Lawsuit: Adjourned Bank and Trust of Redmont v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 8

[Cooleagles]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Bank and Trust of Redmont (Cooleagles representing)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
Members of the esteemed court and citizens of Redmont, it is brought to our attention that “The Pugbandit Anti Scam Act” is in violation of the rights of the people and should be declared unconstitutional. I pinpoint the 13th Right Within SECTION IV - RIGHTS & FREEDOMS of the constitution which states,
“Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status”
I also pinpoint the 15th Right within SECTION IV - RIGHTS & FREEDOMS of the constitution which states,
“Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.”
The bill in question clearly violates the 15th Right as it demands citizens to “...provide transparent documentation of all spending, deposits and withdrawals to the DEC and updates on the total amount the company has.” Furthermore, the 13th Right is broken for this bill not only targets, but discriminates against any citizen in relation or association to a bank; in other words, their social status with a bank. A citizen who makes one single deposit is then left with their privacy and records abused by our government.

With all of this being said, it is dire that the court see this breach and respectfully revoke the bill.


I. PARTIES
1. Bank and Trust of Redmont
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont


II. FACTS
1. April 14th, the bill in question was brought forth to Congress and then voted upon. After overruling the President’s veto, May 9th, it took into effect.
2. The bill has been unconstitutionally demanding citizen’s, specifically bankers and investors, to give up private documentation of their clients; therefore, breaking the 15th Right under the Constitution.
3. The overall targeting and discriminating against a citizen for their association with a bank in the first place, then violates the 13th Right under the Constitution.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Citizens can not and should not be stripped of their rights for the Government’s sake of convenience; furthermore, the bill is unconstitutional.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The bill in question be immediately revoked.


By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 30th day of May, 2021

 

[Westray]

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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the Bank and Trust of Redmont v. The Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 72 hours, or this summons will result in a default judgment.

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.​

 

[bubbarc]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Bank and Trust of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Case no: [05-2021-30-1]

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The bill has been proven to be reasonable by an event where the DCIB (Democracy Craft Investment Bank) turned out to be a Ponzi Scheme and the owner made of with a large sum of money later to be prosecuted here: Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth of Redmont vs. Youngbuck2k [Case No. 04-2021-22-02] | DemocracyCraft, should a ruling favorable to the plaintiff be reached then banks would easily be able to commit fraud and go undetected for months should they hide it well enough

2. " XIII. Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status. " also doesn't apply as it's specific regulation to banks, should a precedent be applied by a ruling to this case favorable to the defendant then regulation as a whole would be unconstitutional, which would be a highly damaging precedent to be set, and this bill is not discriminating against the citizens who work at the bank, merely regulating the bank itself

3. The plaintiff is a bank unto itself, therefore has a conflict of interest regarding this case
...

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 second day of June 2021

 

[Westray]

After discussing with the rest of the Supreme Court, we have decided to reject the motion to dismiss.

While we believe that some substantial points have been raised by the Defendant, they have in no way explained how the case brought before the court is inaccurate or frivolous. As for the claim specified in section 3, it is irrelevant to the case at hand, as anyone could bring a constitutional dispute to this court.

In addition to that, this case has brought to light an important constitutional matter - as to what is a reasonable limit to constitutional rights that can be imposed on companies by the DEC, and as to how much regularly power the legislative holds. Therefore the court feels that continuing this case to understand the complete facts would be the most appropriate course of action.

We will ask that the Plaintiff proceeds with their opening statement.

 

[Cooleagles]

Thank you your honors,

I OPENING STATEMENT:

Firstly, thank you all for allowing this case to be in heard in this esteemed court. My client's and I couldn't agree with you more your honors, this case has significant importance. Numerous banks and citizens are being targeted before our eyes, being forced to surrender their rights because our government wanted to take the "easy" route. A route in which demands its citizens, not requests or asks, but demands its citizens to give up their private information and documents. Additionally, what of those who wanted to protect their rights? They are faced with losing everything they built, plus being given the title of a criminal. Now, for the sake of the court I will refrain from repeating the same facts over and over; however, I will gladly reiterate. If you look at the 2nd clause of The Pugbandit Anti Scam Act and compare it to the 13th and 15th Rights within our Constitution, it is clear as day the violations and altercations that occur.

