Lawsuit: Adjourned lawanoesepr v. The Redmont Bar Association [2022] DCR 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
My apologies, I have been incredibly busy irl. I find Aladeen in contempt of court, and I hereby order that the DOJ fine him $50.
 
Furthermore, if the Defense has any further questions for nnmc, they may ask them or state that they have none.
 
The defense rest your honor
 
If Aladeen does not reply in 24 hours, we will have to move on to closing statements without his testimony, and he will be found again in contempt of court.
 
Your honor it has exceeded 24 hours by alot
 
Indeed it has, and I apologize deeply for my inactivity. We will now move on to closing statements as Aladeen has failed to respond at all and this cannot be prolonged any further. The Plaintiff may now present their closing statements.
 
Hello everyone, I will be taking over this case, I will read it through quickly and then we will move on.
 
Your Honor,

I would like to ask the court for a speedy closing. This case has been dragged out for far to long. The plaintiff has bad well over 72 hours to present a closing statement.
 
Aladeen has still not responded. He is in contempt of court, and due to this being his 2nd offense, I hereby order the DOJ to fine him $350, and put him in jail for 5 minutes.

On a separate note, the Plaintiff has had well 72 hours and hasn't provided their closing statement. Because of this, we will skip their closing statement, and the defense has 48 hours to provide their closing statement.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH

CLOSING STATEMENT

Through this court case, the plaintiff has tried to prove that his right to have a government official was violated by the Former Chairman of the RBA and therefore the RBA had violated the Modern Legal Board Act. This is false, the RBA did not violate the plaintiffs rights. In the MLBA, there is no clear process to have a Councilor Removed. All it says is that 2/3rds of the board must be in agreement to have a councilor removed. How is a vote to come about you might ask? Well the MLBA does NOT set out a process for this to be called. So it can reasonably be assumed that it would be at the chairman's discretion. The Modern Legal Board Act gives the Council, including the Chairman, the power of "enacting, amending, and repealing RBA policy." It also states that the Chairman maintains order and decorum, which was done by asking for an affirmation for the motion. There would otherwise always be frivolous motions should the RBA be required to be put up to a vote. The Plaintiff was just asked to find two other people that support his motion, he failed to do that meaning he was the only one feeling this way.

The court now has the job of taking everything that was said and entering into evidence here and providing a verdict. It is my hope that the court will see this case for the farce it is, and hand down a verdict in favor of the defense.

Thank you for your time.
 
Thank you to the Defendant for his fast reply. This court will now go into recess and a verdict will be posted soon.
 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Lawanoesepr v. The Redmont Bar Association [2022] DCR 4

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Modern Legal Board act (MLBA) says if 2/3 of voting lawyers agree, a councilor may be removed.
2. The chairman refused to let a vote happen to remove Aladeen unless the Plaintiff got 2 other lawyers that wanted the removal to happen.
3. The MLBA gives no requirements on how to call a vote, so a vote should be called and if 2/3 of the voting lawyer agree then you can remove someone.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The MLBA doesn't explicitly state a chairman has to put everything up for a vote.
2. Because the MLBA isn't clear, the chairman never broke any rules in the MLBA
3. There was no one else that supported Aladeen's removal, so it would have been unreasonable to put it up for a vote.
4.The MLBA states that the chairman is supposed to keep order in the RBA, and is allowed to amend or remove policies to make the RBA function smoother.
5. The original councilor for the RBA was AlexanderLove and he coauthored the MLBA, therefore his interpretation is correct.
6. If everything went to a vote, there would be many frivolous motions to remove people from leadership positions in the RBA.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. Despite part of the Defense coauthoring the MLBA, it isn't up to them to interpret anything that isn't explicitly stated on the act of Congress.
2. However because there isn't clear writing that says the chairman must put everything to a vote, they don't have to.
3. In this case specifically the chairman has put forward reasonable requirements to put a motion to a vote, that the Plaintiff hasn't met.
4. These requirements aren't to prevent a vote from happening, it's to prevent any frivolous motions brought forth by any lawyer from being put to a vote.

IV. DECISION
1. Because the chairman is supposed to keep order, and the requirements that he stated were reasonable and meant to maintain order, I hereby rule in favor of the Defense.

The District Court thanks all involved in this long and chaotic case.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top