my official duty. Voting on a motion is within my official duty. There is precedent that said a representative voting on a bill is doing something within their official duty. By that same precedent, voting on a motion, which I am lawfully allowed to do, is within my official duties. As far as why I didn't recuse, the Supermodern Legal Board Act does not require me to recuse; it uses language such as "should" and "may," indicating that I may recuse but do not have to. The only time I have to recuse is if I am compelled by a unanimous vote from the chairman and the rest of the council. There is a motion for that right now, and if it passes, I will recuse. But while the council does not compel me to recuse, I will do my official duty as an RBA Counselor and vote as I will.

AlexanderLove: With two sham charges knocked out, let's go to conspiracy to commit conflict of interest. Conflict of Interest is when you represent two clients in the same case at the same time. The language in the bill is very specific: same case, same time, two clients. Our retainer packages, as I will have two partners at Dragon Law testify, are not retainers in the traditional sense; they're more of a subscription to Dragon Law's legal services. The tiered retainers come with stipulations that higher ones have precedence over lower ones. It's in their contract. So for the prosecution to say that I'm "screwing over clients," the clients signed a contract agreeing to these stipulations. They know what they're getting into. They know what they're signing up for. This is why there's higher demand for higher packages, but even still, we're not representing both clients at the same time in the same case. We're picking one client for a case, representing them at the same time. Therefore, I'm not committing this. I posted this policy, and right after, I said Dragon Law was coming down. We are disbanding retainers, we sold no more retainers, and we plan to sell no more retainers. So anyone under this policy, it never happens. There's pretty much no chance that it was ever going to see the light of day, even if it was illegal, which it isn't.

AlexanderLove: So there are the facts: legal fraud, conspiracy to commit conflict of interest, conspiracy to commit corruption—none of those stands. I want to add one final note about sentencing. The plaintiff or the prosecution has tried to ask for disbarment for four weeks. That is not a valid penalty under conspiracy. While it is a valid penalty under legal fraud—Are you glitching out, or did you disappear?

Unseatedduke1: Oh, I'm still here, sorry.

AlexanderLove: Yeah, so conspiracy is only jail, it's only fines. He didn't prosecute me for legal fraud; he prosecuted me for conspiracy. The difference must be noted, and disbarment should not be on the table here. So in conclusion, I have no intent to commit crimes, and the crimes listed here don't apply to the facts. Therefore, I request that the Commonwealth finds me not guilty on all charges, acquits me, and awards me $5,000 in legal fees as per the Legal Damages Act. Thank you.

Unseatedduke1: Thank you. We'll take note of that counterclaim.

Unseatedduke1: Sorry, we're just making a few notes. We'll now move on to witness testimony. I believe we had one or two witnesses called, Mr. Love?

AlexanderLove: Your Honor, I have Avaneesh and Towloo on the witness list. I would like to call Avaneesh2008 to the stand first.

Unseatedduke1: Will Avaneesh speak, or will they type in chat or appear on forums?

AlexanderLove: Avaneesh will be chatting in-game, Your Honor.

Avaneesh2008: Where do I stand?

Unseatedduke1: Right here, Avaneesh.

Mouse: Can you also hear me, or do I need to type?

Unseatedduke1: Yeah.

Mouse: Please free your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Avaneesh2008: I swear.

Unseatedduke1: You may begin, Counselor.

AlexanderLove: Could you please state your name for the record?

Avaneesh2008: Avaneesh2008

AlexanderLove: Are you a current employee of Dragon Law Firm?

Avaneesh2008: Yes, I am a current employee of Dragon Law Firm.

AlexanderLove: What is your position in the firm?

Avaneesh2008: I am currently a Partner in Dragon Law Firm.

AlexanderLove: Would you say a partner is a leadership role in the firm?

Avaneesh2008: Yes, I would say a Partner is a leadership position in the firm. We manage many aspects of the firm including employees and cases.

ko531: Objection, nothing pending after "is a leadership position in the firm." Everything should be struck, Your Honor.

AlexanderLove: I believe it clarifies exactly what sort of leadership he provides.

ko531: It was not asked what type of leadership—

AlexanderLove: Objection, Your Honor, breach of procedure.

Unseatedduke1: Both of those are sustained. The portion after the position in the firm will be struck from the record. Mr. Love, sustained. Ko, you didn't even respond there.

