Lawsuit: Dismissed Redmont Bar Association (RBA) v. AlexanderLove [2024] FCR 117

[Unseatedduke1]

I do, your honor.

The evidence from both sides regarding the voting is struck. I don't find it necessary.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

You may.

Your honor, every witness is a former client or a current employee of mine who can testify to my efficacy as a lawyer. I intend to use this testimony to outweigh any bad act I am accused of, and to prove that I am, always have been, and always will be an asset, not a liability, to the legal community.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Mr. Love, do not delete anything in this courtroom, or you will be held in contempt.

Additionally, for both sides, all motions and objections made consecutively must be included in a single post. Any evidence should be posted using the "spoiler" feature.

 

[Redmont Bar Association]

1. Isn't it true that the person representing the plaintiff, Matthew100x, was recently opposing counsel against AlexanderLove in a case within the past month where Matthew100x only earned $5,000 in legal fees when he thought he would be entitled to more than that?

1. The case is linked to the thread. Yes, Plaintiff's counsel represented Nacholebraa in The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Nacholebraa [2024] FCR 109. As stated before, the plaintiff's counsel did not earn any legal fees in the past month.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

We will continue the trial on the forums since not all parties could agree on a date for an in-game trial. With discovery now concluded, the RBA has 72 hours to submit their opening statement.

 

[Redmont Bar Association]

Good Evening your Honor,

Today the plaintiff comes forward with a solemn request that it rarely asks. It seeks disbarment action against one of its most active attorneys in Redmont. Such a prayer for relief is not taken lightly, not is it taken with any misunderstanding of the gravity of the situation. Indeed, disbarment in and of itself is the greatest measure that the plaintiff can bring forward against a lawyer. It prevents one of our players from interacting with other players in the way that they wish. However, the dangers of allowing the defendant to continue to practice potential leaves his clients in serious danger. The defendant has missed deadlines, been rude to the court, lied on the stand, and jeopardized his clients' cases.

We have put together a timeline of the events, as well as an analysis of the timeline, discussion of past case law relating to excessive contempt of court, discussion of perjury charges, a discussion of RBA Ethics Doctrine violations, and a conclusion; in that order.

Timeline:

January 1, 2024: Defendant states in #legal Discord channel that they would ghost-write if disbarred (P-021).

April 7, 2024: Defendant charged with contempt of court and reprimanded for failing to inform the court of their need for an extension on an opening statement and having an outburst (P-019).

May 1, 2024: Defendant charged with contempt of court for failing to provide a closing statement (P-017). An appeal was later denied by the Supreme Court of Redmont (P-018), citing wasted time and resources.

May 31, 2024: Defendant found in contempt of court (P-012).

June 1, 2024: Defendant was admonished by the judge for cursing at and disrespecting the presiding judicial officer and was charged with contempt of court (P-014).

June 2, 2024: Defendant charged with contempt of court for failing to respond on behalf of a plaintiff (P-015).

July 4, 2024: Defendant found in contempt of court and admonished for poor courtroom etiquette (P-011).

July 7, 2024 - July 19, 2024: Multiple instances of defendant's behavior deemed disruptive or disrespectful towards the judiciary. These include:

July 8, 2024: Using language considered snarky by the judge (P-008).

July 10, 2024: Perjury objection sustained against defendant (P-009).

July 11, 2024: Charged with contempt of court for failing to provide an answer in a timely fashion (P-007).

July 12, 2024: Presiding judge states that defendant has clearly perjured themself (P-010).

July 19, 2024: Reprimanded for speaking out of line and being rude to the judge (P-013).

July 21, 2024: Defendant launches lawsuit against Nacholebraa & Bank of Reveille, opening government up to potential liability of over $2.6 million (P-001) and Defendant attacks the presiding judge's understanding of tax law (P-006).

July 23, 2024: Lawsuit filed on July 21st is dropped via Motion to Nolle Prosequi. (P-001). Defendant states in #legal Discord channel that they were willing to incur a $5,000 fine in order to obtain evidence (P-002).

July 25, 2024: Plaintiff's counsel placed a vote in the RBA Council to refer the matter to the Ethics Committee for review. (P-004)

July 26, 2024: Plaintiff's counsel’s vote passes in the RBA Council to refer the matter to the Ethics Committee (P-004).

