Education & Commerce Department
Your honor, I am present.
The doctrine is the pathing stone to set the ethical code that should be practiced by lawyers. This helps improve the standards of how we should represent our clients and also conduct our legal profession in the highest manner.
With this, would you agree that the RBA council violated its own doctrine in making its council chat public?The council must never share conversation made by current or former council members to the public due to the interest in council privilege.
If a council member does breach the council privilege they should automatically be removed by the AG with an appeal that can be made through the ticket system and if the judgement is still one of breach of this duty then they shall never be allowed to run for a council or chairman election again.
The RBA shall be required to post a statement of justification for the disbarment/suspension of any member, along with all pertaining evidence, within 3 days (72 hours) of the disbarment.
(My apologies for #6, I edited my reply and bolded the words that I forgot to add if you choose to go back and answer it)1. I voted to disbar tekkovvs based on this:
“During the execution of the function, the lawyer is obliged to protect the reputation of the Court, the administrative bodies and other social bodies where he represents his client.”
Although I cannot speak on behalf of anyone else.
2. Not that I can recall, but I did not vote to disbar tekkovvs based on that, so I see this as irrelevant for myself.
3. I think that the RBA Council is elected by other lawyers for their abilities, so I would trust the Council more than the average lawyer, but I do not believe anyone to be God and be above fault. Mistakes are bound to occur, but from what I have witnessed, this is not a mistake from the Council.
4. Short of forcing lawyers to vote by threat of fines or jail time, there’s not much of a way to get higher voter participation. This isn’t the Council’s fault, but rather the fault of lawyers. They have the right to vote yet do not exercise such right.
5. I don’t know how “professional” is defined here, but I would say it depends. Outside of court, jokes are allowed, personal opinions are allowed, etc. Council members are not censored like judges.
6. This is so poorly written that I cannot understand what you mean and I cannot answer your question properly.
9. No, I do not. Council conversations may be disclosed if the Council decides it is okay to do so. That is meant for the protection of the Council if they discuss private matters, but the Council had decided that the Council chat and Council floor were not private matters. This clause is meant for individual Council members, or former Council members, disclosing conversations, not the Council as an institution.
10. It does.
11. No, it should not. We already have a problem with frivolous cases being filed, hence why we’re here in court today. If we had everyone open to this ability, court would be chaos.
13. No, unfortunately, I do not believe the RBA is an independent entity. It would be fantastic if the RBA was independent of government interference, but alas, the law does not dictate this to be true.
The constitution is set on a system of separation of powers and checks and balances. Congress is the legislative body in which laws are created for the governing of players. No other branch of government may do this. Congress has created the Redmont Bar Association, and thus delegates a part of Congress’, and only Congress’, power. Congress may not delegated Executive powers or Judicial powers. The RBA has done its duty under Congress. Congress has set out to govern lawyers and their actions by way of the RBA, and the RBA has done that. The judicial system may intervene in the actions of the RBA due to the systems of checks and balances set out above. This trial is a way to appeal congressional actions. The RBA as an institution is not unconstitutional, but it is fitting within its bounds. The legal definition of a court trial (as we have no jury trials in DC) is:
“A trial in which the judge decides factual as well as legal questions, and makes the final judgment.”
The definition of a trial is:
“A judicial examination of issues of fact or law for the purpose of determining the rights of the parties involved.”
Under these definitions, the RBA cannot have a trial due to the fact that it is not an entity under the Judicial system. Although the RBA does have the ability to interview, investigate, and disbar when needed. Disbarral is much like congressional impeachment, although it is for lawyers and not for government officials.
14. There was an announcement of disbarment and all evidence was publicly available. The interview did not add anything of substance which could even be perceived as evidence due to the fact that tekkovvs had not given anything to the Council which would change any minds either direction.
15. This question is misleading. I’m not an attorney representing either side so I will not present evidence but there was a discussion between Council members which came to the conclusion that there were two motions needed. The first being to disbar tekkovvs, and then remove tekkovvs’ practicing license. The removal of tekkovvs’ practicing license was to secure tekkovvs from abusing the court system with frivolous cases and to prevent any loopholes in the Council’s decision from being exploited. The two motions would effectively disbar tekkovvs, so both motion records should be presented instead of merely the second one.
16. I understand that the judge has stated we don’t have to answer if we don’t know here, and I’m not 100% sure, but I have an answer typed out if that’s necessary.
IN THE COURT OF COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Case No. 11-2021-05-01
I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1) The RBA applied a punishment to the Defendant without the opportunity for an appeal and without a trial to begin with. They violate hereby the Constitutional Right: IX. Any Citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge.
2) The reasoning of the removal of the Defendant is not sufficient and does not follow any of the reasons for removal, this written under Terms of Removal in the Legal Board Act. The RBA has applied a punishment to a citizen for a crime that they did not commit, for which there was no trial, and they cannot appeal.