AlexanderLove: Apologies, Avaneesh. Am I good to move on, Your Honor?

Unseatedduke1: Yes, go ahead.

AlexanderLove: Avaneesh, could you explain how retainer packages work in the firm?

Avaneesh2008: In Dragon Law Firm, retainer packages are contracts we sign with clients that allows them in the next month to have Dragon Law represent them on cases they wish. It is offering a protection from us taking clients against the retainee on cases and allows them cheaper services in the firm.

AlexanderLove: Do we ever represent both sides of the same case at the same time?

Avaneesh2008: We never had represented the same client in the same case at the same time nor has retainer contracts ever agreed to do so.

AlexanderLove: If we have two opposing parties trying to hire us, how do we decide who to represent?

Avaneesh2008: We first look at their retainer status. If one party has a higher retainer status than the other, we choose to represent the higher retainee. If both prospective clients have the same retainer status or no retainer, we choose the client based on the client that filed the ticket first with us.

AlexanderLove: Thank you. I have no more questions for this witness at this time.

Unseatedduke1: Does the prosecution have any questions for the witness?

ko531: Yes, Your Honor.

Unseatedduke1: Okay, go ahead.

ko531: Avaneesh, you said in your testimony that the retainers are contracts that allow a party to have Dragon Law represent them on cases they wish. Is that true?

AlexanderLove: Objection, Your Honor, asked and answered.

Unseatedduke1: Sustained. Move on.

ko531: You said that retainer packages are contracts that allow the party for the next month to have Dragon Law represent them on cases they wish. Let's explore a hypothetical situation to understand the boundaries.

AlexanderLove: Objection, Your Honor, counsel is testifying.

ko531: I'm just explaining how I'm gonna ask my next question. It’s going to be a hypothetical situation to understand where the boundaries of this retainer are drawn.

Unseatedduke1: Make it brief, Mr. Ko.

ko531: All right. If you have two active clients on retainer, and one decides to sue the other, you previously stated that you would choose to represent the party with the higher retainer. Therefore, if the other client on retainer asked you to represent them, you would decline your services. Is that correct?

Avaneesh2008: Can I clarify the question?

ko531: If you have two clients under retainer and the one with the higher package decides to sue the other client, you would represent the client with the higher package. Is that correct? Now, if the other client came to you after being sued and requested your legal assistance, you would decline. Is that correct?

Avaneesh2008: We would decline, that is correct.

ko531: However, you have stated that the purpose of your retainers is to have a contract signed with the clients for Dragon Law to represent them in cases they wish. Would you not be upholding your retainer in that sense?

Avaneesh2008: Dragon Law has the right to refuse to take any cases we do not wish to take. The contract provides free legal advice and some free legal services.

ko531: No further questions.

Unseatedduke1: Okay. Mr. Avaneesh, thank you for your time you may be dismissed. Bailiff, will you let them out? Mr. Love, do you have one more witness or no?

AlexanderLove: Yes, Your Honor. The defense calls Towloo to the stand.

Unseatedduke1: Okay. Mr. Towloo, please make your way to the stand.

Mouse: Please free your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Towloo: I do.

Mouse: Thank you. You may now be seated.

Unseatedduke1: Mr. Love, you may begin your examinations.

AlexanderLove: Thank you, Your Honor. Would you please state your name for the record?

Towloo: My name is Towloo.

AlexanderLove: Thank you. Are you a current employee of Dragon Law Firm?

Towloo: Yes, I am.

AlexanderLove: What is your current position in the firm?

Towloo: I am a partner.

AlexanderLove: Would you say your position is a leadership role?

Towloo: Yes, the partners do a lot of things related to the law firm.

ko531: Objection, nothing pending. It’s a yes or no question. The excess after the yes is not needed.

Unseatedduke1: Sustained. Move on, Mr. Love.

AlexanderLove: All right, may I continue your honor?

Unseatedduke1: You may. We love some in-game trial chaos.

AlexanderLove: All right. Okay, so your position is in some leadership role. How do retainer packages work at dragon law firm?

Towloo: You basically just pay a monthly fee to have some services of the firm.

AlexanderLove: Do we ever represent both sides of the same case at the same time?

Towloo: We have never done that, no.

AlexanderLove: If we have two opposing parties trying to hire us, how do we decide who to represent?

