Lawsuit: Adjourned AlexanderLove v. The Redmont Bar Association [2021] FCR 86

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alexander P. Love

Alexander P. Love

Citizen
Justice Department
Supporter
Popular in the Polls Legal Eagle Statesman Order of Redmont
AlexanderLove
AlexanderLove
State Prosecutor
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
1,388
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


AlexanderLove
Plaintiff

v.

The Redmont Bar Association
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On July 5th, 2021, I, AlexanderLove, was disbarred and my license to file lawsuits on behalf of clients was revoked by the Redmont Bar Association (RBA). I believe this disbarment is wrongful as it does not fulfill the requirements of the Legal Board Act. Furthermore, the Legal Board Act specifies, in Section Four, that the RBA can only strip lawyers of their ability to file lawsuits, and says nothing about the prohibition of participating and representing clients in active lawsuits. A member of the Redmont Bar Association Council, SumoMC, used his position to steal three clients from me by falsely claiming that I can no longer practice law, period, despite the fact that the case is already active. I am asking the Court to restore my ability to practice law in ongoing cases, and I am seeking damages from SumoMC / The RBA for the loss of three clients in a very valuable case.

I. PARTIES
1. AlexanderLove (Plaintiff)
2. Redmont Bar Association (Defendant)
3. SumoMC
4. Trentrick_Lamar, Hong_Kong_101, and ShinHeYing (My former clients)

II. FACTS
1. I made comments to another attorney that were taken out of context. I do admit I should have phrased things better, and I issued an apology to the other attorney for these comments. The comments are in Exhibit #1.
2. The RBA launched an investigation, and attempted to suspend my cases, as seen in Exhibit #2. I disputed this, citing the Legal Board Act, Section Five, and they included this dispute as part of the reason they disbarred me.
3. I was disbarred, for the reasons stated in Exhibit #3. I believe I have freedom of speech, and I never threatened anyone. Furthermore, I have the right to argue my side of the story, and standing up for myself should not be a reason for disbarment.
4. They cited morality as a reason for disbarment, however, I did nothing immoral. I was merely reminding the opposing council that their case is a clear loss, and that they should not have their reputation tarnished by taking a losing case. I do not see how this is immoral, let alone immoral enough to remove my license to practice law. I can understand where I went wrong, but I should not be disbarred over it.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Section Four of the Legal Board Act states that the RBA may only strip attorneys of their ability to file lawsuits, and does not specify they may strip them of their ability to otherwise represent clients, especially in active cases and in defense work.
2. Section Five of the Legal Board Act states that the RBA may only strip attorneys of their ability to file lawsuits under specific circumstances. The RBA contrived a very narrow reason to loosely justify their disbarment. The reason cited indicates they were searching for a reason to disbar me, rather than vote honestly. My actions were not negligent, as speaking to another attorney to get them to drop a case in no way endangered the case.
3. SumoMC, who was on the council, was competing with me for a case and had a conflict of interest. Nonetheless, he was one of the decision-makers on the council. This is immoral if anything.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Reinstatement into the Redmont Bar Association
2. Reinstatement of my license to file lawsuits on behalf of clients
3. Damages to compensate for reputation loss and loss of a major case ($25,000)
4. A written, public apology from the Redmont Bar Association
5. Legal fee repayment ($500)

V. EVIDENCE
I am hereby tendering the following exhibits into evidence:
https://imgur.com/a/VsgyATr

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 6th day of July, 2021
 
Court_Seal_Redmont.png


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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of AlexanderLove v. the Redmont Bar Association. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures.​
 
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

AlexanderLove
Plaintiff

v.

The Redmont Bar Association
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The legal boards act section gives clear clarification for the council to remove ones ability to file lawsuits for clients or other players, section fives gives some grounds for the removal of a practicing licence, in accordance with the grounds used for the conclusion of Alexanderlove disablement was 5.3, by practicing Malpractice ( improper, illegal, or negligent professional behaviour. ) this was one of the key reason why the decision was made.

2. The RBA also looked at the events when around the message was send, it was made clear that he did apologies for said action/words but that does mean they disappear, the time frame in which what was seem a last ditch attempt to push the opposing council into a corner and back them down.

