Lawsuit: Pending MMiqa v. Bar Association of Redmont

MMiqa

MMiqa

Citizen
Oakridge Resident
Education Department
Change Maker
MMiqa
MMiqa
Archivist
Joined
Jun 1, 2026
Messages
117
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MMiqa
Plaintiff

v.

Bar Association of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On August 5, 2026, the Bar Association of Redmont Council passed a Motion to Censure the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff brings this action on two grounds: the censure was passed without the requisite majority, and a Councillor with a direct conflict of interest participated in the vote.

I. PARTIES

1. MMiqa, Plaintiff, Licensed Attorney of the Bar Association of Redmont.
2. Bar Association of Redmont, Defendant.

II. FACTS

1. On August 5, 2026, a Motion to Censure was filed against the Plaintiff before the BAR Council.

2. The BAR Council voted as follows: 2 in favor, 1 abstained, 1 against.

3. The Bar Association of Redmont announced that the motion passed.

4. At the time of the vote, the BAR Council consisted of 4 active members following the resignation of one Councillor.

5. Councillor CreeperTD participated in the vote. CreeperTD is a named DHS Recruit in MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77 — an active case in which CreeperTD's own conduct is directly at issue as evidence against the Defendant.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

CLAIM I — INSUFFICIENT MAJORITY

The Redmont Bar Association Act Part V §1(4) requires sanctions to be imposed by majority vote. With 4 active Council members, a majority requires 3 votes in favor. The motion received only 2 votes in favor. An abstention is not an affirmative vote and cannot count toward a majority. The censure was passed without the requisite majority and is void.

CLAIM II — CONFLICT OF INTEREST

CreeperTD is a named officer in MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77 — an active case in which CreeperTD's conduct is directly at issue as evidence. CreeperTD voted to censure the attorney actively litigating that case against CreeperTD's own department. This constitutes a direct conflict of interest. CreeperTD's vote must be disregarded. The Plaintiff notes that even with CreeperTD's vote included, the required majority was not reached — 2 votes in favor out of 4 active members does not constitute a majority. With CreeperTD's vote removed, the motion fails even more decisively with only 1 vote in favor. In either scenario, the censure was not validly passed.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. Declare the censure issued against the Plaintiff on August 5, 2026 void and of no legal effect.
2. Order the Bar Association of Redmont to remove the censure from the Plaintiff's record.
3. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

REPRESENTATION

The Plaintiff, MMiqa, is a licensed Attorney of the Bar Association of Redmont and is representing themselves in this matter.

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 August, 2026

MMiqa
Plaintiff, Self-Represented
Licensed Attorney, Bar Association of Redmont
 
Last edited:

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MMiqa
Plaintiff

v.

Bar Association of Redmont
Defendant

AMENDED COMPLAINT

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On August 5, 2026, the Bar Association of Redmont Council passed a Motion to Censure the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff brings this action on the grounds that the censure was passed without the majority required by the Bar Association of Redmont Act, that the Misuse of Artificial Intelligence allegation has no basis in the Code of Conduct provision it purports to enforce, and that the conduct underlying the remaining allegations does not rise to the level the Code of Conduct reserves for censure, having in some instances already been tolerated by the Bar Association in comparable cases involving other attorneys.

I. PARTIES

1. MMiqa, Plaintiff, Licensed Attorney of the Bar Association of Redmont.
2. Bar Association of Redmont, Defendant.

II. FACTS

1. On August 5, 2026, a Motion to Censure was filed against the Plaintiff before the BAR Council by Councillor OwnedBlock.

2. The motion alleged three violations against the Plaintiff: (a) an integrity breach under the Code of Conduct's General Principles on Trust and Integrity, based on the Plaintiff's inclusion of a Wrongful Death claim in MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77 purportedly citing the Criminal Code Act; (b) a violation of the Code of Conduct's Court Relations — Court Rules of Conduct provision, based on allegedly argumentative objections filed in MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69, posts numbered #9 through #12; and (c) Misuse of Artificial Intelligence.