I would now like to spend the rest of my opening to introduce some counter-argument towards the claims made by the defense in their motion to dismiss.

II COUNTER-ARGUMENT:

1. Your honor, the plaintiffs agree with what the defense has brought up for their first point. If and hopefully when this law is declared unconstitutional, banks will be put in a position where committing fraud is much more accessible. However, the defense neglects and misinterprets what this case is truly about. We are not here to debate whether this law is better off for the people or not, we are not here to debate the outcome of what will be if a ruling in either favor goes through. We are here to debate whether or not this law is unconstitutional. We are analyzing the words and format of the bill and coming to a clear conclusion. If that conclusion happens to cause damages similar to the case the defense mentions, then we would hope our legislators are wise enough to rewrite such a bill in a more proper and legal manner. Furthermore, do we really want to break the constitution and neglect the citizen’s rights for one law?

2. The defense may have a valid point in their argument; however, this does not deteriorate or lessen the value of the other right, the 15th right, which was also clearly broken.

With all of this being said, we would hope that the court sees the violations as mentioned above and in our complaint and does the right thing. Remove this bill, for it is unconstitutional, and let our citizens be relieved for their rights and Constitution are still intact.

Thank you your honors.

 

[bubbarc]

Objection
1. The point of the first clause in my motion to dismiss was to clarify as to why it is the state's opinion that the bill is reasonable and justified, by stating the potential effects of the bill being declared unconstitutional

 

[Cooleagles]

Your honors,

As I said in my opening, "we are not here to debate the outcome of what will be if a ruling in either favor goes through." It is in the plaintiff's opinion that we stick to the facts of the case. This case was brought forth to argue the constitutionality of a bill, not what will happen after a ruling is made. The plaintiffs and I'm sure everyone who reads through this case is aware of the possible effects, but once again it is not what we are debating. Additionally, these effects can easily be avoided with a new bill proposed by our legislators.

Thank you.

 

[Westray]

Objection
1. The point of the first clause in my motion to dismiss was to clarify as to why it is the state's opinion that the bill is reasonable and justified, by stating the potential effects of the bill being declared unconstitutional

Your objection is overruled. Objections should be made when a remark by either party does not follow the court procedure, is irrelevant to this case, or anything else within the plausible realm. In this instance, it would appear that the Defence is presenting their counterargument in the form of an objection.

I will ask that the Defence presents their opening statement and includes such arguments in it instead.

 

[bubbarc]

Your honor, I'd like to apologize for my conduct thus far, I tried to work on more than I could currently handle in a reasonable fashion currently due to things going on in real life that aren't likely to change until the week of the 20th, and while I probably continue the lawsuit myself it would make more logistical and practical sense for me to hand this off to a Prosecutor in my office, as such I'd like to hand off this case to @Canxx01, I'd like to apologize again for any inconveniences this may have caused

 

[Canxx01]

Your Honor, the Attorney General's Office has appointed me to handle this case on behalf of the Commonwealth. I would like to ask for an extension of 48 hours to present my opening statement, 24 hours to familiarize myself with the case and 24 hours to write the statement.

 

[Cooleagles]

The plaintiff has no objections your honors

 

[Westray]

Considering that the Plaintiff has no objection to this extension request, I see no reason to reject such. The extension of 48 hours is hereby granted. Please keep the court updated.

 

[Canxx01]

| OPENING STATEMENT |

Ladies and gentlemen of the court, Your Honor, the Commonwealth is to argue that The Pugbandit Anti Scam Act is not unconstitutional. The two Rights that the Plaintiff has cited from our Constitution, the 13th and 15th Rights, does not violate the Pugbandit Anti Scam Act but rather correlate with the Act.

First to explain the history behind the Pugbandit Anti Scam Act, following the Commonwealth v. Youngbuck2k ( https://www.democracycraft.net/thre...nt-vs-youngbuck2k-case-no-04-2021-22-02.5448/ ) which established precedent that financial organisations are able to conduct illegal operations such as organization of ponzi schemes, the people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, hereby enacted the Pugbandit Anti Scam Act, with 8 Representatives and 4 Senators voting "Aye".

