Lawsuit: Adjourned Redmont Bar Association v lawanoesepr [2022] FCR 15

Featured Businesses

Status
Not open for further replies.

drew_hall

Citizen
Justice
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Drew_Hall
Drew_Hall
justice
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Redmont Bar Association
PLAINTIFF

v

lawanoesepr
DEFENDANT

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Defendant, in an effort to sue this association, has twice now filed both a frivolous lawsuit and another lawsuit which they perjured themselves wherein they, although not charged, inadvertently did in fact perjure themselves. Under the Modern Legal Board Act (MLBA) the Redmont Bar Association has a right and duty to file a lawsuit against any lawyers for repeated offenses which occurred within a short amount of time in an effort to temporarily revoke practicing license. After a motion was passed unanimously by the Council of the Redmont Bar Association, the association has come to an agreement to push for a temporary revocation of the Defendant's practicing license. When a lawyer chooses to demean the court system and the title of attorney out of spite, and does so while lying to the court and filing frivolous cases, this casts a doubt on the institution as a whole. The association would like to make clear this is a not a spiteful nor vindictive lawsuit because the Defendant opened lawsuits against the Redmont Bar Association, but because it threatens the integrity in which we aim to uphold as an association. The Redmont Bar Association would like to see the Defendant lose his practicing license for a period of three weeks to re-evaluate what it means to hold a title in this field as well as re-educate themselves on proper conduct and procedures an attorney should follow.

PARTIES
Redmont Bar Association (Plaintiff)
lawanoesepr (Defendant)

FACTS
1. lawanoesepr filed two lawsuits
2. lawanoesepr v The Commonwealth of Redmont was a frivolous filing. What the Defendant sued the association for was a power the association no longer holds.
3. Although not charged, lawanoesepr perjured themselves, knowingly or not, in a lawsuit filed within the District Court.
4. lawanoesepr said that he "was told that the RBA had failed and that I should talk to another Councilor." This is perjury.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant has lied and/or misled the court
2. The Defendant has filed a frivolous case

PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
1. The court to revoke practicing license from the Defendant for a period of three weeks.

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 10th day of February 2022


 

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
federal-court-png.12082

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 Redmont Bar Association v. lawanoesepr [2022] FCR 15. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 

lawanoesepr

Citizen
Justice Department
Attorney General's Office
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
lawanoesepr
lawanoesepr
stateprosecutor
I request 48 hours to prepare
 

lawanoesepr

Citizen
Justice Department
Attorney General's Office
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
lawanoesepr
lawanoesepr
stateprosecutor
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Redmont Bar Association
Plaintiff

v.

lawanoesepr
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The plaintiff states "Although not charged, lawanoesepr perjured themselves, knowingly or not, in a lawsuit filed within the District Court." Perjury is KNOWINGLY lying in court, the plaintiff says "knowingly or not".

2. Plaintiff states "lawanoesepr v The Commonwealth of Redmont was a frivolous filing. What the Defendant sued the association for was a power the association no longer holds." I withdrew this lawsuit soon afterwards realizing my mistake. I was not charged with a frivolous court case I realized my mistake and corrected it I should not be punished for this.

3. The association wishes to disbar me for a frivolous court case and perjury that did not happen to my knowledge. Aladeen was charged with a frivolous court case and had no punishment, surely I'm not being treated equally under the law.

4. This case is a case of revenge from aladeen he is angry that I wanted to remove him. This case has no legal purpose besides serving aladeen's vendetta.






This lawsuit is inaccurate and frivolous. It should be dismissed.

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.