3. The Code of Conduct's Misuse of Artificial Intelligence provision defines the signs of AI misuse it is concerned with as fabricated case names, statutes, or legal authorities; distorted or misrepresented facts, quotations, or holdings; unsupported propositions of law; falsified information about court procedures or filing requirements; and improperly blended legal concepts or standards. The provision states that legal work is investigated where it shows signs of this kind, not merely because AI was used, but because such misuse harms the parties, the courts, and the profession.

4. The motion did not allege that the Plaintiff's filings contained any fabricated authority, misrepresented fact or holding, unsupported proposition, falsified procedural claim, or blended legal standard. The sole basis offered for the Misuse of Artificial Intelligence allegation was that the Plaintiff had four cases ongoing as of June 15, 2026 — MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69, MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 91, MMiqa v. DHS [2026] DCR 77, and MMiqa v. Ognqn [2026] DCR 72 — and that the Plaintiff posted a response exceeding 1,000 words within 11 minutes of an objection filed by Ebborsnam in MMiqa v. DHS [2026] DCR 77, post #54, the Plaintiff's response appearing across posts #55 through #57. The motion itself acknowledged that close familiarity with the case and the use of pre-drafted or templated material could partially explain the speed of the response, but dismissed that explanation as unpersuasive on the stated basis that reading the objection alone would take approximately 5 minutes and that 6 minutes was, in the Council's own words, "the minimum for human review" — a threshold that appears nowhere in the Code of Conduct, is not one of the indicators the Code identifies, and was asserted without citation to any technical standard or evidentiary support.

5. As to the first allegation, the Plaintiff's citation was based on a characterization the Plaintiff had encountered in a prior case and relied upon in good faith; it was not a fabrication, and any error in that citation was a mistake of legal research, not a breach of trust or integrity. The same error — pleading Wrongful Death under the Criminal Code Act — has been made by other Bar-licensed attorneys in cases before this Court, including AvatarNate7983, UnitedBoss v. Hincho_ [2026] DCR 85, EditVoxel v. LavBebik [2026] DCR 87, Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 59, and Etco v. mvchrelle [2026] DCR 102, in each of which the claim was simply dismissed without prejudice and none of the representing attorneys faced any BAR disciplinary action whatsoever. After he was warned that Wrongful Death is not a tort, he had not filed a lawsuit based on that claim. All the claims he made was before he was warned.

6. As to the second allegation, the objections at issue in MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69 arose from the Plaintiff's unfamiliarity, at that early stage of practice, with the procedural distinction between objections and argumentation, and the conduct occurred once, during discovery, in only the Plaintiff's second case as a licensed attorney. Upon being corrected by the presiding judge, the Plaintiff conformed their conduct immediately and did not repeat the error. In one of his cases, second day of attorney career, the Plaintiff made a mistake of being argumentative in one of his cases, and the only one. This is a legal ground to censure someone, according to BAR.

7. Part IV, Section 2(2) of the Bar Association of Redmont Act provides that all decisions of the Council, including the imposition of sanctions under Part V, shall be passed by a simple majority of all sitting Councillors, not a majority of the votes cast. At the time of the vote, the BAR Council consisted of 4 active members following the resignation of one Councillor, the Council ordinarily comprising 5 seats. A simple majority of 4 sitting Councillors is 3.

8. The BAR Council voted on the motion as 2 in favor, 1 abstained, and 1 against. The Bar Association of Redmont announced that the motion passed, entering a censure on the Plaintiff's record.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