3. The RBA bylaws states: The Redmont Bar Association is to regulate and organise the entire legal profession. This includes the regulation of law firms, legal information, public defenders and disciplinary action against all members fro breach of ones duty to the legal guidelines and any other scope specified in the legal boards act. This give the RBA the power to make sure that the profession is kept to a high standard and failure to do this is negligent of their duties.

4. The ethical guideline broken is misconduct of malpractice: improper, illegal, or negligent professional behaviour. If the codified basis of a ethical decree document is what the judge seek in clarification for this then my answer will be due to the failure of previous Councils, most notable the ethics chairperson that Judge Matthew at the time AG Matthew had informed the said council to implement such there was no document made. my belief is not in allow more ethical misconduct to continue, in the last two weeks we have seen two cases of misconduct reported to us, upon the first this council made the decision to start this process, however we can only move so fast at doing this considering how long this organisation has been running. the council is determined to get a document of ethical practice published as well as making sure within our power to make sure that the regulation of the legal profession remains proper and professional through the by laws of the RBA and legal boards act along with looking to irl areas of ethical practices which our legal system is created from. It would be both unethical and negligent if the council didn’t acted when members of the legal profession step out of line, we must take action and we did and we don’t regret that.

5. In regards to the information presented about Council member Sumo, at the time the clients referred to was under the representation fo Apex law firm owned by sumo, it is his right to protect clients at his firm for its reputation and for the clients legal safety in the event of any outcome. It shelved he acted correctly and effectively in dealing with the problem at hand.

6. In regard to the last evidence submitted, the statement made by Councilman Poemhunter was one addressed to all not one particular lawyer due to two reports in less than one week and the announcement by sumo was jut to inform the RBA of the decision, any council member could have done it he was just the one available at the time.

DATED: This 10 day of July 2021
 
Motion to dismiss overruled, this is a serious case that you do not allege any frivolities nor inaccuracies towards, instead you presented a counter argument towards the plaintiff's claims, the defense may now proceed with their opening statement.
 
Your honor I request that this be pushed back a bit, i am still new to the office and need a bit of time to get it together to be able to give my 100% in this case
 
Your honor, this case is a matter of urgency to me as every day this is delayed is a loss of my reputation, legal standing, and ability to practice what I love and rely on for income. I request that the delay is no more than 24 hours, or that the Attorney General utilizes a member of his office to continue this case.
 
Your honor,
I took over a office where I was the only prosecutor, I request 48 hours.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor, this case is a matter of urgency to me as every day this is delayed is a loss of my reputation, legal standing, and ability to practice what I love and rely on for income. I request that the delay is no more than 24 hours, or that the Attorney General utilizes a member of his office to continue this case.
Click to expand...
Objection overruled, the defendant was just appointed to attorney general with no staff to assist them with any such case

SumoMC said:
Your honor,
I took over a office where I was the only prosecutor, I request 48 hours.
Click to expand...
The court is hereby in recess for 48 hours, we may reconvene after that time
 
Your honor, the 48 hours have elapsed. I request that we move on as soon as possible.
 
the plaintiff may now proceed with their opening statement
 
May it please the Court,

This is a case of corruption over competition. The Redmont Bar Association decided to disbar me because they would rather be corrupt than deal with the competition I pose to them. I showed them I am not afraid to stand up for myself, with the law and Constitution on my side. That is when they made the decision to disbar me, under the grounds of refusing to abide by their illegal suspension. Under no law or bylaw can the RBA suspend a lawyer, nor may they strip a lawyer, for any length of time, from their ability to practice law. The law only provides the RBA can strip a lawyer of their ability to file cases on behalf of clients. This does not address the practicing of law inactive cases. Furthermore, the RBA will try to justify how their bylaws allow them to do certain actions. This same argument would be like the Congress passing a law to give themselves more power. No entity may give itself more power unilaterally, especially without Constitutional backing. The RBA is not a legislative entity and may not add criteria or parameters for the disbarring of attorneys. While it has the power to regulate attorneys, this has historically been interpreted to mean providing clear guidelines within the law to ensure lawyers do not step outside the bounds of the Legal Board Act.