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

DATED: This 10th day of February 2021
 

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
Thank you for a quick response lawanoesepr. The Bar Association has 48 to provide a rebuttal if they so choose to.
 

drew_hall

Citizen
Justice
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Drew_Hall
Drew_Hall
justice
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REBUTTAL


Redmont Bar Association
PLAINTIFF

v

lawanoesepr
DEFENDANT

REBUTTAL

1. Your Honor, I'm not speaking to the objection the previous Chair of the association filed for perjury against the Defendant, but rather a separate instance which was never objected to. The instance I am speaking about is in the Defendant initial filing in the case lawanoesepr v The Redmont Bar Association [2022] DCR 4 where the Defendant states "I was told that the RBA had failed and that I should talk to another Councilor." This is not true, the Defendant was told to open a ticket so he could speak with the entire Council, not turned away.

2. It is the duty of lawyers to know the law. If the Defendant was uninformed that the Legal Board Act was repealed and replaced with the Modern Legal Board Act, then it is completely reasonable to request he take some time to catch up on recent laws repealed, replaced, and passed by having a temporary suspension of legal practicing license. Additionally, he withdrew the lawsuit only after fellow members of the board informed him that what he filed for was no longer a power the association held.

3. Your Honor, the Council passed the motion to take this to court unanimously not because of an isolated incident, but because these two errors occurred within a short time period.

4. To reiterate, this case is not filed with any malicious intent or for revenge. Aladeen was not even a voting member of Council to take this to trial, and when he did motion it the association was without a Chairperson, therefore the motion could never be taken up for a vote. To say this case has no "legal purpose" is just wrong, it is the job of the Redmont Bar Association to do our best to regulate the field with what tools we have. The short time between the Defendant filing these cases shows that it was actually revenge filings because the Defendant misinterpreted what it took to bring a motion to remove a Councilor to a vote. It is simple, it is clear the Defendant let personal feelings guide them and filed cases where he perjured himself as well as filed a case claiming we had a power which we have not had in months. It is simply to give him time to reflect and catch up on the current laws, nothing more.

Finally, the Defendant would like for this court to believe this case is frivolous and should be thrown out. This, again, could not be further from the truth. Council decided for this to be filed in an effort to better regulate those who represent the legal field and uphold standards which our association is trying to maintain and working to implement.

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 11th Day of February, 2022
 

lawanoesepr

Citizen
Justice Department
Attorney General's Office
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
lawanoesepr
lawanoesepr
stateprosecutor
Request for a suponea

1. I request the RBA produces the Ehics committee investigation report into aladeen for frivolous court cases.

2. The voting results on the motion to disbar aladeen

3. Ethics committee ticket investigation transcripts on aladeen investigation

4. Disbarment vote results on relaxedGV

5. Disbarrment vote results on tekkowvs

7.Disbarrment vote on on alexanderLove

8. Disbarrment vote on myself

This is to prove I have not been treated equally under the law and the law has not been enforced equally
 

lawanoesepr

Citizen
Justice Department
Attorney General's Office
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
lawanoesepr
lawanoesepr
stateprosecutor
Objections


we had a power which we have not had in months.
Perjury, Or at least inaccurate
Claiming that I claimed that the association had the power to disbar lawyers is false. Saying that I said the judiciary I.e the courts had the power would be true.



If the Defendant was uninformed that the Legal Board Act was repealed and replaced with the Modern Legal
Speculation assuming that I had no knowledge is completely an assumption
It is simple, it is clear the Defendant let personal feelings guide them and filed cases where he perjured himself as well as filed a case claiming we had a power which we have not had in months. It is simply to give him time to reflect and catch up on the current laws, nothing more.
Speculation, The plaintiff assumes I let personal feelings get in the way of my lawsuits when this is not the case.
1. Your Honor, I'm not speaking to the objection the previous Chair of the association filed for perjury against the Defendant, but rather a separate instance which was never objected to. The instance I am speaking about is in the Defendant initial filing in the case lawanoesepr v The Redmont Bar Association [2022] DCR 4 where the Defendant states "I was told that the RBA had failed and that I should talk to another Councilor." This is not true, the Defendant was told to open a ticket so he could speak with the entire Council, not turned away
Perjury, The plaintiff claims that I had not been turned away. saying that the RBA failed and to to talk to the entire council. sure does make it seem like I was being turned away and not helped. Also I am being charged for perjury for not using exact wording and frivolous court cases that were dropped because I realized I made a mistake. This is not justice. This is petty
 

drew_hall

Citizen
Justice
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Drew_Hall
Drew_Hall
justice
Your Honor may I respond to those objections and defend myself against them?
 

drew_hall

Citizen
Justice
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Drew_Hall
Drew_Hall
justice
Thank you, Your Honor.