CLAIM I — INSUFFICIENT MAJORITY

Part V, Section 1(4)(c) of the Bar Association of Redmont Act requires "a majority vote of the Council" before any sanction may be imposed, but Part V does not itself define what constitutes a majority vote. That definition is supplied elsewhere in the same Act: Part IV, Section 2(2) states that all decisions of the Council shall be passed by a simple majority of all sitting Councillors. Nothing in Part V displaces or narrows that definition, and a term left undefined in one Part of a statute takes the meaning fixed for it elsewhere in the same statute rather than a separate, unstated meaning invented for the occasion. Reading Part V's majority vote requirement together with Part IV's definition, as the Act itself compels, a majority means a majority of the Council's sitting membership, not a majority of however many members happened to cast a non-abstaining vote. With 4 sitting Councillors, a majority requires 3 votes in favor. The motion received only 2 votes in favor. An interpretation that instead measures majority against only the votes cast — allowing an abstention to be silently dropped from the count — has no textual basis anywhere in the Act and cannot be reconciled with Part IV, Section 2(2). The censure was therefore passed without the majority the Act requires and is void.

CLAIM II — MISUSE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ALLEGATION UNSUPPORTED BY THE CODE OF CONDUCT

The Code of Conduct's Misuse of Artificial Intelligence provision defines the misconduct it addresses by reference to specific defects in the substance of a lawyer's work: fabricated authorities, misrepresented facts or holdings, unsupported legal propositions, falsified procedural claims, and improperly blended legal standards. It is these substantive defects, and the harm they cause to clients, courts, and the profession, that the provision is designed to catch. The motion identified none of them. It did not point to a single fabricated citation, misstated fact, unsupported proposition, false procedural claim, or blended standard in any of the Plaintiff's filings. Instead, the motion substituted an entirely different test of its own invention — that the Plaintiff was handling four cases at once and that a single response was filed faster than a threshold the Council set for itself without any basis in the Code, technical authority, or evidence. Caseload volume says nothing about how any particular filing was produced, and by the motion's own figures, roughly 6 of the 11 minutes remained after reading the objection for the Plaintiff, an attorney immersed in the DCR 77 record for weeks, to compose a reply from facts and arguments already prepared. An allegation resting on a standard the Code of Conduct does not contain, applied to conduct the Code's own enumerated indicators do not describe, is not merely weak but ultra vires the provision it purports to enforce, and cannot sustain a disciplinary finding.

BAR has shown speed and number of cases opened as a sign of "Misuse of AI" that was not recognized in any governing document.

CLAIM III — DISPROPORTIONATE DISCIPLINE ON THE REMAINING ALLEGATIONS

The remaining two allegations, even taken at face value, do not describe conduct warranting censure. The first concerns a citation the Plaintiff relied upon in good faith after encountering it in a prior case, at most a research error rather than a breach of trust or integrity, and one that other licensed attorneys have made in DCR 85, DCR 87, and DCR 102 without facing any BAR discipline; disciplining the Plaintiff alone for conduct the Bar Association has otherwise tolerated across multiple other cases cannot be reconciled with the even-handed application of the Code of Conduct. The second concerns conduct the Plaintiff corrected immediately upon judicial instruction, occurring only once, during discovery, in the Plaintiff's second case as a licensed attorney — the kind of early-practice mistake the Code of Conduct's own stated purpose, to guide rather than to nitpick, counsels against punishing so severely, particularly where no repetition followed the correction.

In order to have no conflict of interest whatsoever, the Plaintiff is asking for a Judge that was not server in MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69 case.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. Declare the censure issued against the Plaintiff on August 5, 2026 void and of no legal effect.
2. Order the Bar Association of Redmont to remove the censure from the Plaintiff's record.
3. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

REPRESENTATION

The Plaintiff, MMiqa, is a licensed Attorney of the Bar Association of Redmont and is representing themselves in this matter.

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 August, 2026

MMiqa
Plaintiff, Self-Represented
Licensed Attorney, Bar Association of Redmont

 

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Your Honor, acknowledging that the Commonwealth has not been summoned for this matter, I'd like to point out the blatant violation of procedure here, court rule 3.3 states "...
Amendments to the complaint must be declared and explained to the presiding judge. Afterwards, the plaintiff (or prosecution) may edit the post containing their complaint."
The Plaintiff did not explain their amendment to the court. I'd also like to note that the Plaintiff edited their initial complaint after it was posted without permission from the court.

The commonwealth respectfully requests the court to handle this matter appropriately and formally warn the Plaintiff accordingly.