Post July 26, 2024: The RBA Ethics Committee reviews, certifies, and approves charges against the defendant. Charges include: Multiple Perjury Charges; Excessive Contempt of Court Charges; Conduct unbecoming of a lawyer; Excessive breach of the Ethical Doctrine (P-005).

August 5, 2024: Defendant repeats statement in #legal Discord channel that they would ghost-write if disbarred (P-024).

August 6, 2024: RBA successfully passes a motion to disbar the defendant (P-023).

As you see, this case is not about isolated incidents; it is about a pattern of behavior spanning over several months, marked by contempt, dishonesty, and disrespect. Here is our analysis.


Analysis of the Timeline:

January 1, 2024: Even before his recent offenses, the defendant stated in an online forum that he would engage in the practice of law, regardless of whether licensed or not, by ghostwriting if disbarred (P-021). This chilling admission foreshadows his disregard for the rules governing legal practice.

April 7, 2024: He was granted a 24 hour extension on a 48 hours request, causing him to have an outburst attacking the judge. He created a situation where he was disciplined for failing behaving disrespectfully towards the honorable Nacholebraa where none was needed. (P-019).

This pattern continued with several incidents of failing to meet his professional obligations:

May 1, 2024: He was charged with contempt for failing to provide a closing statement in court, causing delays and wasted time (P-017). This disregard for judicial efficiency was later upheld by the Supreme Court of Redmont (P-018), who noted his intentional obstruction.

May 31, 2024: He was found in contempt of court again (P-012).

June 1 & 2, 2024: Further charges followed for disrespecting the presiding judge and failing to represent his clients properly (P-014, P-015). The defendant cursed at the judge, saying “Don't be all hard ass on me” in response to an overruled objection, showing that the defendant cannot handle situations where his client’s interests are not succeeding. Further, the defendant refuses to take any responsibility for staffing within their own firm regarding the representation of the firm’s clients, causing the defendant’s issues in the first place.

This pattern culminated in a series of events throughout July, where the defendant repeatedly engaged in disruptive behavior and disrespectful conduct towards the court (P-006, P-007, P-008, P-009, P-010, P-011, P-013). On July 21st, he launched a frivolous lawsuit that exposed the government to significant financial liability, even admitting to intentionally risking contempt of charges to obtain evidence through discovery (P-001, P-002).

On July 26, 2024, the RBA Ethics Committee voted to approve charges against him for perjury, excessive contempt of court, unethical conduct, and breaching ethical doctrine (P-005).

Finally, on August 6, 2024, the RBA successfully passed a motion to disbar the defendant (P-023), recognizing his unfitness to practice law. Even after facing these consequences, he continued to express his intent to engage in ghostwriting even if disbarred (P-024).

The defendant's actions demonstrate a consistent pattern of disregard for legal and ethical norms.

He repeatedly engaged in disrespectful and disruptive behavior towards the court, including outbursts against judges, failing to fulfill professional obligations like providing closing statements, and using inappropriate language. This pattern escalated throughout the timeline with numerous contempt charges, culminating in a frivolous lawsuit aimed at obtaining evidence through unethical means. His actions were intentional and demonstrated a willingness to risk consequences, even admitting to intentionally courting contempt charges. This culminated in his disbarment for perjury, excessive contempt of court, unethical conduct, and breaching ethical doctrines. Despite facing these serious repercussions, he continued to express his intent to practice law illegally through ghostwriting.

Essentially, the defendant exhibits a complete disregard for the legal system and the ethical responsibilities of his profession.


Past Case Law Analysis:

In the prior case of Redmont Bar Association v. Royalsnakee (2024) FCR 38, the court grappled with the issue of excessive contempt of court charges.

The court acknowledged that even two charges of contempt can be excessive under certain circumstances. Furthermore, in that same case, the argument for six charges of contempt being excessive was accepted by the Court. While the exact details regarding which specific charges were deemed excessive remain unclear from (2024) FCR 38, the fact that the argument for exceeding the reasonable threshold was accepted by the court is highly significant. The defendant has been charged with contempt of court eight times, an amount exceeding what Royalsnakee was charged with, who was disbarred for their actions and contempt of our legal system.


Analysis of Perjury Charges:

While a single instance of perjury might be subject to debate, the fact that the defendant had a perjury objection sustained against him (P-009) carries significant weight. This means the judge directly recognized his sworn statement as false, leaving no room for ambiguity.