#1. This objection for perjury cannot be true. If I misinterpreted the words of the Defendant it was due to the lousiness of the lawsuit he filed. I interpreted that he was claiming the RBA could disbar based off the sentence in the Claims for Relief in lawanoesepr v The Commonwealth of Redmont that stated "Congress cannot give a branch more power than is given by the constitution." I was under the impression the 'branch' the Defendant was referring to was the Redmont Bar Association (although we are not a branch) because the lawsuit as written is confusing to me. On top of this, after filing there was discussion in the RBA which was surrounding how the RBA no longer held that power then shortly after the Defendant withdrew the lawsuit. I assumed he was under the impression the RBA maintained these powers based off those events, not about the courts as he stated since that was not clarified in the lawsuit. If I unknowingly misled the courts, then, as the Defendant has already stated, I am not subject to perjury.

#2. It is reasonable to believe the Defendant was misinformed considering the lawsuit was only withdrawn after other Members of the RBA's Board informed him that he was suing for an issue which has already been resolved both in court and congress. Speculation is defined as "When a witness is asked to testify about something they have not directly observed. Witnesses are only allowed to testify about their own direct experiences and thoughts." I did directly observe the Defendant being misinformed about the laws surrounding this, which is why it was mentioned.

#3. This is not an assumption, this is something the Defendant has directly implied by his actions, but not only implied he has actually explicitly said this is personal in the #legal channel on the main DC Discord as shown in Evidence 1. Again, this is a direct observation I personally witnessed.

#4. This objection is simply false. In Evidence 2 and 3 you can clearly see that he was not turned away, but was listened to and encouraged to speak with the entire Council. The premise of the perjury was that 1. He was not told to speak to another Councilor, he was told to speak with the Council as a whole and to say otherwise is misleading and can confuse the court on what actually occurred during that conversation. And secondly, he was listened to and was directed to speak with the entire Council to effectively resolve the issue he had and not ignored like he would like this court to believe.

I would also like to add that for Evidence 2 and 3 Aladeen has consented to the chats being used in court.
 

Attachments

  • Evidence 1.png
    Evidence 1.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 32
  • Evidence 2.png
    Evidence 2.png
    91.6 KB · Views: 35
  • Evidence 3.png
    Evidence 3.png
    93.9 KB · Views: 36

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
Apologies for my tardiness in this case.

The objection in regards to perjury is overruled. I don't see enough evidence my both the defendant and the plaintiff to suggest one thing or another.

Both objections regarding speculation are overruled. An objection of speculation is made in regardless to a witness testifying on matters they have no expertise in or have no witnessed. Seeing this is not a witness statements on the issue, I find the objection irrelevant at this time.

The final objection in regards to perjury is overruled. First, I can barely understand what the actual objection is over. No claim of perjury is really being introduced here. It just seems like you wanted to defend yourself. But again I can't really tell because the objection is so vague and incoherent.

In regards to the motion to dismiss, I have decided to reject it. Nothing about this case is frivolous and inaccurate.

The Redmont Bar Association and defendant may present their opening statements within 48 hours. Failure to provide an opening statement will result in being held in contempt
 

drew_hall

Citizen
Justice
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Drew_Hall
Drew_Hall
justice
Your Honor I request a 24 extension. I've been busy this weekend due to real life commitments and have not had time to write an opening statement.
 