Their bylaws are also vague in general. How can a lawyer follow the ethical guidelines when said ethical guidelines are enumerated nowhere? Everyone's standards of ethics are subjective and different based on their personal beliefs and experiences; so said ethics, in order to be enforceable, must be enumerated and made objective. I was removed from the RBA discord so I cannot provide their bylaw document but anyone with access can go read the document and see my point.

The Judge in the case I was counsel for agreed I broke no law with my statement and even knew I was attempting to make an out-of-court settlement with another attorney. This was executed poorly, and I indeed apologized to the other attorney and discussed the wrongdoing with him. This will be published into evidence below. The RBA cited me under "negligent practicing" for this maneuver. This was in no way negligent, as the foreseeability that this would ruin a case is none. The clients were out of the zone of danger in any event, and they could in no way be impacted by my personal interactions with another attorney. A Judge cannot alter a verdict based on out-of-court statements that do not change the facts of the case itself. This, therefore, is an unfair extrapolation contrived to simply eliminate the competition. Two of the five RBA councilors have, in the past, shown dislike and unfavorable treatment toward me. These councilors are SumoMC and Aladeen22.

That alone constitutes a conflict of interest, however, to make matters worse, SumoMC and I were, at the time, competing for a large business client in a huge lawsuit. The details of this were provided in my filing, and I will be calling each of the three defendants in that case to the stand to testify to the fact SumoMC and I were in competition during the RBA investigation on me. Neither Aladeen nor Sumo will be able to tell the Court that they recused themselves from the vote. SumoMC implied in a private conversation with me that he voted in favor of my disbarring, which confirms this fact. Evidence is provided below.

Section Five of the Legal Board Act provides that the RBA may only exercise its power in Section Four to strip a lawyer of their license to file a lawsuit on behalf of another client for very specific parameters. Throughout this case so far, I have addressed how their reasons step outside these parameters and the words were twisted unfairly just to find a reason to disbar me. The original intention of this law was to remove blatantly neglectful and incompetent attorneys from the legal industry, not just attorneys who merely pose a challenge for attorneys on the RBA council.

It has also come to my attention that councilor SumoMC has threatened fellow attorneys in the past. He is now the Attorney General. Evidence of this is provided below. Should he also be disbarred under the same bogus reasons I was? If we are going to be disbarring people for competitive, but not obstructive, interactions with other attorneys, we should also be disbarring the Attorney General. Or we should understand that this is not a valid reason to disbar fellow attorneys. Given that Sumo did the same actions himself and still voted in favor of my disbarment, it is clear he is being corrupt for the sake of removing competition from the playing field.

Given that the RBA investigation was botched due to a conflict of interest, they overstepped their boundaries given the parameters of the Legal Board Act, and they cited improper reasons for my disbarment, I ask the Court to grant my prayers for relief. We must not set the precedent that the RBA can remove attorneys they do not like. The stripping of a license to practice should not be taken lightly. It should be reserved for the most serious of legal industry infractions.

Thank you, your honor.

Evidence:
https://imgur.com/a/243Ndqs
 
Objection!

Your honor, first and foremost the evidence that he has provided is complete bogus. The incidents are very much different. I did not threaten the reputation of a lawyer I called his contract bad two very different things. We had a time limit and we needed to act fast. Since the incident me and the person I “threatened” agreed it was time sensitive and that what I did was tried to hurry the process along. I told him to drop the case because we took the settlement. I have informed the RBA of this and after an inquiry and questions by Councilman Dropper he dropped the issue. I also didn’t imply anything and Alex brining this up is his desperate attempt to have the court, the administration and the people to lose there confidence in my ability to do my job and my credibility.
 
Your honor, this objection has no nature. It is merely a rebuttal rather than a motion against a breach of Court procedure. It should be stricken from the record, and his rebuttal should be saved for his closing statement.
 
I apologize your honor I spoke out of turn.
 
The defendant may now proceed with their opening statement
 
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO DISMISS



Alexsander P. Love

Plaintiff



v.



The Redmont Bar Association



MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:



1.) Legal Board Act section 5 subsections 3 and 4

(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.



In attempting to intimidate opposing council outside of the courts, the lawyer (Alexsander P Love) violated subsection 3 by seeking an extralegal solution to a legal dispute outside the jurisdiction of the courts.