The presiding judge’s own declaration in a different case that the defendant “clearly perjured themself” (P-010) further solidifies this point. This was not a mere suspicion; it was a direct and unambiguous finding by the judicial officer who witnessed his testimony firsthand.

We need to emphasize that the perjury charge and perjury affirmation are not isolated incidents. They are part of the defendant's larger pattern of disrespect for the court and disregard for truthfulness.

Perjury is a grave offense that undermines the very foundation of our justice system. It erodes public trust in the courts and weakens the legitimacy of legal proceedings. The defendant's actions demonstrate a blatant disregard for the truth and an intent to deceive the court. This egregious misconduct, justifies disbarment.


Analysis of RBA Ethical Doctrine 3.3 — Egregious Conduct in Court and 3.4 — Perjury:

The defendant's actions demonstrate a blatant disregard for the ethical standards expected of those entrusted with upholding justice. The RBA Ethical Doctrine, designed to ensure integrity and professionalism within the legal profession, provides clear guidelines against egregious conduct.

RBA Ethical Doctrine 3.3 — Egregious Conduct in Court addresses this issue, defining "Egregious/unbecoming conduct within court proceedings" as actions like disrespecting the court, opposing counsel, or parties; failing to comply with court orders or rules of procedure; making frivolous or misleading arguments; and engaging in conduct that undermines the administration of justice.

The defendant has repeatedly demonstrated a blatant disregard for court orders, rules of procedure, and the dignity of the judicial process. This pattern of behavior, as outlined in facts 6 through 19, paints a clear picture: the defendant is not simply making mistakes; they are intentionally flouting their obligations as an attorney. They have been found in contempt of court eight separate times, for actions ranging from failing to appear and provide necessary filings to engaging in disrespectful and disruptive behavior towards the presiding judge.

04/07/2024: Charged with contempt of court and reprimanded for failing to inform the court of their need for an extension on an opening statement and having an outburst before the court.
05/01/2024: Charged with contempt of court for failing to provide a closing statement. The defendant was later admonished by the Supreme Court for this action.
05/31/2024: Found in contempt of court.
06/01/2024: Admonished by the judge for cursing at and disrespecting the presiding judicial officer. Charged with contempt of court for the aforementioned conduct.
06/02/2024, the defendant was charged with contempt of court for failing to respond on the behalf of a plaintiff they were representing.
07/04/2024: Found in contempt of court and admonished for poor courtroom etiquette.
07/08/2024: Language deemed "snarky" by the judge, considered distracting and interfering with the orderly process of the court. This was not explicitly a contempt charge but an indication of disapproval.
07/11/2024: Charged with contempt of court for failing to provide their answer in a timely fashion.
07/19/2024: Reprimanded for speaking out of line and being rude to the judge.
07/23/2024: Charged with contempt of court for failing to respond on behalf of a plaintiff they were representing.

Furthermore, Rule 3.4 addresses perjury, defining it as knowingly making false statements under oath. The evidence will show that the defendant has been found to have committed perjury on two occasions:

07/10/2024: The defendant had a perjury objection sustained against them
07/12/2024: The presiding judge stated that the defendant had clearly perjured themself. While not an immediate charge nor sustained objection, it indicates judicial disapproval.. The defendant demonstrates a willingness to manipulate the truth.

This is not a simple lapse in judgment; it is a deliberate and repeated attempt to undermine the very core of our legal system, which relies on truthful testimony to reach just outcomes.

The defendant's actions are not isolated incidents. They paint a picture of a lawyer who has repeatedly chosen to prioritize his own interests over the integrity of the legal profession and the rights of those who appear before the court. His egregious conduct flies against the RBA's Ethical Doctrine, thus the defendant should be disbarred for these actions.


Concluding the Opening Statements:

In conclusion, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Honorable Court, the evidence presented paints a stark and undeniable picture: the defendant’s actions are not merely lapses in judgment or isolated incidents; they represent a systemic disregard for the law, ethical obligations, and the very foundations of our justice system. His pattern of contempt, dishonesty, and disrespect towards the court, opposing counsel, and his own clients is deeply troubling and demands accountability.

Disbarment is not taken lightly. It is the ultimate sanction, reserved for those whose conduct has irrevocably compromised their fitness to practice law. In this case, the defendant’s repeated and egregious violations of ethical standards leave no doubt: he is unfit to continue serving as an attorney. His actions not only jeopardize the rights of his clients but also erode public trust in the legal profession.