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
Both parties are granted a 24 hour extension.
 

HugeBob

Citizen
Former President
Your honor, you'd like both parties to submit opening statements simultaneously? It is my understanding that the plaintiff generally submits one before the defense so the defense can... defend
 

drew_hall

Citizen
Justice
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Drew_Hall
Drew_Hall
justice
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Redmont Bar Association
PLAINTIFF

v

lawanoesepr
DEFENDANT

OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor, opposing counsel,

I would first like to apologize for any delay caused by my filing having taken longer than it should have. Nonetheless, this case was opened against the Defendant after a unanimous vote on a motion was passed by the Redmont Bar Association's (hereon abbreviated as 'RBA') Council. It is the opinion of the RBA that the Defendant has repeatedly made errors which reflect poorly on the profession and the regulation of it as a whole. The Defendant has filed recently filed a case which would have been frivolous had he not withdrawn it after being informed why it held no ground by other members of the RBA's board and Council. The case in question is "lawanoesepr v. The Commonwealth of Redmont" filed within the Federal Court.

Secondly, after discussion with Aladeen the RBA was made aware that the series of events in the case 'lawanoesepr v The Redmont Bar Association [2022] DCR 4' the Defendant lied or at least severely mislead the courts. The Defendant told the courts that he was "turned away" and told to "speak to another Councilor" which, as proven above, is false. Making damning remarks that are not accurate to benefit yourself in a case shows severe legal malpractice and a disregard for the truth. This not only makes the legal field and those within it be shown in a bad light, but it is also illegal. This behavior is unbecoming of someone who works as a lawyer on the server and should not go unnoticed.

Lastly, it has recently come to my attention that the Defendant had a case dismissed due to them going over 100 hours without providing a response. In the case 'lawanoesepr v Admin23 [2021] DCR 69' the Defendant failed to file anything which led to the case, one he initially filed as well, to be dismissed. This led to the Defendant to being held in contempt of court. His tardiness, or really complete lack to provide any filings, in a case he himself filed is troublesome. If he cannot represent a case that he filed on behalf of himself, how can he be expected to provide adequate representation for any others who might reach out to him for legal issues?

To conclude, the Defendant has a past of continuously letting down expectations people hold for our legal system and a seemingly disregard/ disrespect for the system as a whole. To let all of these situations go unnoticed and unpunished is something the RBA will not and should not allow to happen. A simple, short period of the Defendant's legal license being revoked is not unreasonable and we hope the court agrees.

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 21st day of February, 2022
 

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
The defense has 24 hours to make its opening statement.
 

HugeBob

Citizen
Former President
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Redmont Bar Association
PLAINTIFF

v

lawanoesepr
DEFENDANT

OPENING STATEMENT

Your honor, I will keep this relatively brief.

For the claim of filing frivolous lawsuits, the case in question had a clearly defined prayer for relief and claim for such relief. A lawsuit is frivolous in nature when it is not seeking any real retribution or very obviously has no basis on which to seek retribution. This case does NOT fit that definition. Furthermore, the case in question was withdrawn voluntarily before a Judge even accepted the case to summon the defendant, and so no time was wasted. The RBA does not hold the power to charge people with filing frivolous lawsuits, it is NOT a Court, and as such the vote held by the RBA council carries no legal weight whatsoever.

On the matter of perjury, lets again start with the definition of the crime being alleged. Perjury is when you knowingly give incorrect testimony to the Government. I wrote the bill. The plaintiff in this case themselves admits in their complaint the following: "Although not charged, lawanoesepr perjured themselves, knowingly or not, in a lawsuit filed within the District Court." Either the plaintiff is trying to make up legislation or chose not to read the legal definition of perjury before accusing someone of committing perjury. And on top of all that, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff shows Aladeen turning away the defendant, stating "You can open a ticket and talk to the entire council, have a good day" after the defendant approached them about the RBA's functions. Either the plaintiff in this case chose not to read the evidence they themselves submitted or they are attempting to claim that the defendant perjured themselves by paraphrasing rather than using exact quotations. Either way, we have attached the relevant evidence image in case they attempt to delete or modify it later.