Towloo: Usually it's by whoever opens a ticket first, but whoever has the higher retainer status always overrides that.

AlexanderLove: All right, perfect. No further questions for this witness at this time.

Unseatedduke1: Does the prosecution have questions for the witness?

ko531: Yes, Your Honor.

Unseatedduke1: You may begin your cross-examination.

ko531: Is it true that Dragon Law has the right to decline any case they see fit?

Towloo: Could you repeat please, my Discord lagged out for the last part.

ko531: Is it true that dragon law has the right to decline any case they see fit, decline to take any cases you see fit?

Towloo: I believe so.

AlexanderLove: Objection, Your Honor, speculation. The defense does not know the exact answer to the question so the question answer should be struck.

ko531: Response, Your Honor.

Unseatedduke1: Go ahead.

ko531: Alexander is the one who introduced the topic of the retainer to the witness, discussing what services they are responsible for providing, in which Twoloo stated that you're basically paying a monthly fee to have access to some services of the firm.

Unseatedduke1: I'm going to sustain the objection and strike that response because Mr. Towloo said, “I believe so.” If you want to reword the question to get a more direct or clear response, you can do that, Mr. Ko.

ko531: Does dragon law reserve the right who declined to take any case brought to them?

AlexanderLove: Objection, Your Honor, asked and answered. Literally just the same question with some synonyms.

Unseatedduke1: Sustained. Let's move on, Mr. Ko.

ko531: Can you elaborate on what you meant when you said, "dragging along with some service fee to have some services of the firm"? Can you clarify what those services are?

Towloo: There are a lot, so I'm going to have to post this in multiple chat messages, one moment please.

AlexanderLove: Objection, Your Honor, relevance.

Unseatedduke1: Overruled. Let's see what he has to say.

AlexanderLove: Objection, Your Honor, ambiguous.

ko531: It goes to set foundation for Towloo’s knowledge as my previous question, he said, “I don’t believe so.”

Unseatedduke1: I’m going to overrule it to see what he has to say. Uno momento.

Unseatedduke1: It was qsdt. Please arrest him for contempt. Multiple charges added as well. I want him jailed until this case is over.

Towloo: I can show it. Just one sec.

ko531: Your Honor, at this time, may we excuse Towloo and recall Avaneesh to the stand, as he seems more knowledgeable in this line of questioning?

Unseatedduke1: Mr. Love?

AlexanderLove: Your Honor, the prosecution said they had no more questions for the witness.

Unseatedduke1: Let's give Towloo a minute to respond to the questions. Sorry, he's the bailiff and a witness.

Towloo: It's literally all the things in P-4.

Unseatedduke1: Okay, let's let's take a look at the evidence Mr. Ko.

ko531: Towloo, have you ever seen any partner of Dragon law decline any of these services promised in the retainers?

Towloo: I have never seen it in my personal experience at Dragon Law.

Unseatedduke1: Can someone tell me who that is? Ignore him. I'll take care of them.

ko531: Okay. Have you ever seen any partner of Dragon law decline these services promised in the retainers?

Towloo: I may not be fully understanding the question. Is there any way of fully putting it in writing.

ko531: Your Honor, I still request to recall Avaneesh to the stand, as both witnesses are here to testify about the same matter. I was under the belief that both witnesses had the same level of knowledge, but I asked a question that one witness could answer confidently, while this witness could not without speculation.

Unseatedduke1: I'm going to go ahead and deny that, Mr. Ko, since we did have that witness called, and you were able to ask any questions. You should ask all your questions before saying you have no further questions, even if you believe another witness may have answered differently.

ko531: I'll try to ask him one last time without it being asked and answered.

Unseatedduke1: Please do. You can type it out as well, Mr. Ko.

ko531: Hey Towloo, do you know if Dragon Law reserves the right to decline services promised in their retainer agreements?

Towloo: They can deny the right if it comes into conflict with the law.

ko531: Is that the only time they may decline to provide a service?

Towloo: If the contract has been signed, yes, because we need to honor the contracts we sign.

ko531: No further questions.

AlexanderLove: Your Honor, I would like to redirect.

Unseatedduke1: Redirect to?

AlexanderLove: Redirect, Your Honor. Redirect is essentially a direct examination that clarifies the cross-examination. It's common civil procedure.

Unseatedduke1: Mr. Ko?

ko531: No objections.