Due to the same incident, the lawyer was reported to the RBA by a lawfully serving Judge, which serves to represent "other procedure or terms set out by the courts"

Due to the breach of these two expressly codified clauses, the RBA has invoked Section 4 Subsection 2:

(2) The Council of the board may vote to revoke such person’s ability to file a lawsuit.





Section 4 subsection 2 clearly states:

(2) The Council of the board may vote to revoke such person’s ability to file a lawsuit.

The council voted, and his ability to file lawsuits is accordingly revoked.

Therefore the RBA Council was Legally within their right to Disbar Alexander P Love and revoke his membership from the Redmont Bar Association

(The words defendand and complaint should be changed in case the motion is to dismiss a counterclaim.)

DATED: This 19th day of July 2021
 
Does the plaintiff have any rebuttal?
 
Your honor, the plaintiff's motion to dismiss was already previously denied. We are here to dispute the facts brought about in the motion for dismissal.

SumoMC said:
Section 4 subsection 2 clearly states:

(2) The Council of the board may vote to revoke such person’s ability to file a lawsuit.

The council voted, and his ability to file lawsuits is accordingly revoked.

Therefore the RBA Council was Legally within their right to Disbar Alexander P Love and revoke his membership from the Redmont Bar Association
Click to expand...

It is stipulated in Section Five of the Legal Board Act that they may only revoke if certain terms are met. These terms were not met. We are here to deliberate over that claim.

SumoMC said:
1.) Legal Board Act section 5 subsections 3 and 4

(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.



In attempting to intimidate opposing council outside of the courts, the lawyer (Alexsander P Love) violated subsection 3 by seeking an extralegal solution to a legal dispute outside the jurisdiction of the courts.
Click to expand...

I was attempting to reach a settlement with the opposing counsel. The Judge in the original case did indeed say what I did was legal and he recognized I was not attempting to obstruct justice. Extralegal solutions to legal disputes are called settlements, and are fully legal and reached often. This is not against any precedent or regulation. As previously stated, I was abiding by all procedures and terms. If one searches, there is no law or regulation that says I did something against regulation or prohibits what I did. The RBA has no ethics document or such regulation. Canxx admitted they don't have a proper ethics document and that they mean to write one, but this does not mean they can punish for unenumerated ethics. I fully believe I was providing effective counsel in representing my clients in Court. What I did in no way would have foreseeably affected the trial. Ineffective counsel would be giving improper legal advice, filing a claim that helped the opposition win, releasing falsified evidence, etc... which I did not do. I was constructing a winning case and attempting to get the opposition to settle to make the case less stressful for my clients.



As always, this motion to dismiss does not allege any inaccuracies or frivolities. I have brought serious disputes that are contested between myself and the defendant, that need to be settled in Court. Thank you, your honor.
 
Motion to dismiss overruled, as the motion to dismiss appears more like a rebuttal then allegations of inaccuracy or frivolity, the defendant may now proceed with their opening statement
 
Your Honor, I would like to submit a Motion of Reconsideration:

You, Your Honor, have asked for a motion to dismiss that alleges frivolity or inaccuracy, and I have cited the very law that gives the RBA the power to exercise what the Defendant has sued it for. I did not issue any rebuttal, as I literally did not give an answer to any claims that the Defendant did. How can my motion to dismiss be construed as a rebuttal when it doesn't give an answer to any of the defendants claims?

For these reasons I would like for this court to entertain my Motion of Reconsideration on the overruling of my motion to dismiss. Thank you
 
Motion overruled, not only does a Motion of Reconsideration not exist, but the motion to dismiss uses the law itself to counter the initial filing, the allegations of "inaccuracy" simply provides their interpretation of a law which the plaintiff already acknowledges, and there are no allegations of frivolity, as well as the lawsuit isn't entirely off of that interpretation, it is also partially based off of allegations of corruption in the Redmont Bar Association, the defendant may now proceed with their opening statement
 
OPENING STATEMENT:

The Redmont Bar Association oversees the Entire legal profession. This includes the conduct of lawyers that are members. During a case Alexsander P Love decided that instead of playing by the rules in a case he knew he was going to lose, he decided to try and intimidate a well respected lawyer, a diligent and hard working one at that. When the judge asked for an investigation into his conduct the members of the Redmont Bar Association Council leaped into action and launched an investigation for a few reasons.