The bill in question took very drastic measures warranted by the unprecedented severity of the Ponzi Scheme that the DCIB has shown the public opinion.

The Rights cited by the Plaintiff are the 13th and the 15th Rights, which go as follows:

XIII. Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.

XV. Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

The Commonwealth will argue that the Pugbandit Anti Scam Act is not in violation of these two Rights, but actually correlate to them, in a positive, mutualistic manner.

The 13th Right states that every citizen has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status. The Pugbandit Anti Scam Act, through its provisions, works on to protect the very citizens of Redmont by regulating, to the best of its capacity, the Banking and Investment corporations. The DEC thereby protects the 13th Right of the Citizens by giving them equal protection and equal benefit of the law when they are conducting business with the Banking and Investment corporations, by making sure that each and all financial transactions are legitimate. [Case No. 04-2021-22-02.5448] lead to over 88,000$ of dirty money, which could have been prevented by the Pugbandit Anti Scam Act. The Commonwealth thereby asks the Plaintiff if they think that it is fair for citizens to be scammed on such a deliberate manner, and if the claimants of the Ponzi Scheme in question were actually given their 13th Right of equal protection and equal benefit of the law. The Pugbandit Anti Scam Act has fixed that by giving the citizens their deserved, entitled equal protection and benefit of the law.

Moving on to the 15th Right, which states that every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, the Pugbandit Anti Scam Act is not unreasonable in its existence. There is precedent which warranted the creation of the Act, the public opinion which lead to its creation, opinion of the Congress & the Senate which overseen its admission into law. The DEC, due to historical precedence is fully reasonable in its actions of regulating Banking and Investment corporations, and that reasonability proves that the Pugbandit Anti Scam Act is not in violation of the 15th Right.

Thus the Commonwealth believes that it is proven that the Pugbandit Anti Scam Act is not unconstitutional, but rather uphelds the Constitution through its provisions. The Commonwealth thanks the Court for its attention today.

 

[Westray]

Thank you. The court would like to thank both parties for the arguments they have presented here thus far.

Was there any witness testimony or evidence that either party wished to present before we proceed to closing statements?

 

[Cooleagles]

Your honors,

My apologies for a late response, but the plaintiff has no witnesses or further evidence to present to the court at this time; furthermore, we are ready to proceed with closing statements.

 

[Westray]

Thank you. Does the Defence have anything else to present before proceeding?

 

[Canxx01]

The Defence is ready to proceed, Your Honor.

 

[Westray]

Alright. The Plaintiff may now present their closing statement.

 

[Cooleagles]

Thank you, your honors.

~CLOSING STATEMENT~
Our Constitution. Something we as citizens, legal professionals, and politicians should uphold. The very day it was written, I am sure the time and effort put into making it was not meant to go to waste. The constitution is something we move forward with, not backwards. In times of pressing issues and concern, we need to not only address those issues, but we need to do it properly. We can not skip and choose when and where we wish to acknowledge the constitution, we can not “ignore” the constitution for the better good of the people. Why? Simply because the act of doing so is reprehensible and unethical to begin with.

~OUR ARGUMENT~
This then brings me to the case we are debating today. The Pugbandit Anti Scam Act, written for great purpose and usage. That is undeniable, if it wasn’t, why would our legislators bring it forth to begin with. However, with its unique purpose comes a large flaw. Whilst “protecting its citizens”, the law violates the 13th and 15th Rights within the constitution. Targeting those in association to a bank, and then demanding their private documents be handed over. The one line in the bill says it all,
“All of such marked companies must provide transparent documentation of all spending, deposits and withdrawals to the DEC and updates on the total amount the company has.”
Your honors, I can not stress the discrepancies here enough. “What is a reasonable limit to constitutional rights that can be imposed on companies by the DEC?” Although I can not speak to what a reasonable limit should be, I can say that this case is far past it. It's one thing to regulate companies, your honors, but it's a complete other to violate their given rights. Let this echo far and wide as I move forward to the defense’s arguments and as you decipher a verdict.