Unseatedduke1: Mr. Love, you may ask your question.

AlexanderLove: Tolu, when a retainer client signs a contract, is it clear that they are signing for a tiered package?

Towloo: For a tier what? Could you please repeat the ladder part of the question?

AlexanderLove: Is it clear in the contracts and advertising that retainers are tiered, or, in other words, that some retainers have better perks than others?

Towloo: Of course.

AlexanderLove: Okay, so if a client from a higher tier wants to sue a client from a lower tier, is the client of the lower tier under the impression—actually, Your Honor, I would like to strike that from the record. I don't know where I was going with that.

AlexanderLove: Sorry, there was an invisible guy there.

Unseatedduke1: No, ignore the invisible guy. It’s Tech recording.

AlexanderLove: Okay.

Unseatedduke1: Any further questions, Mr. Love?

AlexanderLove: No. Your Honor. Thank you.

Unseatedduke1: Mr. Ko?

ko531: No.

Unseatedduke1: Okay, Mr. Towloo, you're dismissed back to being bailiff. Thank you. With no further witnesses, we will move into closing testimony. Is the prosecution ready to present their closing statements?

ko531: Yes, Your Honor.

Unseatedduke1: Mr. Ko, you have the floor.

ko531: In Alexander's opening statements, he made several rebuttals to our claims for conspiracy and the crimes themselves. Some need to be elaborated on or are just plain untrue. Alexander claims that ghostwriting would be consulting, not practicing law. However, the Commonwealth argues that consulting is still practicing law, as it involves legal advice. The Supermodern Legal Board Act includes advising and consulting within the scope of law practice.

ko531: Alexander questions whether the RBA counselor is a government position. The Commonwealth asserts it is, as the RBA is a government agency with a budget, making its members government officials. Alexander's claim about conflict of interest being only about representing both sides of a case is incorrect. A conflict arises when multiple interests compromise fulfilling another.

ko531: Contracts do not excuse crimes. Committing a conflict of interest is still a crime, regardless of a contract. The policy was intended for use, not just added for the sake of being there. Therefore, the conspiracy remains active.

ko531: Regarding sentencing, conspiracy punishment should align with the crime being conspired. Conflict of interest carries penalties due to financial gain. Legal fraud sentencing aligns with the crime due to public statements. For corruption, the act still has the potential to cross from conspiracy to corruption itself.

ko531: Alexander has conspired to commit these crimes. We ask for accountability before further damage occurs. That is all.

Unseatedduke1: Thank you. Is the defense ready for closing statements?

AlexanderLove: Yes, Your Honor.

Unseatedduke1: You may proceed.

AlexanderLove: May it please the Court? Your Honor, this sham case needs examination. I'm charged with four false conspiracy counts. Intent and the act of committing a crime are needed for conspiracy, but neither exists here.

AlexanderLove: First, legal fraud. Ghostwriting wouldn't misrepresent credentials. I'd be consulting another lawyer, not practicing law. The Supermodern Legal Board Act does not define advising as law practice, so disbarment doesn't prevent consulting.

AlexanderLove: Second, conspiracy to commit corruption. I was within my official duties by voting. The Supermodern Legal Board Act empowers me with the choice to recuse or not. Voting is my elected duty.

AlexanderLove: Third, conspiracy to commit conflict of interest. The law defines it as representing both sides in the same case simultaneously. Our retainer packages mean we choose one client per case. The prosecution's argument is baseless.

AlexanderLove: The law provides a sentencing range for conspiracy. The prosecution's statements are inaccurate. I request the court to acquit me on all counts and award $5,000 in legal fees. Thank you.

Unseatedduke1: Thank you. We'll take a recess.

Mouse: All rise. The court will take an hour-long recess before delivering the verdict in the case of the Commonwealth of Redmont v. Alexander Love. Please be prepared to return to the courtroom if proceedings resume sooner.

Unseatedduke1: I'm sorry, I don't want to rush shit like this. I'll be done soon, but I need more time. I'm going to jump to a VC and speak with my colleagues.

Mouse: All rise. The court is now back in session. The Honorable Judge Unseatedduke1 presiding. You may be seated.

Unseatedduke1: Writing the verdict and not rushing any decision that was made. So, thank you. Thank you to both parties, and thank everyone for being here today. It's really important to do a good job. I will hurry it up since it is late for most people.