1.) To hold Alexsander P Love accountable for his actions
2.) To protect the integrity of the profession and institution
3.) to do our due diligence to the lawyer he tried to intimidate and to the court who as extremely concerned by the tactics used by the Plaintiff

Mr Love claims that the RBA is “intimidated” by him. This is false. The RBA is intimidated by no one. The RBA has no reason to because it is the institution that runs the field. Mr Love is doing nothing there but trying to boost his own sense of self worth and make a case of prejudice, that’s not what’s going on here. The investigation into Mr Love was for his conduct, not because we feared him.

The RBA was within its right to disbar Former Lawyer Alexsander P Love. The council found wrong doing ok his behalf and temporarily suspended his license to practice law.
 
Thank you, the plaintiff may now proceed with their opening statement
 
Your honor, I have already made my opening statement, however, I would like to add that I broke no rules. Nowhere does it say intimidation is against any regulation, except under obstruction of justice. What I did was found by the Court to not have constituted obstruction of justice, and therefore is a fully legal tactic. Under no RBA document does it say what I did was in any way against a rule or regulation. Furthermore, I was not intending to intimidate the opposing council as opposed to simply trying to come off as confident to show the other attorney I would not be settling for anything less than my clients deserved.

Additionally, the Plaintiff alleges I am making this a case of prejudice, when in fact I am merely giving evidence and explanation to the fact the RBA searched for a justification in disbarring me. I received no warning that what I did was wrong or against any rules (it wasn't), but I believe an instant stripping of my license was a maneuver to eliminate competition, as no reasonable unbiased council would instantly strip the practicing license of an attorney over a single verbal statement that did not go against any law or regulation. I would like to add that the RBA is making this a prejudicial case by using ad hominem insults against my character. I ask the Court to remind the defendant to be civil throughout this entire case.

Thank you, your honor.
 
Apologies, you had already submitted your opening statement, does either party have any further evidence or any witnesses they would like to present?
 
Your honor, I would like to call Trentrick_Lamar, Hong_Kong_101, and ShinHeYing to the stand.
 
Before I summon them, what relevance do they hold to the case besides being clients of yours at the time of the revocation?
 
bubbarc said:
Before I summon them, what relevance do they hold to the case besides being clients of yours at the time of the revocation?
Click to expand...
Your honor, they can testify to the conflict between me and Sumo to show the bias in the council's decision. Additionally, they can also testify to the fact that I am an attorney who had their best interests at heart and that I was tactical throughout the case, and that I am not a negligent attorney as the RBA accuses.
 
Very well, as Trentrick_Lamar is currently banned I cannot summon him, however the other two witnesses have been summoned
 
Your Honor, I am present here at court to testify in this case.
 
I would like to call Aladeen22 and Pugbandit
 
Your Honor, I am present here at court.
 
Hi, your honor, I'm present
 
As both of the defendant's witnesses are already there we will start with them, firstly the defendant may ask any questions they may have then we will open the floor to cross-examination
 
As the attorney general has been appointed to the courts and had the position refilled I hereby put the court into recess for 48 hours
 
Your honor, I would like to additionally summon SumoMC to testify in this case when the case resumes.
 
The Court feels there would be a conflict of interest in SumoMC serving as a witness for the plaintiff considering the allegations against them, therefore I am overruling this request
 
Your honor, I request we move forward with this trial as the 48 hours has elapsed.
 
The plaintiff may now proceed with their questions to their witnesses
 
Hong_Kong_101 and ShinHeYing,

1) Do you feel the services I provided were careful, methodical, and strategic?
2) Did I exhibit any negligence at any point during the time in which I was rendering my services to you in the case against Galavance?
3) Do you believe that I am a good or a bad lawyer?
4) In your opinion, did I exhibit enough immorality to warrant my license to practice law being stripped?
5) Did you witness SumoMC and I in conflict with each other to keep you as a client?
6) Would you say SumoMC was fighting hard to keep you as a client?
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Hong_Kong_101 and ShinHeYing,

1) Do you feel the services I provided were careful, methodical, and strategic?
2) Did I exhibit any negligence at any point during the time in which I was rendering my services to you in the case against Galavance?
3) Do you believe that I am a good or a bad lawyer?
4) In your opinion, did I exhibit enough immorality to warrant my license to practice law being stripped?
5) Did you witness SumoMC and I in conflict with each other to keep you as a client?
6) Would you say SumoMC was fighting hard to keep you as a client?
Click to expand...
Question three is overruled, as the question is subjective, that being said the other five questions the court will allow
 
1) Do you feel the services I provided were careful, methodical, and strategic?

