Lawsuit: Dismissed Lawanoesepr v. The Redmont Bar Association [2022] SCR 4

lawanoesepr

Citizen
Public Affairs Department
Supporter
Oakridge Resident
Statesman 2nd Anniversary Popular in the Polls
lawanoesepr
lawanoesepr
donator1
Joined
May 8, 2021
Messages
287
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Lawanoesepr
Plaintiff

v.

Redmont Bar Association
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
Appealing the case FCR 15

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
In the verdict of FCR 15 a misinterpreted law was used to disbar me for one week.

I. PARTIES
Chairman Drew_Hall
Redmont Bar Association

II. FACTS
The verdict states that I had breached ethics by taking too long to respond.
2. I appealed I'm the basis of the word egregious.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
The part of the MLBA on which the verdict is based on states "egregiously breaches the values and ethics of the Court room such as attempting to bribe a Court official or attempting to intimidate an opposing party."

2.The two examples of egregiously breaching the values and ethics of the court room provided are extremely serious holding not only disbarment charges but also criminal charges, Surely taking too long to respond to a lawsuit does not equate to bribery or intimidation. The fact that it says "egregiously" is certainly important to the fact that timeliness is very minor and not a major ethics breach.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1.An apology for my trouble
2.200 dollars in lost legal fees/ clients




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 29th day of march 2022
 
supreme-court-seal-png.8642



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

The Redmont Bar Association is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of Lawanoesepr v. The Redmont Bar Association.

Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

lawanoesepr
PLAINTIFF

v.

Redmont Bar Association
DEFENDANT

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM the plaintiff was disbarred for tardiness
2. DISPUTE that tardiness is a minor ethics violation/ not egregious

II. DEFENCES
1. The Modern Legal Board Act lists two examples of egregious values and ethics violations, but does not limit it to them, meaning it is up to the Federal Court's interpretation of what constitutes a disbarment by this reason.
2. The abandonment of a lawsuit you have filed could certainly be categorized as egregious conduct and/or an egregious violation of values and ethics an attorney should hold.
3. Part of the Plaintiff's reasoning for filing was that the two examples of egregious violations are not only cause for disbarment, but also hold criminal charges as well. Contempt of court, or Law 15.5, is defined as "The act of speaking in a court case when not involved or summoned to provide testimony, the failure to respond to a summons issued by the court, and or the violation of court procedure." Clearly to abandon one's case is to break this law, which is what the Plaintiff was charged with. To argue that it is not equal because the others carry criminal charges is to imply this violation does not carry charges, which is not true.
4. Listed in the RBA Ethical Doctrine under Primary Obligations it states that clients should "...trust their lawyer to maintain attorney-client privilege, represent them as best as they can..." and failure to reply to a court case is to be in violation. Again, under Primary Obligations, it states that lawyers are "...required to act in the client's best interest..." How is failing to file for 100+ hours acting in the best interest of the client? Out of the four Primary Obligations of lawyer's under the Ethical Doctrine, the same section which attorney-client privilege falls under, negligence to file would fall under two.
5. Finally, negligent behavior in court is listed directly as a 'serious breach of ethics,' alongside improper and illegal behavior, under Secondary Obligations in the Ethical Doctrine. The Plaintiff has stated that 'tardiness' is not as serious and a minor violation, but there are multiple sections of the Ethical Doctrine which it violates across both Primary and Secondary Obligations of attorneys. It is evident that negligence in court is no small violation and that the Federal Court was right in its decision for a 7-day disciplinary disbarment.

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 30th day of March 2022
 
The answer to complaint is noted, the complainant may now present their opening statement.

@lawanoesepr
 
The plaintiff asks for 48 hours due to significant irl problems
 
48 hours granted from this message
 
Time has now elapsed
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

lawanoesepr


V.


The Redmont Bar Association


OPENING STATEMENT


Your honor,

The federal court of Redmont is wrong in saying that a minor ethics breach is egregious, It does not equate to the examples given, The defense may argue that failure to respond is contempt of court, even so, I argue that bribery and threatening a judicial officer is much more serious to the reasonable person.


Many questions should be asked, "How does this charge equate to the given example?"

"Is this charge perhaps far-fetched?"

"Why were claims being raised?"

"Are the punishments excessive?"

Many of the questions require witness questioning from legal professionals, The proposing council member, And the former chairman.


In this lawsuit, I aim to prove the defense wrong and answer these questions.
 
The defence now present their opening statement
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

lawanoesepr
PLAINTIFF

v.

Redmont Bar Association
DEFENDANT

OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor, Opposing Counsel,

To begin, this case is not one of insignificance. This case is to prove that the Plaintiff was rightfully disbarred for the appropriate disbarment period based upon his violations. The Plaintiff wishes to make it seem as though tardiness/ failure to respond is a minor infraction, and in some cases, yes, it is, but in the ones listed towards his disbarments, no, it was an entirely just course of action.

1. The Plaintiff questions "How does this charge equate to the given example?" My question is 'where does it state I must outline the question based upon examples given'? Where does it state the crime must equate to the examples listed? Is it limited to them? Based off them? Where is the limit the Plaintiff has preemptively imposed them upon me?

2. Is this claim being "far-fetched" accurate? Is 'far-fetched' subjective? What number becomes far-fetched outside of feasible, and what differs them, and why?

3. Excessive punishments? Instead of a discussion of lack of punishments within the legal field , why don't we open a discussion of justified punishments and how to maintain activity within the legal field? If a week-long, disciplinary disbarment is too much for an attorney who violated multiple ethics violations, what would be appropriate for the punishment?

Your Honor, it's quite clear this Plaintiff has no interest in showing a dedication to this field, but rather wants an exception to a rule every other attorney follows. It is simple, if the Plaintiff is too busy in their real life to maintain being an attorney, they can forfeit the title and return to a title more-easily attainable.

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 9th day of April 2022
 
Both parties have 48 hours to nominate any witnesses that they wish to call forward.
 
Drew_Hall
Aladeen
Magills0819
 
The Defendant calls no witnesses, your Honor.
 
supreme-court-seal-png.8642


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

The Defendant, @Aladeen, and @Magills0819 are required to appear before the Supreme Court as witnesses in the case of Lawanoesepr v. The Redmont Bar Association.

I'd like to remind the witness to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures.

Please record your presence below in the next 48 hours by writing 'Present'. Once all witness present to the court, the plaintiff may begin their lines of questioning.​
 
@lawanoesepr the plaintiff may begin their lines of questioning.
 
Could I have 24 hours, Huge exam today
 
48 Hours granted.
 
For all witnesses:
Why were these charges brought against me?

Why did you vote aye?


For drew:
In your legal experience did you believe that I deserved disbarment or we're you just abiding by the councils vote?
 
1. Because you were so delayed in responding.
2. See above.
 
1. I dont understand the question

2. I didn’t vote aye as I was not in the council at the time
 
1. I don't believe my opinion on whether you deserved a disbarment or not is of any relevance to the matter of the case itself. I did my duty as Chairman of the RBA at the time, my personal opinion/ belief does not matter.
 
I have a follow-up question for drew.
 
The plaintiff's time has elapsed. Would the defendant like to cross examine or provide any further testimony prior to moving on to closing statements.
 
I don't wish to cross examine any of the witnesses and am ready to move to closing statements.
 
We'll now move on to closing statements starting with the plaintiff, followed by the defendant.
 
The Plaintiff has failed to reply to the court in 8 days.

Lawanoesepr is hereby charged with contempt of court.

This case is dismissed.
 
Back
Top