For tardiness, this is RICH. The plaintiff in this case claims that tardiness, even in the case of IRL issues, should result in disbarment. They make this claim even after they themselves requested an extension of their allotted time only 21 minutes before their time expired. The defendant in this case had an irl issue in the other case that percluded them from even requesting an extension, something that they are greatly regretful of. Hypocrisy aside, tardiness, even in the event that a case be thrown out due to such tardiness, is NOT a codified legal reason for which a lawyer may have their license revoked. Per the Modern Legal Board Act:
"The Federal Court of Redmont shall be permitted to revoke the practicing license of a lawyer upon prosecution by the Redmont Bar Association, which shall be represented by the Chairperson of the RBA, when the lawyer has breached attorney-client privilege, files an excessive amount of frivolous cases in a relatively short time frame, or 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."

To conclude, this case is built on a multitude of confusing and conflicting points that are frankly concerning given the assumption that the RBA would be especially legally adept. I'm really not sure what to make of this. As the Court may be aware, I only take on lawsuits that I believe will be fun to argue. This case peaked my interest because of how hilariously absurd it is.

Thank you.

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 21st day of February, 2022
 

Attachments

  • Evidence.png
    Evidence.png
    93.9 KB · Views: 30

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
Both parties have 24 hours to provide the court with a list of witnesses, expert testimonials, and additional evidence.
 

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
Seeing as the defendant has not responded within the 24 hour time period, the court will move into closing statements. The Redmont Bar Association has 48 hours to present its closing statement or risk being held in contempt.
 

drew_hall

Citizen
Justice
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Drew_Hall
Drew_Hall
justice
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Redmont Bar Association
PLAINTIFF

v

lawanoesepr
DEFENDANT

Your Honor, the Defendant in this case has clearly met the legal standards required for the association to ask the courts to revoke his legal license. As I have stated earlier, the Defendant has filed lawsuits on a whim when he takes matters personally, which is why the case against the association was quickly withdrawn. But the issue with that is not that he had done the research himself, because he did not, but had to be informed by others. The association is a great place for lawyers to learn from another, but to file a lawsuit you do not understand the laws of is unprofessional. It is one thing for lawyers to file personal lawsuits, but to file one holding no legal basis and poorly written should not go unnoticed and likely would not have had it been viewed before the Defendant withdrew.

When I make the claim of perjury on the Defendant, it is true. It is of the upmost importance when making allegations in court to not mislead, and the Defendant has done that multiple times. It is one thing to be turned away and told to speak to another Councilor, but when shown that is not what happened is when its obvious the Defendant misled the court to benefit his filing. The former Councilor listened to the Defendant and offered advice, as shown in the evidence. The Defendant had an issue with the administration as a whole and as such was told to open a ticket where the Chair and Council would all be, not "turned away". As also shown by the evidence, he had taken that personally with that Councilor and began filing cases.

Lastly, I would like to say that being untimely to a filing is one thing, but to not file in well over 100 hours for a case you filed, then to get held in contempt is certainly not a good look on this field's professionals. The Defendant's counsel seems to believe my asking for an extension earlier on is something to make note of in court, and if that is the case, then clearly he should understand the look that the case the Defendant filed had on the reliability of lawyers. Mine was untimely, the Defendant did not file any further until the case was dismissed with prejudice. To bring up my tardiness as somewhat relative is silly and incomparable in every way.

Given all of the errors and overall unprofessionalism the Defendant has brought to the legal field, a short term of 3 weeks to re-evaluate and study a little more is reasonable and we hope it can be granted.

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 26th day of February, 2022
 

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
Thank you. The defendant may now present its closing statement. Please provide one within 48 hours or face being held in contempt.
 