It is my belief that you are at least a competent lawyer, from the work that you did on the case. I also believe that you were a motivated and determined lawyer who wanted the best outcome for his clients. However, I have not had a sufficient chance to determine whether the specific adjectives provided described your work, due to your time as my legal counsel on the case being comparatively short.

2) Did I exhibit any negligence at any point during the time in which I was rendering my services to you in the case against Galavance?

You did not exhibit any specific instances of negligence (which I would interpret to mean not providing a service or performing an action when requested by us). However, I do believe your conversation with Cooleagles was negligence-adjacent, since you communicated with the lawyer of the opposing side in the case without our prior instruction or knowledge in a way that possibly damaged the reputation of our side in the case.

4) In your opinion, did I exhibit enough immorality to warrant my license to practice law being stripped?

I do not believe that your offense committed in your conversation with Cooleagles was of great enough magnitude to have you barred from practicing law. However, my judgement in answering this question is based on my personal sense of morality, and on no law or statute, because I am unfamiliar with the regulations of the RBA and what the RBA officially considers to be a grave enough offense to warrant disbarment .

5) Did you witness SumoMC and I in conflict with each other to keep you as a client?

Yes.

6) Would you say SumoMC was fighting hard to keep you as a client?

I believe he was making an effort to keep us as clients of his firm as much as could reasonably be expected. I do not, however, believe he was especially desperate in this regard.
 
1) Do you feel the services I provided were careful, methodical, and strategic?

Your time representing me and the other defendant was relatively short. You're competent for the job by the basic standards it requires.

2) Did I exhibit any negligence at any point during the time in which I was rendering my services to you in the case against Galavance?

Yes. You didn't communicate well with Cooleagles and didn't notify us prior to contacting Cooleagles, which could've caused damages to our case.

4) In your opinion, did I exhibit enough immorality to warrant my license to practice law being stripped?

No opinion. My own concept of morality doesn't fit well with what morality is stated as in the law. But the offense wasn't a major wrong so it doesn't warrant your license removal.

5) Did you witness SumoMC and I in conflict with each other to keep you as a client?

Yes.

6) Would you say SumoMC was fighting hard to keep you as a client?

I believe he had other clients at the same time as us, so we were not his priority in terms of clients. But he did communicate to us in a professional standard which let us choose him.
 
Thank you both.

Your honor, defendant's witnesses.
 
Thank you both, the defense may now cross examine the plaintiff's witnesses
 
If the defendant doesn't have their cross examination within 72 hours we will move on without it
 
Your honor,

The Defense has no question for the witnesses.
 
Then the defense may ask their witnesses any questions they may have, or, due to the circumstances around the Office of the Attorney General I will also allow the defense to dismiss the witnesses
 
if the defendant doesn't reply within 24 hours the witnesses will simply be dismissed
 
if the defense doesn't have a response within 24 hours the court will simply dismiss the witnesses
 
Question to the witnesses.
1. Why did you vote to disbar Alexander Love?
2. Did the RBA have the legal right to disbar Alexander Love?
2. Did you vote in favor of Alexander Love's disbarment?
4. What compelled you to vote that way?
5. Where you forced to vote that way?
6. Was there an internal plot to take down Alexander Love?
 
Your honor I have decided to use the fifth amendment and not answer any of the questions.
 
While the court respects this answer for the latter three questions, the former three I do not see any issue with you answering
 
I do not feel comfortable answering questions 1, 2 and 3 and thats why I request to be dismissed
 
Does either party have any objection to this witness?
 
Your honor, I believe the questions are prejudicial over probative. I, therefore, object to all six questions and side with the witness not wishing to answer the questions, as it is the ethical and constitutional thing to do.
 
I concur with the plaintiff, the witness is now dismissed
 
I would also like to ask that the second witness is given different questions
 
Questions for pugbandit:
1) Was there an internal plot to take down Alexander Love?
2) Did the RBA feel threatened at all by Alexander Love?
3) Was anyone forced or pressured to vote in favor of disbarment?
 
