Lawsuit: Pending Ebborsnam v. Bar Association of Redmont

E

Ebborsnam

Citizen
Supporter
Health Department
Grave Digger Change Maker Contemptable
Ebborsnam
Ebborsnam
Attorney
Joined
Oct 4, 2024
Messages
135

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Ebborsnam
Plaintiff

v.

The Bar Association of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

The Bar Association of Redmont has censured me for conduct which it considered unacceptable. I do not dispute that my actions were inappropriate. However, the conduct addressed in the censure had already been addressed by the Court: I was found in contempt, fined for that contempt, given prison time for that contempt and received a conduct strike. The following further sanction by the Bar Association in the form of a censure therefore is double punishment for the same offence and violates my constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. The Bar Association of Redmont (Defendant)
2. Ebborsnam (Plaintiff)

II. FACTS
1. On 11 August 2026 (CEST), the Bar Association of Redmont censured the Plaintiff.
2. The stated grounds for the censure include multiple offences for which the Plaintiff had already been punished by the Court.
3. Part V, §3 of the Bar Association of Redmont Act classifies a censure as a "sanction."
4. Part V, § 16 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont provides: "No citizen shall be tried or punished again for an offence regarding a single criminal act for which they have already been finally convicted or acquitted, in accordance with the law."
5. The sanctions previously imposed by the Court and the following censure imposed by the Bar Association arise from the same conduct.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Violation of Constitutional Rights
By imposing a sanction for conduct that had already resulted in punishment, the Bar Association of Redmont violated the Plaintiff's constitutional protection against being punished again for the same act, as provided by Part V, §16 of the Constitution.
2. The censure constitutes a sanction
Part V, § 3 of the Bar Association of Redmont Act explicitly classifies a censure as a "sanction." The Defendant therefore cannot reasonably state that the censure was non-punitive.
3. Same underlying conduct
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant may not impose an additional punitive sanction for the same conduct after that conduct has already resulted in judicial punishment.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Declare that the Defendant's censure violates Part V, § 16 of the Constitution.
2. Order the Bar Association of Redmont to retract the censure.
3. Order the Bar Association of Redmont to publish an apology acknowledging the sanction was improper.
4. Award the Plaintiff $7,500 in nominal damages.
5. Award further relief as the Court deems proper.

V. EVIDENCE

P-001 Lawsuit: In Session - MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77

P-002 Lawsuit: In Session - MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77

P-003 Lawsuit: Pending - MMiqa v. Bar Association of Redmont [2026] FCR 72

P-004 Lawsuit: Pending - MMiqa v. Bar Association of Redmont [2026] FCR 72

P-005
O

Accepted Thread 'Motion to Censure Ebborsnam'

I, OwnedBlock, move to censure Attorney Ebborsnam for multiple persistent violations of the BAR Code of Conduct (after consideration of their response to evidence), specifically the sections listed below, with brief explanations as to each violation:
  • General Principles - Court Rules of Conduct (Paragraph 1) - multiple violations in:
    • MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77:
      • #54 - objection to questions as witness
      • #58 - use of profane language in court (disruption of court decorum)
      • #96 - disrespect for court decorum (irrelevant message)
      • #98 -...

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 12th day of August, 2026

 
Ebborsnam said:

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Ebborsnam
Plaintiff

v.

The Bar Association of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF


I. PARTIES
1. The Bar Association of Redmont (Defendant)
2. Ebborsnam (Plaintiff)

II. FACTS
1. On 11 August 2026 (CEST), the Bar Association of Redmont censured the Plaintiff.
2. The stated grounds for the censure include multiple offences for which the Plaintiff had already been punished by the Court.
3. Part V, §3 of the Bar Association of Redmont Act classifies a censure as a "sanction."
4. Part V, § 16 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont provides: "No citizen shall be tried or punished again for an offence regarding a single criminal act for which they have already been finally convicted or acquitted, in accordance with the law."
5. The sanctions previously imposed by the Court and the following censure imposed by the Bar Association arise from the same conduct.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Violation of Constitutional Rights
By imposing a sanction for conduct that had already resulted in punishment, the Bar Association of Redmont violated the Plaintiff's constitutional protection against being punished again for the same act, as provided by Part V, §16 of the Constitution.
2. The censure constitutes a sanction
Part V, § 3 of the Bar Association of Redmont Act explicitly classifies a censure as a "sanction." The Defendant therefore cannot reasonably state that the censure was non-punitive.
3. Same underlying conduct
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant may not impose an additional punitive sanction for the same conduct after that conduct has already resulted in judicial punishment.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Declare that the Defendant's censure violates Part V, § 16 of the Constitution.
2. Order the Bar Association of Redmont to retract the censure.
3. Order the Bar Association of Redmont to publish an apology acknowledging the sanction was improper.
4. Award the Plaintiff $7,500 in nominal damages.
5. Award further relief as the Court deems proper.

V. EVIDENCE

P-001 Lawsuit: In Session - MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77

P-002 Lawsuit: In Session - MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77

P-003 Lawsuit: Pending - MMiqa v. Bar Association of Redmont [2026] FCR 72

P-004 Lawsuit: Pending - MMiqa v. Bar Association of Redmont [2026] FCR 72

P-005

O

Accepted Thread 'Motion to Censure Ebborsnam'

I, OwnedBlock, move to censure Attorney Ebborsnam for multiple persistent violations of the BAR Code of Conduct (after consideration of their response to evidence), specifically the sections listed below, with brief explanations as to each violation:
  • General Principles - Court Rules of Conduct (Paragraph 1) - multiple violations in:
    • MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77:
      • #54 - objection to questions as witness
      • #58 - use of profane language in court (disruption of court decorum)
      • #96 - disrespect for court decorum (irrelevant message)
      • #98 -...

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 12th day of August, 2026

Click to expand...
Your Honor, may I amend this to include spoilers to the evidence and hyperlink the relevant law when mentioned? This is just to make it easier for everyone involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top