We urge you, Honorable Court, to uphold the integrity of our legal system and protect the public by disbarring the defendant. Only then can we ensure that justice is served and that the sanctity of our courts is preserved. We rest our opening statement.

 

[Redmont Bar Association]

The Emergency Injunction is denied. The request from the RBA essentially asks me to impose a disbarment before I have ruled on the case itself. This preemptive action would undermine the principle of a fair trial and due process. Currently, there is no immediate threat or harm that justifies such a drastic measure. The purpose of an emergency injunction is to prevent imminent harm, and in this situation, the conditions do not meet that threshold. The defendant's activities do not pose a direct or immediate danger that would warrant bypassing the standard judicial procedures. Therefore, we will proceed with the case as scheduled, ensuring that all parties have the opportunity to present their arguments fully and fairly before any decisions are made.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The Court's denial of the requested Emergency Injunction overlooked the situation that the defendant has created. With the posting of the opening statement helping provide a timeline of the evidence. We demonstate the defendant's pattern of egregious misconduct and the imminent threat posed to the public and the integrity of the legal system. Thus, we submit this motion to reconsider the emergency injunction to protect the general public from the defendant. As stated previously, Emergency Injunctions are made with the goal of preventing harm (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23).


ARGUMENT:

The timeline presented clearly demonstrates a disturbing pattern of behavior by the defendant, spanning months and encompassing multiple instances of contempt of court, perjury, disrespect toward judicial officers, and disregard for ethical obligations. This is not a case of isolated incidents but a systematic erosion of professional conduct that warrants immediate action.

The defendant's recent actions, culminating in the frivolous lawsuit against Nacholebraa & Bank of Reveille with potential liability exceeding $2.6 million, demonstrate a willingness to risk significant harm for personal gain. This disregard for legal process and the potential for financial devastation to the parties he represents underscores the urgent need to prevent further harm by restricting his ability to practice law.

The RBA Ethics Committee's swift action in approving charges against the defendant, including perjury and egregious conduct within court proceedings, foreshadows an inevitable disbarment. Allowing him to continue practicing law during this pendency of proceedings risks irreparable harm to the public and undermines the efficacy of disciplinary measures.

The requested emergency injunction is narrowly tailored to address the immediate threat posed by the defendant's actions. It seeks only to prevent him from practicing law and engaging in related activities during the pendency of the disbarment proceedings, a temporary measure designed to safeguard the public interest.


CONCLUSION:

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court reconsider its decision regarding the Emergency Injunction and grant it in-part or in-full to protect the public from further harm and uphold the integrity of the legal profession.


DATED: This 16th day of August, 2024.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

While I review this motion, please remember that the 72-hour timeline for the defendants' opening started right after the plaintiffs posting. @Jakovus

 

[Alexander P. Love]

While I review this motion, please remember that the 72-hour timeline for the defendants' opening started right after the plaintiffs posting. @Jakovus

The defense wishes to respond to the motion if it would be granted.

The defense also requests a 72 hour extension as I am on vacation and Jakovus is busy as well. The opening provided by the plaintiff was lengthy and will need sufficient time to dissect.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

You may respond to the motion. The request for a 72-hour extension is denied. You have three days to submit your response. If you need more time later you may request it.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The Court's denial of the requested Emergency Injunction overlooked the situation that the defendant has created. With the posting of the opening statement helping provide a timeline of the evidence. We demonstate the defendant's pattern of egregious misconduct and the imminent threat posed to the public and the integrity of the legal system. Thus, we submit this motion to reconsider the emergency injunction to protect the general public from the defendant. As stated previously, Emergency Injunctions are made with the goal of preventing harm (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23).


ARGUMENT:

The timeline presented clearly demonstrates a disturbing pattern of behavior by the defendant, spanning months and encompassing multiple instances of contempt of court, perjury, disrespect toward judicial officers, and disregard for ethical obligations. This is not a case of isolated incidents but a systematic erosion of professional conduct that warrants immediate action.

The defendant's recent actions, culminating in the frivolous lawsuit against Nacholebraa & Bank of Reveille with potential liability exceeding $2.6 million, demonstrate a willingness to risk significant harm for personal gain. This disregard for legal process and the potential for financial devastation to the parties he represents underscores the urgent need to prevent further harm by restricting his ability to practice law.

The RBA Ethics Committee's swift action in approving charges against the defendant, including perjury and egregious conduct within court proceedings, foreshadows an inevitable disbarment. Allowing him to continue practicing law during this pendency of proceedings risks irreparable harm to the public and undermines the efficacy of disciplinary measures.