1) A "plot"- definitely not. There was a procedure and debate at the end of which we decided that the license should be removed due to a breach of our ethical standards.
2) No there was no reason for us to feel "threatened".
3) I can speak for myself in saying- no I was not pressured into voting a certain way.
 
Thank you, the plaintiff may now cross witness the defense's witness
 
Should the plaintiff not have any cross examination ready within 48 hours we will move on without it, I would also like to let both parties know that tomorrow I am moving house and may absent for most of the day
 
Mr. Pugbandit, I have many questions for you. It would be convenient for you and the Court if you could keep your answers to a yes or a no, when possible.


pugbandit said:
we decided that the license should be removed due to a breach of our ethical standards.
Click to expand...

1) Isn't it true that there are no published ethics documents for the RBA anywhere?

2) If there are, please attach them here and cite my specific ethical infraction, please.

3) Isn't it true that, at the time, I was still a fairly new lawyer and have never had any warnings from the RBA prior?

4) Do you believe that people should be made aware of rules before being punished for said rules, especially if said rules are not documented anywhere?

5) Did any member of the RBA recuse themselves from the vote of disbarment due to any sort of conflicts of interest?

6) Don't you think, if an RBA councilor has a conflict of interest in a matter, that it would be ethical that they recuse themselves?

7) Isn't it true another attorney did a similar thing I did and was excused by the RBA? (See exhibits 4 and 5)
https://imgur.com/a/243Ndqs

8) Wouldn't this lead a reasonable person to believe this course of action is acceptable, legal, and ethical due to precedent?


Thank you.
 
Last edited:
1) At the time no, I believe that there is one now, however. By standards, I believe that the elected RBA council members (at the time I presided over) were entitled to a basic view of where standards should be.
2) From the time there were none.
3) I do not recollect any warnings- and have no knowledge of whether you were new or not at the time.
4) As a general rule- yes. However, the fact that those elected councilors thought something was wrong does hold weight too, I believe.
5) I cannot recall (sorry don't have best memory of it all)
6) If there was a major conflict of interest- yes.
7/8) I do recall that some things were brought forward regarding an incident- however, I cannot recall the discussion around it. I believe that the RBA, in general, does things on a per-case basis (noticed when I used to preside) however I do believe that people should be treated equally.

I would like to say however that without the chat logs- I am struggling to recall a lot of these situations.
 
I'd like to thank the witnesses, both parties may now proceed with their closing statements starting with the plaintiff, I would like to request both parties have their closing statement in within 72 hours
 
May it please the Court,

Your honor, today, I, along with the facts, have demonstrated that the Redmont Bar Association's decision to disbar me was wrongful, unfair, and extreme. The investigation was full of conflicts of interest, unfair standards, and enforcement of rules that do not exist. Everyone's definition of ethics is different, and I was abiding by the ethical standards I learned from my legal studies thus far. At the time, I was a fairly new player and attorney, and was given no warnings or rule guidelines of any kind by the RBA. Their decision to disbar me was unfair.

The former RBA Chairman testified there was no rules or regulations document, and that there was no way for me to know I was breaking a rule. The rules simply did not exist due to the negligence of the RBA.

I have established earlier with prior witnesses that SumoMC had a conflict of interest. I am sure he meant no malintent in his actions however the fight between two firms over a client could have impacted his judgment.

We have also seen that other attorneys were indeed investigated for the same offenses and were not punished. This shows that the actions were ok due to precedent, despite being investigated on a case-by-case basis. If there is not a rules document, then surely precedent should apply when judging in these matters. Alas, there was no logic or reason ground in any philosophy or reasoning of law in my disbarment. Due to this, my license to practice law and RBA membership should be restored. For all this time not being able to practice law, loss to my legal and professional reputation, and loss of being the legal counsel to the Galavance case I previously had, I should be granted the $25,000 in damages. I would also like a public written apology from the RBA as well as $500 in legal fees for putting all this effort into this case.

The Legal Board Act was written with the intention of disbarring lawyers in extreme cases. It specifies in section V the reasons an attorney can be stripped of their practicing license. I am an attorney who tries my best for my clients and studies law in real life. My former client Hong_Kong testified I did try my best.