~DEFENSE’S ARGUMENT~
In their opening, the defense argues how the law actually correlates along with the 13th and 15th rights. They begin by saying that the law has offered future victims their 13th right by giving them equal protection under the law. The defense also asked a question, in which I will gladly answer. No, the plaintiffs do not believe citizens deserve to be cheated and scammed in this manner; although, unlike our government the plaintiffs do believe in the constitution. Furthermore, we believe in the idea where we can help others by not pushing others down. The government has taken this single case, and made it so all bankers and investors are considered criminals to keep watch over. I’ve said it before, and I will say it again. The government took the easy route, which we have seen occur more and more often, your honors.

Secondly, the defense claims that the 15th right is not in violation due to “historical precedence”. They claim that both opinions from the public and Congress adhered to the bill. However, that opinion does not change it’s unconstitutionality. The real reason we are in court today. One could babble on and on about whether this bill is good or bad for the people, where the majority and minority side. Except there would never be an answer; moreover, just two different opinions in the end. Unlike that situation, we are debating the constitutionality of the bill. Looking at the bill and its actions, looking at the words and their meaning, looking at the facts, and in the end saying yes or no. That is what this case is, and surely by the facts I presented early. The answer is clear as day.

~CONCLUSION~
I’ve said very much in this closing, your honors. I am sorry if some of it comes off harsher than intended, but we can not stand and allow our government to do such acts like this. We can not allow our constitution to be overridden and ignored whenever we feel like it. An honest and just decision must be made in your eyes, your honors. The plaintiffs would hope you see that this bill is unconstitutional, and remove it. This way, a new, constitutional, and fair bill can be made for all parties in the future.

The plaintiffs thank you all for your time and hearing this case out. We rest our case.

 

[Westray]

Thank you. The Defence may now present their closing statement.

 

[Canxx01]

Your Honors, Mr. Chief Justice, the Defence will now present its closing statement:

The Plaintiff has argued the constitutionality of the Pugbandit Anti Scam Act. The fact is, their argument claims that the Pugbandit Anti Scam Act is considering banks and banks' clients as criminals, while in reality, it is protecting them on an unbiased manner.

Now the fact is that the Constitution is the code of law, thus it is clear. The fact is, that the two Rights cited by the Plaintiff, the XIII. Right and the XV. Right are fully correlated and in a mutualistic relationship with the Pugbandit Anti Scam Act.

XIII. Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.

The fact is, that the Pugbandit Anti Scam Act does not unfairly discriminate. The Pugbandit Anti Scam Act is thoroughly fair and impartial. While the Plaintiff has tried to dismiss historical precedence, it is the foundation that the Act is laid out on. The facts of this case are not refutable, they are clear beyond a shadow of a doubt. Investment banks, as shown by the DCIB, have the ability and competency of being able to work as a ponzi scheme of an immense capacity. The people needed an Act to protect themselves, and the Pugbandit Anti Scam Act received such a majority in both the House and the Senate that it overrode a Presidential Veto. The Defence will now highlight key points of the 13th Right:

XIII. Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.

The Pugbandit Anti Scam Act does not classify anyone as a criminal baselessly. It merely regulates the very banks which, historical precedence showed, can and did become ponzi schemes in the past. The fact that historical precedence exists proves that the Act is not unfair, it is impartial. And the fact that banks require regulation is not discrimination, it is a necessity, in order to grant citizens their 13th Right: Equal protection and equal benefit of the law. Thus proving that the 13th Right correlates with the Pugbandit Anti Scam Act, and does not violate it.

Moving on to the 15th Right, which states:

XV. Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

The Defence will now highlight the key points again:

XV. Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

The Pugbandit Anti Scam Act does not unreasonably search citizens who are clients of banking corporations. For it to be unreasonable, there would have to be no historical precedence, which there is. For it to be unreasonable, the search in question would have to be baseless, which it isn't due to the fact that Citizens were scammed before. The Pugbandit Anti Scam Act does not violate the 15th Right, because every citizen is still secured against unreasonable search or seizure. Because the Pugbandit Anti Scam Act does not search citizens unreasonably. The Act has historical precedence and reasonable doubt to warrant its provisions, thus proving that it is not unreasonable, which in turn proves that the 13th Right correlates with the Pugbandit Anti Scam Act, and does not violate it.