HugeBob

Citizen
Former President
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Redmont Bar Association
PLAINTIFF

v

lawanoesepr
DEFENDANT

Your honor,

Frivolous Cases:
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant should be disbarred due to their filing of frivolous lawsuits. As we have already pointed out, the lawsuit filed was not frivolous. It had a clear goal with clearly established facts. On top of this, lets just say for the sake of argument that the lawsuit was frivolous. Lawyers are to be disbarred for filing "an excessive amount of frivolous cases in a relatively short time frame" as directly stated in the expressly codified Modern Legal Board Act. One lawsuit, even if it were frivolous, is by no means excessive. On top of that, in the event that a lawyer files a lawsuit inadvertently, what is he to do? Wouldn't the best case scenario be to withdraw the lawsuit before a Judge makes summons? That is precisely what the Defendant did in this matter. Normal users do not have the ability to delete threads, even their own threads, and so withdrawing the suit before summons is the most reasonable thing that can happen, and it is precisely what did happen.

Perjury:
The Defense sees no benefit in continuing the mindless bickering over whether paraphrasing should or should not count as intentional lying. While it is true that the Defendant's claims were not exact quotations, the claims were not false. Furthermore, upon further investigation, perjury is not a codified clause that would permit someone to lose their practicing license. It just isn't. If the Plaintiff truly believes the Defendant has committed perjury, we encourage them to get in touch with a state prosecutor that can criminally investigate and prosecute on behalf of the state.

Timeliness:
As we have pointed out, this is not something that someone can be disbarred for. Straight up, it holds no relevance to this or any other disbarment trial.

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 26th day of February 2022
 

HugeBob

Citizen
Former President
Your honor,

Forgive me for speaking out of turn, merely bumping this thread for your convenience. Thank you.
 

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Redmont Bar Association v. lawanoesepr [2022] FCR 15

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The defendant has lied in court, has failed to respond to cases in which he had filed, and has a frivolous lawsuit
2. Given all of the errors and overall unprofessionalism the Defendant has brought to the legal field, some punishment should be given.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The defendant's case in lawanoesepr v. Redmont Bar Association was withdrawn by the Defendant before a summons. The defendant was never charged with filing a frivolous lawsuit and the RBA does not hold the power to say it was.
2. The defendant was not found guilty of perjury and therefore cannot be disbarred for perjury
3. Tardiness in a case is not grounds for disbarment and therefore cannot be disbarred for tardiness or failure to appear.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. When disbarment is used, it is to be used in cases when a lawyer has committed what is defined in the terms for disbarment. The Redmont Bar Association cannot disbar lawyers for things that perceive to be frivolous or perjury and the notion that they can is absurd. In order to disbar a lawyer for “an excessive amount of frivolous cases in a relatively short time frame” there has to actually be a frivolous case filed and a member of the judiciary confirming it to be frivolous. Just because the Redmont Bar Association feels that a case is frivolous does not mean it is unless the presiding judge/magistrate state that it was indeed frivolous. The same applies to perjury. Just because the Redmont Bar Association feels that something is perjury does not make it perjury. Unless a member of the judiciary has been charged with perjury or filing frivolous lawsuits, the Redmont Bar Association cannot sue for the revocation of an attorney’s practicing licene based on perjury of filing frivolous lawsuits.
2. In the opinion of the Federal Court, tardiness is ground for disbarment because it goes against the values and ethics of the Courtroom. While the Modern Legal Board Act does not define these terms very well, tardiness in a case does interrupt the flow of the case and can hurt the client they represent.

IV. DECISION
1. Because of the tardiness of lawanoesepr, which violates the values and ethics of the Courtroom, I hereby rule in favor of the Redmont Bar Association.
2. I will grant a partial prayer for relief as the lawanoesepr has not been disbarred for filing a frivolous case and for perjury. I hereby revoke the practicing license of lawanoesepr for seven days time.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top