The requested emergency injunction is narrowly tailored to address the immediate threat posed by the defendant's actions. It seeks only to prevent him from practicing law and engaging in related activities during the pendency of the disbarment proceedings, a temporary measure designed to safeguard the public interest.


CONCLUSION:

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court reconsider its decision regarding the Emergency Injunction and grant it in-part or in-full to protect the public from further harm and uphold the integrity of the legal profession.


DATED: This 16th day of August, 2024.

Overruled. Again, the RBA's request essentially seeks to impose a punishment or "disbarment" before this court has fully ruled on the matter, which I will not do in this case. If a client chooses to have Mr. Love represent them, knowing he is currently involved in a disbarment proceeding, that decision lies with the client. The same applies to the Commonwealth if they wish to hire him. Mr. Love has a long history of practicing law and is not a novice attorney filing frivolous cases to burden the courts or cause undue stress. You have the duration of this trial to substantiate the points raised in your Emergency Injunction. I encourage you to use this opportunity wisely.

However, I do compel Mr. Love to inform any client who requests his representation about this ongoing suit so that they may be fully informed.

No response from Mr. Love is needed regarding the motion to reconsider. All deadlines remain in effect.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

the defendant has been found to have committed perjury on two occasions

Objection
Perjury

The plaintiff is trying to deceive the Court. This is simply not true. One perjury objection was wrongfully sustained against me, and that SAME incident of alleged perjury that was later referenced in another case. There were not multiple instances of perjury, there was one incident that was cited in another case.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Defendant states in #legal Discord channel that they would ghost-write if disbarred (P-021).

Objection
Perjury

The plaintiff keeps insisting that I said I would ghost write. I never said that so it is perjury, I even pointed it out before so now it is a deliberate lie. I said I could ghost write.

If a law says “could” vs. “would” it would be interpreted much differently. Why is it any different here?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

August 5, 2024: Defendant repeats statement in #legal Discord channel that they would ghost-write if disbarred (P-024).

Objection
Perjury

Ditto

 

[Alexander P. Love]

opening government up to potential liability of over $2.6 million

Objection
Perjury and Assumes Facts Not in Evidence

2.6mil in liability was never a thing. Yet again, I am not sure where Matthew gets the idea that much money was ever at risk. The value of the case was originally nil as I didn’t establish any formal penalties. When I finally did, the liability was $5k, not $2.6mil. Therefore, this statement is erroneous and a lie, and should therefore be struck.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

even admitting to intentionally risking contempt of charges to obtain evidence through discovery (P-001, P-002).

Objection
Perjury

The plaintiff’s lies are getting ridiculous at this point. I never said I was intentionally risking contempt, in fact I said that I didn’t think what I did could be considered contempt. I followed legal process completely. While some call my tactical maneuver unethical, it was legal and conformed to Court procedure. Therefore I had no expectation of receiving a contempt of Court charge. Just because a random lawyer like Matthew thinks it could be contempt does not mean it is. I was never charged with contempt by the presiding Judge.

 

[Redmont Bar Association]

Mr. Love, do not delete anything in this courtroom, or you will be held in contempt.

Additionally, for both sides, all motions and objections made consecutively must be included in a single post. Any evidence should be posted using the "spoiler" feature.

Objection
Breach of Procedure.

Defendant failed to follow the court's warning and instruction on procedure for objections.

---

Objection
Perjury

The plaintiff is trying to deceive the Court. This is simply not true. One perjury objection was wrongfully sustained against me, and that SAME incident of alleged perjury that was later referenced in another case. There were not multiple instances of perjury, there was one incident that was cited in another case.

Counterobjection
Perjury in Objection

Your honor, the defendant is misrepresenting what the plaintiff actually said to try and have perjury sustained against the plaintiff. The defendant had a sustained objection in AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99, (see P-009, Lawsuit: Adjourned - AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99) (objection #1) which was then cited in The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Alexanderlove [2024] FCR 102 (see P-010, Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Alexanderlove [2024] FCR 102).

While the plaintiff would love to use the OED’s definition of occasion, it is locked behind a paywall (see below). For the intents and purposes of our usage of the word, we had meant to say that the defendant had perjury referenced closely. As clearly shown in the full text that the defendant is misrepresenting, the plaintiff clearly told the court that the defendant had judicial disapproval, and that the defendant was not charged with nor had an objection sustained of perjury against him, and that the defendant demonstrates a willingness to manipulate the truth; which he is currently doing.