Unseatedduke1: In the federal court of the Commonwealth of Redmont, verdict for the Commonwealth of Redmont v. Alexander Love, 2024 FCR 116:

Unseatedduke1: The prosecution alleges that Alexander Love, as a policy, and his law firm, Dragon Law, create conflicts of interest by allowing clients with higher retainer packages to sue those with lower packages. The prosecution presents evidence that Mr. Love has discussed committing legal fraud by ghostwriting his lawyer. In the event of Visser v. Barmak on August 5, Mr. Love failed to recuse himself from a motion to bar him and voted against it, which the prosecution argues constitutes an act of conspiracy to commit corruption.

Unseatedduke1: The defendant pleads not guilty to all charges. The defense argues that the prosecution has misunderstood the law and is maliciously prosecuting them. They claim that ghostwriting is not illegal and that Dragon Law contracts allow them to represent the higher-paying client. The defense also contends that the Super Modern Legal Board Act permits Mr. Love to vote as a counselor, and if he had been forcibly removed, he would have abstained.

Unseatedduke1: The court opinion: This ruling is based on the information presented by the parties and matters commonly known to the public. Legal fraud is defined as the misrepresentation of one's legal credentials, lack thereof, or unauthorized practice in any court of law under the Act for Future Acts Governing the Legal Practice. If Mr. Love were to "ghostwrite," he would not be breaking the law, as he is not practicing in a court of law. He is simply writing for another licensed lawyer, who would then be the one to post the information. While it may be unethical to "ghostwrite," it is not illegal under the current law.

Unseatedduke1: Under the Super Modern Legal Board Acts, conflict of interest is defined as a situation where the same legal counsel represents both the defense and the plaintiff simultaneously in the same case. In this case, Mr. Love's law firm has a client signing a contract stating that if you attempt to sue a client of higher status, the firm will represent the higher-status client first. The court did not gain clarity on what would happen if two high-status clients sued each other. However, it does not constitute a conflict of interest when clients agree to waive the right to representation if a higher status is involved. The court cannot, beyond a reasonable doubt, charge Mr. Love with this problem.

Unseatedduke1: The court has determined that the RBA chair and council position is an elected government position since the RBA receives federal funding as a branch of the government and is codified in law. Corruption is defined as the act of using a government position to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others to unfairly benefit oneself or someone else. The Super Modern Legal Board Act states that the Redmont Bar Association shall be permitted to revoke the practicing license of a lawyer through a lawsuit after an investigation and majority vote of the RBA Council, including the RBA chairperson. It further states that a council person may voluntarily recuse himself from a specific duty and that a council person may move to recuse a specific council person from a specific duty, and the chairperson must put this motion up for a vote.

Unseatedduke1: The court has determined that it is within the official duty of the RBA council member to vote on motions to disbar individuals, as codified in law, and that the member may choose to recuse themselves or be forced to be recused by the council. The court believes that Mr. Love voting on the motion to disbar him is an ethical violation, but it is out of the jurisdiction and scope of corruption since it is within the official duties to vote on the motion.

Unseatedduke1: In the matter of FCR 116, the court finds the plaintiff not guilty on two counts of conspiracy to commit legal fraud, not guilty on one count of conspiracy to commit corruption, and not guilty on one count of conspiracy to commit conflict of interest. I hereby order the RBA and Congress to review the language of the Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act and the Super Modern Legal Board Act. I will also grant Mr. Love $5,000 in legal damages.

The court thanks all involved, and the court is now adjourned.

---

Summary of Verdict:

In the federal court of the Commonwealth of Redmont, case Commonwealth of Redmont v. Alexander Love [2024] FCR 116, the prosecution alleged that Alexander Love and his law firm, Dragon Law, created conflicts of interest by allowing clients with higher retainer packages to sue those with lower packages. They presented evidence of Mr. Love discussing legal fraud through ghostwriting and failing to recuse himself from a motion to disbar him, arguing it constituted a conspiracy to commit corruption.

The defense argued that the prosecution misunderstood the law, asserting that ghostwriting is not illegal and that Dragon Law's contracts allow them to represent the higher-paying client. They contended that the Super Modern Legal Board Act permits Mr. Love to vote as a counselor.