 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20260810_121731_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20260810_121731_Chrome.jpg
    83.6 KB · Views: 4
Notice

Ebborsnam is correct, I will be amending it again. For the record, I have done the edit one minute after and before anyone replied to.

Another thing, Ebborsnam is not representing the BAR I believe, so this is the third time this week he has done objections, while not being an attorney to the case.

I advice this court to punish Ebborsnam for the ongoing breach of procedure he had done in my case against DOHS and here. I will be amending the complaint again.
 

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MMiqa
Plaintiff

v.

Bar Association of Redmont
Defendant

AMENDED COMPLAINT

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On August 5, 2026, the Bar Association of Redmont Council passed a Motion to Censure the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff brings this action on the grounds that the censure was passed without the majority required by the Bar Association of Redmont Act, that the Misuse of Artificial Intelligence allegation has no basis in the Code of Conduct provision it purports to enforce, and that the conduct underlying the remaining allegations does not rise to the level the Code of Conduct reserves for censure, having in some instances already been tolerated by the Bar Association in comparable cases involving other attorneys.

I. PARTIES

1. MMiqa, Plaintiff, Licensed Attorney of the Bar Association of Redmont.
2. Bar Association of Redmont, Defendant.

II. FACTS

1. On August 5, 2026, a Motion to Censure was filed against the Plaintiff before the BAR Council by Councillor OwnedBlock.

2. The motion alleged three violations against the Plaintiff: (a) an integrity breach under the Code of Conduct's General Principles on Trust and Integrity, based on the Plaintiff's inclusion of a Wrongful Death claim in MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77 purportedly citing the Criminal Code Act; (b) a violation of the Code of Conduct's Court Relations — Court Rules of Conduct provision, based on allegedly argumentative objections filed in MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69, posts numbered #9 through #12; and (c) Misuse of Artificial Intelligence.

3. The Code of Conduct's Misuse of Artificial Intelligence provision defines the signs of AI misuse it is concerned with as fabricated case names, statutes, or legal authorities; distorted or misrepresented facts, quotations, or holdings; unsupported propositions of law; falsified information about court procedures or filing requirements; and improperly blended legal concepts or standards. The provision states that legal work is investigated where it shows signs of this kind, not merely because AI was used, but because such misuse harms the parties, the courts, and the profession.

4. The motion did not allege that the Plaintiff's filings contained any fabricated authority, misrepresented fact or holding, unsupported proposition, falsified procedural claim, or blended legal standard. The sole basis offered for the Misuse of Artificial Intelligence allegation was that the Plaintiff had four cases ongoing as of June 15, 2026 — MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69, MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 91, MMiqa v. DHS [2026] DCR 77, and MMiqa v. Ognqn [2026] DCR 72 — and that the Plaintiff posted a response exceeding 1,000 words within 11 minutes of an objection filed by Ebborsnam in MMiqa v. DHS [2026] DCR 77, post #54, the Plaintiff's response appearing across posts #55 through #57. The motion itself acknowledged that close familiarity with the case and the use of pre-drafted or templated material could partially explain the speed of the response, but dismissed that explanation as unpersuasive on the stated basis that reading the objection alone would take approximately 5 minutes and that 6 minutes was, in the Council's own words, "the minimum for human review" — a threshold that appears nowhere in the Code of Conduct, is not one of the indicators the Code identifies, and was asserted without citation to any technical standard or evidentiary support.

5. As to the first allegation, the Plaintiff's citation was based on a characterization the Plaintiff had encountered in a prior case and relied upon in good faith; it was not a fabrication, and any error in that citation was a mistake of legal research, not a breach of trust or integrity. The same error — pleading Wrongful Death under the Criminal Code Act — has been made by other Bar-licensed attorneys in cases before this Court, including AvatarNate7983, UnitedBoss v. Hincho_ [2026] DCR 85, EditVoxel v. LavBebik [2026] DCR 87, Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 59, and Etco v. mvchrelle [2026] DCR 102, in each of which the claim was simply dismissed without prejudice and none of the representing attorneys faced any BAR disciplinary action whatsoever. After he was warned that Wrongful Death is not a tort, he had not filed a lawsuit based on that claim. All the claims he made was before he was warned.