Furthermore, Rule 3.4 addresses perjury, defining it as knowingly making false statements under oath. The evidence will show that the defendant has been found to have committed perjury on two occasions:

07/10/2024: The defendant had a perjury objection sustained against them
07/12/2024: The presiding judge stated that the defendant had clearly perjured themself. While not an immediate charge nor sustained objection, it indicates judicial disapproval.. The defendant demonstrates a willingness to manipulate the truth.

---

Objection
Perjury

The plaintiff keeps insisting that I said I would ghost write. I never said that so it is perjury, I even pointed it out before so now it is a deliberate lie. I said I could ghost write.

If a law says “could” vs. “would” it would be interpreted much differently. Why is it any different here?

Counterobjection
Perjury in Objection + Res Judicata

As has already previously been argued, defendant claims that they “could” ghost-write:

Objection, Your Honor
Perjury

The defense moves to have the plaintiff counsel, Matthew100x, be lodged three sustained objections of perjury. In all of these pictures, it is only shown that the defendant discusses the possibility of ghost writing while the plaintiff boldly asserts that the defense stated that they would ghost-write. These are two very different ideas and the Chairman of the RBA reasonably knows the difference. He is attempting to deceive the Court through malice or recklessness by lying about the defendant's statements.

Which was then met with the plaintiff’s response:

Counterobjection:

Nothing stated in the fact was a lie. The defendant said three times that they would be ghost writing.

P-20:
"Disbarring me doesn't really stop me either lol
I can just ghost write"

P-21
"Oh people have tried that before
Didn’t work
I just ghost write cases
It’s inconvenient but it’s not gonna stop me bud"

P-24:
"It does and it doesn't
I can find someone to ghost write for me"

In all three instances that the defendant stated there was a "lie", there is verifiable proof that the defendant clearly stated that they would ghost-write. The defendant is a lawyer and practices. Stating the loophole in the law currently to practice without a license three times is an indicative pattern that ghost-writing is what the defendant would do if disbarred.

This objection was overruled (see Lawsuit: In Session - Redmont Bar Association (RBA) v. AlexanderLove [2024] FCR 117), yet it is tried again here.

The defendant clearly said that if he were to be disbarred that he would have someone ghost-write to him. He has specific intent to do so as he has repeated himself multiple times in public that he would ghostwrite. At this point, not only should this objection be barred because it is retrying an already settled issue, the defendant should be charged with perjury for continuing to lie about his words. Defendant clearly stated three times that they would ghost-write in public. He has reiterated himself multiple times. Therefore, the defendant should have this perjury objection sustained specifically to estop him from continuing to claim in court that he wouldn't ghost-write if he were disbarred.

---

Objection
Perjury

Ditto

Counterobjection
Perjury in Objection + Res Judicata

Please see the previous argument as to why this ghost-writing objection should be denied and the defendant have a perjury objection sustained against them.

---

Objection
Perjury and Assumes Facts Not in Evidence

2.6mil in liability was never a thing. Yet again, I am not sure where Matthew gets the idea that much money was ever at risk. The value of the case was originally nil as I didn’t establish any formal penalties. When I finally did, the liability was $5k, not $2.6mil. Therefore, this statement is erroneous and a lie, and should therefore be struck.

Counterobjection
Perjury in Objection

Defendant purposely amended their complaint in The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Nacholebraa [2024] FCR 109 in such a way that someone without moderating powers cannot see the case history. The original basis of the charges went after Nacholebraa and the Bank of Reveille (“BOR”) in such a way that the damages were unquantifiable. As previously argued in the reasoning for the counterclaim,

The prosecution is intent on going after the BOR’s balance using the defendant as a proxy. The Defendant is a citizen thus their counsel is able to collect a legal fee on this criminal case if the defendant is found not guilty. Defendant, as the proxy to BOR, is potentially liable for the BOR’s balance of over $13,000,000 dollars. The prosecution, in constructing their case, in both fact and exhibit, see the overall value of the case as conjoined with the BOR’s total balance. (see Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Nacholebraa [2024] FCR 109)

This argument is true. The defendant, who was the prosecution’s counsel, had purposely and intentionally constructed the case to go after the full potential balance of the BOR. The defendant cited a variable amount of Tax Evasion Revaluation Act (“TERA”) (which is defunct), a variable amount of Personal Tax Evasion, and a variable amount of Property Tax Evasion. In doing so, the defendant had opened up the Commonwealth of Redmont to $2.6 million dollars of liability. Defendant later amended the complaint (see Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Nacholebraa [2024] FCR 109) to cover this up, improperly applying the amendment to hide the previous charges by removing and hiding them.