The court found that ghostwriting is not illegal under current law, as it does not involve practicing in a court of law. It ruled that no conflict of interest exists when clients waive the right to representation if a higher status is involved and found no evidence of wrongdoing by Mr. Love. The court determined that voting on a motion to disbar oneself, while potentially unethical, is within the official duties of an RBA council member and does not constitute corruption.

The court ruled in favor of the defendant with the following findings:

1. The court found Mr. Love not guilty on two counts of conspiracy to commit legal fraud, not guilty on one count of conspiracy to commit corruption, and not guilty on one count of conspiracy to commit conflict of interest.
2. The Redmont Bar Association and Congress were ordered to review the language of the Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act and the Super Modern Legal Board Act.
3. Mr. Love was awarded $5,000 in legal damages.

The court thanked all involved and adjourned the session.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Alexanderlove [2024] FCR 116

I. PROSECUTIONS POSITION
1. The prosecution alleges that Alexanderlove has a policy in his law firm, Dragon Law, that creates conflicts of interest by allowing clients with higher retainer packages to sue those with lower packages. The prosecution presents evidence that Alexanderlove has discussed committing legal fraud by ghostwriting as a lawyer in the event of his disbarment. On August 5th, Alexanderlove failed to recuse himself from a motion to disbar him and voted against it, which the prosecution argues constitutes an act of corruption.


II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The defendant pleads not guilty to all charges. The defense argues that the prosecution has misunderstood the law and is maliciously prosecuting them. They claim that ghostwriting is not illegal and that Dragon Law’s contracts allow them to represent the higher-paying client. The defense also contends that the SMLBA permits Alexanderlove to vote as a councilor, and if he had been forcibly removed, he would have abstained.


III. THE COURT OPINION

1. This ruling is based on the information presented by the parties and matters commonly known to the public.
2. Legal fraud is defined as “The misrepresentation of one’s legal credentials, or lack thereof, or unauthorized practice in any Court of law under this act or future acts governing the legal practice.” If Mr. Love were to “ghostwrite,” he would not be breaking the law as he is not practicing in a court of law; he is simply writing for another licensed lawyer. That licensed lawyer would be the one to post the information. While it may be unethical to “ghostwrite,” it is not illegal under the current law.
3. Under the SMLBA, conflict of interest (COI) is defined as: A conflict of interest arises when an individual or entity is engaged in multiple interests, whether financial or otherwise, and fulfilling one interest could potentially compromise their ability to fulfill another. In the legal context, a conflict of interest is defined as the situation where the same legal counsel represents both the defense and the plaintiff simultaneously in the same case.
4. In this case, Mr. Love's law firm has their clients sign a contract stating that if you attempt to sue a client of higher status, the firm will represent the higher-status client first. The court did not gain clarity on what would happen if two high-status clients sued each other. However, it does not constitute a COI when clients agree to waive their right to representation if a higher-status client is involved. This court cannot, beyond a reasonable doubt, charge Mr. Love with this crime.
5. The court has determined that the RBA chair and council position is an elected government position since the RBA receives federal funding as a “Branch” of the government and is codified in law. Corruption is defined as “The act of using a government position to act to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others to unfairly benefit oneself, or someone else.” The SMLBA states, “The Redmont Bar Association shall be permitted to revoke the practicing license of a lawyer through a lawsuit after an investigation and majority vote of the RBA Council, including the RBA Chairperson.” It further states, “(i) A councilperson may voluntarily recuse themself from a specific duty. (ii) A councilperson may move to recuse a specific councilperson from a specific duty, and the Chairperson must put this motion up for vote.” The court has determined that it is within the official duty of an RBA council member to vote on motions to disbar individuals and that it is codified in law that the member may choose to recuse themselves or be forced to be recused by the council. The court believes that Mr. Love voting on the motion to disbar him is beyond an ethical violation but is out of the jurisdiction and scope of corruption since it’s within his official duty to vote on the motion.

IV. DECISION
In the matter of FCR 116, the court finds the plaintiff:

1. On the 2 Counts of conspiracy to commit legal fraud NOT GUILTY
2. On the 1 Count of conspiracy to commit corruption NOT GUILTY
3. On the 1 Count of conspiracy to commit Conflict of Interest NOT GUILTY
4. I hereby order the RBA and congress to review the language of the Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act and the SMLBA.
5. I grant Mr. Love $5,000 in legal damages.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.