6. As to the second allegation, the objections at issue in MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69 arose from the Plaintiff's unfamiliarity, at that early stage of practice, with the procedural distinction between objections and argumentation, and the conduct occurred once, during discovery, in only the Plaintiff's second case as a licensed attorney. Upon being corrected by the presiding judge, the Plaintiff conformed their conduct immediately and did not repeat the error. In one of his cases, second day of attorney career, the Plaintiff made a mistake of being argumentative in one of his cases, and the only one. This is a legal ground to censure someone, according to BAR.

7. Part IV, Section 2(2) of the Bar Association of Redmont Act provides that all decisions of the Council, including the imposition of sanctions under Part V, shall be passed by a simple majority of all sitting Councillors, not a majority of the votes cast. At the time of the vote, the BAR Council consisted of 4 active members following the resignation of one Councillor, the Council ordinarily comprising 5 seats. A simple majority of 4 sitting Councillors is 3.

8. The BAR Council voted on the motion as 2 in favor, 1 abstained, and 1 against. The Bar Association of Redmont announced that the motion passed, entering a censure on the Plaintiff's record.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

CLAIM I — INSUFFICIENT MAJORITY

Part V, Section 1(4)(c) of the Bar Association of Redmont Act requires "a majority vote of the Council" before any sanction may be imposed, but Part V does not itself define what constitutes a majority vote. That definition is supplied elsewhere in the same Act: Part IV, Section 2(2) states that all decisions of the Council shall be passed by a simple majority of all sitting Councillors. Nothing in Part V displaces or narrows that definition, and a term left undefined in one Part of a statute takes the meaning fixed for it elsewhere in the same statute rather than a separate, unstated meaning invented for the occasion. Reading Part V's majority vote requirement together with Part IV's definition, as the Act itself compels, a majority means a majority of the Council's sitting membership, not a majority of however many members happened to cast a non-abstaining vote. With 4 sitting Councillors, a majority requires 3 votes in favor. The motion received only 2 votes in favor. An interpretation that instead measures majority against only the votes cast — allowing an abstention to be silently dropped from the count — has no textual basis anywhere in the Act and cannot be reconciled with Part IV, Section 2(2). The censure was therefore passed without the majority the Act requires and is void.

CLAIM II — MISUSE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ALLEGATION UNSUPPORTED BY THE CODE OF CONDUCT

The Code of Conduct's Misuse of Artificial Intelligence provision defines the misconduct it addresses by reference to specific defects in the substance of a lawyer's work: fabricated authorities, misrepresented facts or holdings, unsupported legal propositions, falsified procedural claims, and improperly blended legal standards. It is these substantive defects, and the harm they cause to clients, courts, and the profession, that the provision is designed to catch. The motion identified none of them. It did not point to a single fabricated citation, misstated fact, unsupported proposition, false procedural claim, or blended standard in any of the Plaintiff's filings. Instead, the motion substituted an entirely different test of its own invention — that the Plaintiff was handling four cases at once and that a single response was filed faster than a threshold the Council set for itself without any basis in the Code, technical authority, or evidence. Caseload volume says nothing about how any particular filing was produced, and by the motion's own figures, roughly 6 of the 11 minutes remained after reading the objection for the Plaintiff, an attorney immersed in the DCR 77 record for weeks, to compose a reply from facts and arguments already prepared. An allegation resting on a standard the Code of Conduct does not contain, applied to conduct the Code's own enumerated indicators do not describe, is not merely weak but ultra vires the provision it purports to enforce, and cannot sustain a disciplinary finding.

BAR has shown speed and number of cases opened as a sign of "Misuse of AI" that was not recognized in any governing document.