Additionally, the facts are entirely in evidence. Nothing was assumed. The previous court case was linked under P-006.

---

Objection
Perjury

The plaintiff’s lies are getting ridiculous at this point. I never said I was intentionally risking contempt, in fact I said that I didn’t think what I did could be considered contempt. I followed legal process completely. While some call my tactical maneuver unethical, it was legal and conformed to Court procedure. Therefore I had no expectation of receiving a contempt of Court charge. Just because a random lawyer like Matthew thinks it could be contempt does not mean it is. I was never charged with contempt by the presiding Judge.

Counterobjection
Perjury in Objection

Defendant lied on this posting. Defendant clearly acknowledged in their answer to Interrogatory Question #2 (see Lawsuit: In Session - Redmont Bar Association (RBA) v. AlexanderLove [2024] FCR 117) that, relating to Fact #2, that they had mixed up the fine for Contempt of Court. In making this answer to the interrogatory, they admit to the fact and evidence in the picture that they were intentionally filing a frivolous court case that had the potential to get them fined with contempt of court to attempt to get discovery material from the BOR.

Defendant confirmed that he was seeking to poke the BOR for evidence. Defendant said that he “was going to lose only 5k OR get the evidence I wanted.” The serial crime application of Contempt of Court is $5k (which doubles the standard Contempt of Court charge of $2,500 (see Act of Congress - Savior* Act). Interrogatory #2 asks the defendant why they said “5k” when the charge is $2,500. His response is that he got the fines mixed up which may be true, however, it confirms that the defendant was risking Contempt of Court when making The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Nacholebraa [2024] FCR 109 to force the BOR to give evidence through discovery AND knew he was assuming that risk.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection
Breach of Procedure.

Defendant failed to follow the court's warning and instruction on procedure for objections.

I was on my phone and it’s incredibly difficult to try and make several replies in one post and format it all properly.

 

[Redmont Bar Association]

While I review this motion, please remember that the 72-hour timeline for the defendants' opening started right after the plaintiffs posting. @Jakovus

Defendant failed to post opening statements within the allotted 72 hours. Instead of writing an opening statement, they have chosen to lodge 5 objections. Defendant should be barred from making the opening statement because they had time to pen something and instead chose to write the objections in place of an opening statement. Further, the defendant was specifically warned and given information about when to ask for an extension and failed to request one.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Mr. Love has missed the deadline, so we will move on. I will issue witness summons and respond to the objections shortly.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

All the objections are overruled.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your honor,

While the defendant is able to call whomever they want as a witness, I am struggling to see the relevance in all of these witnesses with the exception of AlexanderLove. For the sake of time and judicial economy, can an injunction be written ordering the defendant to have witnesses that are demonstrate relevancy to the case by either being a party to the case or material to a fact relevant to the case?

Sustained. Mr. Love let's cut this list back to 1 client and 1 current employee.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Mr. Love has missed the deadline, so we will move on. I will issue witness summons and respond to the objections shortly.

Motion to Reconsider
I did ask for an extension. I didn’t ask for it for no reason. Should you choose to move on, I will be motioning to recuse you for failure to impartially judge over these proceedings.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Sustained. Mr. Love let's cut this list back to 1 client and 1 current employee.

Motion to Reconsider
Sheer number is important to illustrate the point that I do more good than harm.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Mr. Love, Overruled you can use more than witness testimony to prove that.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Motion to Recuse
The Presiding Judge is the opposing party in another case where I am a defendant. Furthermore, the Presiding Judge has already ruled on issues examined in this case including alleged perjury and contempt of Court. Therefore, he is not impartial and should be recused.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

If you wish to attempt to choose your presiding officer, go ahead. Sustained.

 

[SumoMC]

I will be presiding over this case for the remainder of the process. Witness summons will come shortly.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

I will be presiding over this case for the remainder of the process. Witness summons will come shortly.

Your honor, the defense needs to submit an opening statement.

 

[Redmont Bar Association]

Your honor, the defense needs to submit an opening statement.