3) The Plaintiff did not breach the RBA Ethical Doctrine.
4) The Redmont Bar Association applies punishments in violation of the following Constitutional Right: IV. All accused are entitled to appeal a charge made against them by the state.
5) The RBA is given too much power to control what reasons they can use to disbar citizens under the clause: “Bylaws set by the RBA”
6) Furthermore, is the RBA became more a judicial/executive cartel, where it's still a state organization but perceives to have power beyond the constitution and extended law. This is mainly because of the Legal Board Act which is poorly written with too much authority given to the RBA Council itself.
7) The RBA’s ability to create its own rules for disbarment is extra-legal. All legislative power is vested in the Legislature, and no law can grant any other entity Legislative authority, therefore making the Legal Board Act more unconstitutional.
8) Possession of a law license for a Lawyer would certainly be an essential part of pursuing Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person as it provides their entire means to practice their line of work (liberty) and earn a living (life and security).
II. DEFENDANT’S POSITION
1) The RBA is an independent organization founded by Congress and handles under the Legal Board Act. So this is why the RBA does not have to follow the same procedures as a normal state organization does.
2) The Constitution tells that every citizen has the right to a trial, the Plaintiff is exercising this so the Commonwealth of Redmont is not impeding on his Constitutional rights.
3) The law license given by the RBA to the lawyers is not a Constitutional right and may be taken away due process.
4) The Redmont Bar Association had proper justification for the disbarment of tekkovvs. The Legal Board Act §5.3 and §5.4 were both breached by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed informal and frivolous suits on behalf of the same client numerous times, even after being warned by the Court and the Redmont Bar Association. This is the very definition of ineffective counsel and failing to abide by Court procedures and terms.
5) The right for appealing was not violated since the Plaintiff can appeal the decision through a Court like in Case No. 07-2021-06, AlexanderLove v. The Redmont Bar Association. This proves that any citizen can appeal the decision made. Additionally, the right says, in the end, “a charge made against them by the state.” As stated before, the RBA is not a state organization, nor did it ‘charge’ tekkovvs with any crime.
6) The interview was consensual, voluntary, and informal. This is not grounds for a trial.
7) The revocation of a practicing license is not a legal punishment, but rather a method for remediating wrongdoing under the law. It does not physically take away a person’s property or freedom. It takes away a privilege granted by the Government in the first place. Therefore, the entire Legal Board Act and disbarments are indeed constitutional.
8) This case is fully based on revenge The Plaintiff is angry that he got lawfully disbarred and is searching for radical methods to avoid punishment.
9) A precedent was set in AlexanderLove v. The Redmont Bar Association. "The Court believes that the compensation requested is unreasonable because the Redmont Bar Association is an entity outside the government that has no specific budget, and no way to make any money without government aid or donations, the Redmont Bar Association simply cannot cover the compensation requested.
III. COURT’S OPINION
First of all, I will have divided all parts of this trial: Was Tekkovvs’ disbarment justified? , Does the RBA commit violations against the Constitution by disbarring people and giving lawyer licenses? Are other disbarments unconstitutional? , Conclusion
Was Tekkov’s disbarment justified?
When looking at this specific topic we/The Court needs to ask me if the RBA violated any acts made by Congress, this means the Legal Board Act. In this specific act, there are some reasons set up as potential reasons for disbarring people. The Court specifically looks at sections 5.3 and 5.4. The Court will start with 5.3, the means of effective counsel in representing their clients in Court is that they must do the best what they can do in Court, this means in front of a person of the Judiciary. Also, does this means that he can need to give a good council in advising his clients on what to do next? This means go to Court or leave it. Since the burden of proof lies at the RBA, they failed to provide any evidence he did. Then we need to find the cases he presided over: [Case No. 11-2021-04], [Case No. 07-2021-23], [Case No. 06-2021-21], etc. This shows a history of frivolous cases but all the representation to their Clients: Canadian Union, Church of Pablo, … shows that the Plaintiff, tekkovvs, did represent their clients well in Court. So this point was not met and to conclude this is not a reason for the disbarment of tekkovvs. Furthermore, point 5.4 of the Legal Board Act does obligate the Council to follow the procedures or terms set by Court. We need to see at the terms set by the Courts. The Court is a vital institution in ensuring proper and effective justice. Therefore, there are some strict laws about how, when, and why to take action in the courthouse. One of the terms set out is filing frivolous court cases. Since a warning was issued by the RBA and since then not following the rules of the Courthouse (this in case No. 11-2021-04 and the appeal at the Supreme Court that was denied because of not having a license) the RBA is in his full right to disbar the Plaintiff following the Legal Board Act. However, since the case could not be appealed and the fight that the case was not frivolous, point 5.4 was not met. If the RBA waited until the Supreme Court answered on the Appeal of case No. 11-2021-04 and it was rejected. Point 5.4 would be met. Also was this the case that was put as precedent in the disbarment of the Plaintiff. In a conclusion, no point of Terms of Removal in the Legal Board Act was met even though he has a past of making frivolous court cases. The RBA issued a warning instead of disbarment. So Tekkovvs disbarment is unjustified.