CLAIM III — DISPROPORTIONATE DISCIPLINE ON THE REMAINING ALLEGATIONS

The remaining two allegations, even taken at face value, do not describe conduct warranting censure. The first concerns a citation the Plaintiff relied upon in good faith after encountering it in a prior case, at most a research error rather than a breach of trust or integrity, and one that other licensed attorneys have made in DCR 85, DCR 87, and DCR 102 without facing any BAR discipline; disciplining the Plaintiff alone for conduct the Bar Association has otherwise tolerated across multiple other cases cannot be reconciled with the even-handed application of the Code of Conduct. The second concerns conduct the Plaintiff corrected immediately upon judicial instruction, occurring only once, during discovery, in the Plaintiff's second case as a licensed attorney — the kind of early-practice mistake the Code of Conduct's own stated purpose, to guide rather than to nitpick, counsels against punishing so severely, particularly where no repetition followed the correction.

In order to have no conflict of interest whatsoever, the Plaintiff is asking for a Judge that was not server in MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69 case.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. Declare the censure issued against the Plaintiff on August 5, 2026 void and of no legal effect.
2. Order the Bar Association of Redmont to remove the censure from the Plaintiff's record.
3. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

REPRESENTATION

The Plaintiff, MMiqa, is a licensed Attorney of the Bar Association of Redmont and is representing themselves in this matter.

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 August, 2026

MMiqa
Plaintiff, Self-Represented
Licensed Attorney, Bar Association of Redmont

 
MMiqa said:
Notice

Ebborsnam is correct, I will be amending it again. For the record, I have done the edit one minute after and before anyone replied to.

Another thing, Ebborsnam is not representing the BAR I believe, so this is the third time this week he has done objections, while not being an attorney to the case.

I advice this court to punish Ebborsnam for the ongoing breach of procedure he had done in my case against DOHS and here. I will be amending the complaint again.
Click to expand...
Your Honor
Ebborsnam said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Your Honor, acknowledging that the Commonwealth has not been summoned for this matter, I'd like to point out the blatant violation of procedure here, court rule 3.3 states "...
Amendments to the complaint must be declared and explained to the presiding judge. Afterwards, the plaintiff (or prosecution) may edit the post containing their complaint."
The Plaintiff did not explain their amendment to the court. I'd also like to note that the Plaintiff edited their initial complaint after it was posted without permission from the court.

The commonwealth respectfully requests the court to handle this matter appropriately and formally warn the Plaintiff accordingly.

Click to expand...
I retract my objection as I've been made aware that the BAR themself might be handling this case instead of the Department of Justice.
 
Ebborsnam said:
Your Honor

I retract my objection as I've been made aware that the BAR themself might be handling this case instead of the Department of Justice.
Click to expand...

Objection


OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure

Ebborsnam, since MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77, has acted like a representative when he was not, showing lack of respect to Court despite being State Representative, as shown in Post 54, Post 58, and in Post 59, confirming he was not representing the Commonwealth, but still acted on his own, also in Post 65, he was fined 1000$ for:

Muggy21 said:
The use of profane language in court is distateful and grossly inappropriate.
Click to expand...
after that, in Post 73, after he was warned multiple times already in one lawsuit alone, he has done "Reply to Objection" again, and warned by the Judge once again.

I have shown these incidences to point out that he is doing the same thing after he was warned about it multiple times and yet does it here again, disregarding the previous warnings.

Now, he is here objecting without showing proof that he was representing the BAR and without waiting a Judge to take over the case, now retracts his "objection" after I pointed out what he did wrong.

In my case, where I was warned once and never done the same mistake again, was the basis for BAR censure, on top of my speed and opening 4 cases in couple days was the basis for the Misuse of AI. I wish to present Ebborsnam as not learning from his mistakes and interferes with Court multiple times despite being warned more than three times in one week that he was breaching the procedure. I wish to see this Court punish him accordingly.

MMiqa

 
Notice,

I wish to correct, State Prosecutor, not representative, since he was not representing the State here, but he acted like he was in the MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77 up until he realized his mistake, I wished to clearify.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top