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

A response here was not warranted.

 

[SumoMC]

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

A response here was not warranted.

Objection overruled, i will allow it this time due to the nature of the response.

 

[SumoMC]

Your honor, the defense needs to submit an opening statement.

Thank you, i overlooked it. You have 72 Hours to deliver your Opening Statement.

 

[Redmont Bar Association]

Thank you, i overlooked it. You have 72 Hours to deliver your Opening Statement.

Motion to Reconsider:

Defendant is actively being awarded for his malfeasance. The rule is when a party refuses to timely comply with court procedure and fails to post an opening statement, they are denied the right to do so. In Ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 96, a motion to reconsider for contempt of court was denied, opening statement was also denied in court and explicitly struck due to being late (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 96). Defendant of this case appealed contempt of court charge for missing deadline to deliver a closing statement, the court refused to grant appeal and stated "While you may have chosen to not provide a closing statement, whether for strategic effect or not, you have wasted the Court's time and resources. Further, you have delayed the trial of the Defendant" (see Appeal: Denied - FCR 46 - Contempt Appeal Request). The defendant is delaying the trial by having additional time to post an opening statement. The defendant had the time and instead choose to post objections. Defendant is being awarded for his malfeasance by being granted new and additional time to post an opening statement past the initial deadline.

For the forgoing reasons, the plaintiff kindly requests this Motion to Reconsider be granted and the defendant be barred from posting a opening statement as was originally decided by the previous presiding judge.

 

[SumoMC]

Motion to Reconsider:

Defendant is actively being awarded for his malfeasance. The rule is when a party refuses to timely comply with court procedure and fails to post an opening statement, they are denied the right to do so. In Ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 96, a motion to reconsider for contempt of court was denied, opening statement was also denied in court and explicitly struck due to being late (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 96). Defendant of this case appealed contempt of court charge for missing deadline to deliver a closing statement, the court refused to grant appeal and stated "While you may have chosen to not provide a closing statement, whether for strategic effect or not, you have wasted the Court's time and resources. Further, you have delayed the trial of the Defendant" (see Appeal: Denied - FCR 46 - Contempt Appeal Request). The defendant is delaying the trial by having additional time to post an opening statement. The defendant had the time and instead choose to post objections. Defendant is being awarded for his malfeasance by being granted new and additional time to post an opening statement past the initial deadline.

For the forgoing reasons, the plaintiff kindly requests this Motion to Reconsider be granted and the defendant be barred from posting a opening statement as was originally decided by the previous presiding judge.

Motion to Reconsider is Denied i will be allowing it in this instance. This is a case in which we will be deciding to bar a lawyer, one of the most active ones within our community his ability to practice law in his current capacity.

This is something this court will not take lightly and in the spirit of letting them mount the best defense possible, we will be moving forward with allowing an opening statement.

All deadlines will remain in effect.

 

[SumoMC]

Due to my pending resignation, i will be recusing from this case due to time constraints.

 

[Redmont Bar Association]

Thank you, i overlooked it. You have 72 Hours to deliver your Opening Statement.

The Defendant again fails to post an opening statement. When a new presiding judge comes onto the case, the plaintiff requests that the defendant @Alexander P. Love and his co-counsel @Jakovus be charged with contempt of court for being given an incredibly generous extension and still failing to post an opening statement.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The Defendant again fails to post an opening statement. When a new presiding judge comes onto the case, the plaintiff requests that the defendant @Alexander P. Love and his co-counsel @Jakovus be charged with contempt of court for being given an incredibly generous extension and still failing to post an opening statement.

I held off because the Court is in recess. The statement is ready when a new Judge resumes the Court.

 

[Redmont Bar Association]

The plaintiff's IX right is being violated. There are two additional justices who could take this case: The Honorable Acting Chief Justice @End or The Honorable Justice @Dr_Eksplosive. Can a new presiding judge please come onto this case so we can continue.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The plaintiff's IX right is being violated. There are two additional justices who could take this case: The Honorable Acting Chief Justice @End or The Honorable Justice @Dr_Eksplosive. Can a new presiding judge please come onto this case so we can continue.

Motion to Strike
This has improper format. Furthermore, the RBA doesn’t have rights.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Motion to Dismiss
The RBA no longer exists, therefore there is no more standing for this case.

 

[End]

Motion to Dismiss
The RBA no longer exists, therefore there is no more standing for this case.

Sustained. This case is dismissed.