- Joined
- Apr 21, 2025
- Messages
- 15
- Thread Author
- #1
- Client Name: MC20masarati (versus The Exchange)
- Counsel Name: Pro se
- Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Plaintiff
- Reason for the Appeal: The Modern Legal Reform Act grants lawyers the right to file cases on behalf of clients and represent them. Pro se filing has always been supported in Redmont and Ko has decided to directly contravene both tradition and law to prohibit me from filing a case to protect my financial interests in the Federal Court. Essentially, the Court has said that I must pay money to a lawyer (or pay money to attain legal credentials) to be granted access to the justice system, or else I will not have the right to seek remedy for my case.
First, this violates my right to a trial: “Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer”. This right is unconditional and does not require that I seek counsel to be permitted to exercise this right, especially since the right later stipulates I am only entitled to counsel for defense. Practical limitations therefore bar me from being able to exercise my right even as a pauper (which I effectively am given my bank accounts are currently frozen).
Second, this violates my right to equality under the law: “Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.” My social status is currently that of a poor person who cannot afford legal representation, and even if I could, I should not be required to make a payment in order to have access to the justice system like everyone else. Broke or rich, everyone is equal under the law and the right to file cases and represent oneself is a fundamental legal protection all citizens are owed.
Third, this violates my right to security of the person: “Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” Because I am not able to freely litigate my own cases, my financial interests are unprotected and insecure. Because money is what is used to sustain the life of a person in a capitalist society such as Redmont, being denied the ability to seek legal remedy is harmful not only in this case, but in all cases where such a policy prohibits people from desiring to protect their interests.
Fourth, the Constitution stipulates that “All accused are entitled to appeal a charge made against them by the state.” While I am not accused by the state in this case, this right makes it clear that people can appeal their own cases. The Constitution specifically allows people to appeal their charges unconditionally, and does not necessitate an attorney to represent them. Therefore, it is clear that the Constitution protects a person’s right to self representation.
Fifth and finally, let’s analyze the Modern Legal Board Act, which says “The Solicitor rank shall… Permit the holder to… File any kind of cases on behalf of clients in District Court.” While the verbiage of the Federal Court Barrister privileges slightly differ, it is clear from reading the law and the privileges of solicitors that the aim is to limit unqualified people from representing other clients. Ko531 in the case being appealed said so himself that representing clients specifically does not include representing oneself — it means third parties. In section three, it states that “Passing a specialization exam permits a legal practitioner to provide legal representation, advocacy, and advisory services within the designated field of that specialization before the Federal Court of Redmont.” This verbiage also makes it clear that the barrister specialization is meant to enable a lawyer to provide a service to other people. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the law never explicitly denies any person the ability to file cases in a Court of law; only the ability to represent clients that they are not authorized to. There is no clause specifically stating a person CANNOT file a case in a certain Court, there is only text enumerating that certain ranks CAN file cases, with the implication that these cases are on behalf of other clients.
- Additional Information: I ask that the Court use the above reasoning to enumerate my right to file this appeal in this Court. The appeals thread says it must be filed by a lawyer, and I am a solicitor currently which is a lawyer rank.
- Counsel Name: Pro se
- Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Plaintiff
- Reason for the Appeal: The Modern Legal Reform Act grants lawyers the right to file cases on behalf of clients and represent them. Pro se filing has always been supported in Redmont and Ko has decided to directly contravene both tradition and law to prohibit me from filing a case to protect my financial interests in the Federal Court. Essentially, the Court has said that I must pay money to a lawyer (or pay money to attain legal credentials) to be granted access to the justice system, or else I will not have the right to seek remedy for my case.
First, this violates my right to a trial: “Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer”. This right is unconditional and does not require that I seek counsel to be permitted to exercise this right, especially since the right later stipulates I am only entitled to counsel for defense. Practical limitations therefore bar me from being able to exercise my right even as a pauper (which I effectively am given my bank accounts are currently frozen).
Second, this violates my right to equality under the law: “Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.” My social status is currently that of a poor person who cannot afford legal representation, and even if I could, I should not be required to make a payment in order to have access to the justice system like everyone else. Broke or rich, everyone is equal under the law and the right to file cases and represent oneself is a fundamental legal protection all citizens are owed.
Third, this violates my right to security of the person: “Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” Because I am not able to freely litigate my own cases, my financial interests are unprotected and insecure. Because money is what is used to sustain the life of a person in a capitalist society such as Redmont, being denied the ability to seek legal remedy is harmful not only in this case, but in all cases where such a policy prohibits people from desiring to protect their interests.
Fourth, the Constitution stipulates that “All accused are entitled to appeal a charge made against them by the state.” While I am not accused by the state in this case, this right makes it clear that people can appeal their own cases. The Constitution specifically allows people to appeal their charges unconditionally, and does not necessitate an attorney to represent them. Therefore, it is clear that the Constitution protects a person’s right to self representation.
Fifth and finally, let’s analyze the Modern Legal Board Act, which says “The Solicitor rank shall… Permit the holder to… File any kind of cases on behalf of clients in District Court.” While the verbiage of the Federal Court Barrister privileges slightly differ, it is clear from reading the law and the privileges of solicitors that the aim is to limit unqualified people from representing other clients. Ko531 in the case being appealed said so himself that representing clients specifically does not include representing oneself — it means third parties. In section three, it states that “Passing a specialization exam permits a legal practitioner to provide legal representation, advocacy, and advisory services within the designated field of that specialization before the Federal Court of Redmont.” This verbiage also makes it clear that the barrister specialization is meant to enable a lawyer to provide a service to other people. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the law never explicitly denies any person the ability to file cases in a Court of law; only the ability to represent clients that they are not authorized to. There is no clause specifically stating a person CANNOT file a case in a certain Court, there is only text enumerating that certain ranks CAN file cases, with the implication that these cases are on behalf of other clients.
- Additional Information: I ask that the Court use the above reasoning to enumerate my right to file this appeal in this Court. The appeals thread says it must be filed by a lawyer, and I am a solicitor currently which is a lawyer rank.