Does the RBA commit any violations against the Constitution by disbarring people and giving lawyer licenses?
I want to list the rights and laws of the Constitution the Court will discuss during this section:
- Constitutional right IX: Any Citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge.
- Constitutional right IV: All accused are entitled to appeal a charge made against them by the state.
- XIV. Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
- The Legal Board Act created a system of extrajudicial punishments that are not presided over by an impartial Judge, and such punishments are permanent and cannot be appealed. This is an unconstitutional breach of rights.
The Court would like to express that it will always defend the rights and laws of the Constitution. If we need to find out that the RBA is a violation of the Constitutional right IX, we need to look at what happened. The Plaintiff got disbarred and could not appeal this decision within the RBA but needs to go through Court to fight this decision. The question the Court needs to ask himself is if disbarring a person of the bar is a case for trial in the first instance. The Court based this simply on the fact if the RBA falls under the term: a government organization, Is disbarring people the same as firing people of a business or government, and is having a license of great importance in practicing the job? The Court follows the ruling of Case No. 07-2021-06 as it states: "The Court believes that the compensation requested is unreasonable because the Redmont Bar Association is an entity outside the government that has no specific budget, and no way to make any money without government aid or donations.” This means that the RBA is not an actual government organization, but the government does support the RBA. Also, the Court finds the RBA not in the business field as well. This explains that licenses are another category than “hiring”. But are those licenses justified? The License is to prove to everyone is an educated lawyer but cannot be seen as something you need to have for practicing law. The RBA does not have the power to obligate the following: having a license is mandatory otherwise you cannot practice law. The Court can express they only want people with a license filing and defending in a specific Court whatsoever. However, the fact that disbarring people can be done when such rules are implemented by the Court – which happens now – gives the RBA’s council a position it cannot have. They rule over someone’s life and are not qualified to do this job, this is in violation of constitutional rights IX. and XIV. The Court agrees with the Defendant that not all punishments need to go to trial. The impact of disbarring a lawyer of the RBA is too big on the lawyer itself and the RBA’s Council is not qualified for such decisions. The Court follows the plea: possession of a law license for a Lawyer would certainly be an essential part of pursuing Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person as it provides their entire means to practice their line of work (liberty) and earn a living (life and security); because of this, a person of the Judiciary needs to handle such cases. The Court considered that they can get a living without the license by doing another job, but this is taking away the liberty and taking away their living in the legal field. However, giving licenses can be done by the Council of the RBA. The Court finds that such decisions need to be taken by a person of the Judiciary, that’s why the Court advice making another position within the Judiciary that handles all the possible disbarments. The RBA is however not in violation of the Constitutional right IV. because this decision could be appealed. To conclude, the Court finds the RBA in violation of Constitutional right IX and is threatening Constitutional right XIV when potentially disbarring people without giving the Defendant a fair trial. The Legal Board Act must be rewritten or deleted. The RBA has multiple goals and not only for licenses. Therefore the destruction of the RBA is off-limits.
Are the other disbarments unconstitutional?
Since all the disbarments of the past have specific reasons and different reasons the Court can’t rule that all disbarments need to be struck off the record. The Court gives the people disbarred the opportunity to fight this decision in the Courts.
Tekkovvs needs to be given back the license under special conditions. This is because the Court finds him not in violation of any of the terms set by the Legal Board Act. The reasoning you can find in point a. The License proves that you are a valid lawyer to the people and the Court wants to keep it that way. Any misstep in the future may be seen as a violation of the Court rules and his license can be taken away.
The RBA has the qualities and can give licenses to the lawyers that deserve it, but they can’t disbar people. This is otherwise in violation of Constitutional Rights IX and XIV. Congress or the Chief of Justice will need to find a new method to rule over such decisions.
I also would like to point out that the Plaintiff added a prayer for relief in his closing statement. The Court will not take this into account because filed too late and this was not the case for it. This is about the Criminal Jurisdiction Act and not about the RBA.
I hereby rule in favor of the Plaintiff.
I order the following:
1)Legal Board Act needs to be struck or rewritten as soon as possible
2)Tekkovvs needs to get his license back
3 The RBA cannot judge over a potential disbarment of a lawyer with a license.
The Court asks that the procedure of this case will not be repeated in future cases. This was an absolute mess and will not be tolerated again.
The Court thanks each party for his time. This case is now adjourned.