I would also like to ask the Court to interpret the Legal Board Act in the matter of Section IV. Does the removal of someone's license to file a lawsuit also remove their ability to represent clients in ongoing cases or in defenses?

Back to the original matter at hand, I made a single mistake and I did apologize to the offended party for my actions and will ensure this does not happen again. However, a warning or some kind of rule should have existed. I ask you to restore my license and not set the precedent that the RBA can disbar attorneys under loose and vague reasons without any warning or documented policies/rules.

Thank you.
 
The defense may proceed with their closing statement, the court would like to request it be in within 72 hours
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT


AlexanderLove
Plaintiff

v.

Redmont Bar Association
Defendant


Your honor,

As this case comes to a close, we must inspect the role of the Redmont Bar Association very carefully. As listed, to be disbarred and have your practicing license revoked, the council must vote at least a two thirds majority vote, meaning three councilmen must vote in favor of both disbarment and of removal of a practicing license. Throughout this case, Alexander Love has expressed what he feels is wrong with the Redmont Bar Association, and expressed what he feels the policies of the RBA should be, however, the plaintiff fails to show any actual wrongdoings.

In the Legal Board Act, it states in section five Terms for Removal, subsection three it states “Lawyers must ensure they are providing effective counsel in representing their clients in court.” As both of the plaintiffs stated, they were displeased with reaching out to the plaintiff’s attorney Coolegals. The bylaws of the RBA clearly state that removal must be a two thirds majority vote. As far as the process of disbarment and revoking Mr. Love’s practicing license, the council had every right to disbar.

As pugbandit stated, there was no conspiracy to remove Mr. Love, and no foul play was involved in the vote. The vote was the council doing their job, conducting a fair vote on a serious matter. The RBA is to make sure that the legal profession remains a professional profession, and to make sure that Redmont’s lawyers remain to the high standards they take up when becoming a lawyer; a standard that Mr. Love did not follow.

With that, the defense rests.
 

Verdict

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff, AlexanderLove, alleges that the Redmont Bar Association illegally removed their practicing license
2. The Plaintiff further alleges that the Redmont Bar Association does not have the power to prevent people from continuing ongoing cases
3. Furthermore, the Plaintiff alleges that Former Bar Association Councilman SumoMC had a conflict of interest in the revocation of the Plaintiff's license, as SumoMC had been allegedly fighting to get the Plaintiff's client for themself
4. The Plaintiff feels that they did not qualify to be disbarred, that SumoMC had plotted to have the plaintiff removed to further their own career, and that the Redmont Bar Association did not have power to stop them from continuing their ongoing case

II. DEFENDANTS POSITION
1. The Defendant believes that the Redmont Bar Association acted in their legal right to revoke the Plaintiff's practicing license, that they were not providing effective council to their clients, and that there was no such conspiracy from SumoMC in order to steal the Plaintiff's clients
2. The Defendant alleges that due to the clients not being happy with how the Plaintiff handled the case they weren't providing effective counsel for their clients

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The Court believes that the Redmont Bar Association acted outside of their legal right to revoke somebody's legal license and had illegally revoked their license, the fact that somebody's client does not agree with how they handled something does not mean they didn't provide an effective service, however with the added note that now it would be legal to revoke t due to an amendment to the Legal Board Act passed by congress, however due to the revocation of the Plaintiff's license and the offense listed happening before the passage of the amendment, it does not apply in this circumstance.
2. The Court does not believe however there was a conspiracy from SumoMC, as the clients in question were clients of SumoMC's law firm they were already his clients, simply represented by an employee of his.
3. The Court believes that the compensation requested is unreasonable because the Redmont Bar Association is an entity outside the government that has no specific budget, and no way to make any money without government aid or donations, the Redmont Bar Association simply cannot cover the compensation requested.
4. The Court believes that should somebody have their ability to file lawsuits on behalf of a client revoked the writer of the Legal Board Act had intended that they would no longer be able to represent a client in court

IV. DECISION
The court hereby orders:
1: The Plaintiff be granted the ability to file lawsuits on behalf of a client reinstated
2: The Plaintiff be readmitted into the Redmont Bar Association

I would like to thank both parties for their time, this case is hereby adjourned in favor of the plaintiff.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top