Your Honors, Mr. Chief Justice, the Commonwealth is aware that the Pugbandit Anti Scam Act is controversial. The opposition that it received, such as the Plaintiff here in Court, proves that much. Although that doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. The Defence has presented a rebuttal to the two Rights that the Plaintiff has utilized in order to prove that the Act was unconstitutional, and proved that the Plaintiff was wrong, and that the Act actually correlates with the two given Rights.

The Pugbandit Anti Scam Act is not unconstitutional beyond a shadow of a doubt, due to the clear Rights outlined by the Constitution, and the facts given in this case. The Commonwealth rests its case.

 

[Westray]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

Case No. 05-2021-30-01

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff, the Bank and Trust of Redmont, represented by Cooleagles, claims that the Pugbandit Anti Scam Act was in breach of the constitution, specifically the 13th and 15th Charter Rights.
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the overall targeting and discriminating against them for their association with a bank violates the 13th Charter Right.
3. They also allege that the bill has been unconstitutionally demanding citizen’s, specifically bankers and investors, to give up private documentation of their clients; therefore, breaking the 15th Charter Right.

II. DEFENDANTS POSITION
1. The Defendant, the Government of Redmont, claims that the limitations on such rights are reasonable. The bill has sought to protect citizens given previous severe cases with banks committing fraud.
2. The Defendant asserts that the rights correlates to the law, by giving citizens equal protection from bank fraud under the law.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. It is the opinion of the court that any limitation on a constitutional right must be deemed reasonable and properly
justified in a free and democratic society, as specifically mentioned in the constitution.
2. In relation to the 13th Charter Right, organizations such as banks are not considered citizens under the law, however, seeing as organizations are run by people, citizens are still indirectly impacted by the regulations. Therefore organizations should be protected under the law, however political belief or social status should not apply.
3. The 13th Charter Right explicitly specifies discrimination on the basis of "political belief or social status" - we believe that the alleged discrimination of the bank does not apply in such scenario. Therefore we have decided the only standard such law should meet is that the purpose of the law must serve a legitimate state interest and the law must be reasonably or rationally linked to that interest. It is the court's opinion that it is reasonably liked to the interest of protecting citizens from bank fraud, as pointed out via past precedents.
4. The 15th Charter Right examines the right against unreasonable search and seizure. The court believes that there needs to be a reasonable expectation to privacy, notably in regards to the customer's finances and the bank's records. An unreasonable violation of such privacy would be such financial information being exposed to the general public.
5. The Pugbandit Anti Scam Act does not specify a detailed process on how such records are acquired, it instead gives the DEC the power to create its own process within the law. Which as a Department constitutionality charged with the administering of companies and oversight of the economy, seems reasonable to hold such regulatory power.
6. Since such law does not specify the exact process and the law has not yet been used, the court cannot say whether the process is reasonably justified or is in contravention of such rights until the process has been implemented.
7. Once implemented, the questions of reasonability to be posed could be, (a) does the DEC properly ensure the privacy of banks and keeps such records away from the public; (b) is the intervals of time in which documentation is requested fair and reasonable? and (c) do the documents requested serve the purpose of the bill, to prevent fraud and financial crime?

Remarks from the Hon. Westray:

While believing an interesting argument has been posed - I believe that the concept of reasonability in pursuit of public safety has been adequately applied. There are often limitations made on rights, but ones that are made in pursuit of the rule of law, and justified in a free and democratic society. For example, the limitations on running for office if a citizen has been charged with corruption poses a limitation on the right to run for office, however exists for the purpose of maintaining order, which is reasonably justified.

As pointed out by the Defendant, it is evident that the law does not exist to target or take advantage of banks and or bank owners, but instead to maintain law and to protect consumers, in the fundamental principles of justice. I would implore the Department of Education and Commerce to ensure they use this law responsibility and reasonably, as the abuse of this law could correlate to a lack of reasonability, and in thereof, unreasonable search, in the future.

Remarks from the Hon. MilkCrack:

Almost all regulations impede a citizens ability to exercise their rights to their full extend. Therefore there is an argument to be made for every regulation to be declared unconstitutional however it's important as a justice to use some level of judicial restraint to uphold the laws that serve a sufficient state interest. Despite the verdict not granting the prayer for relief, the questions raised in this case are of tremendous value to the 13th and 15th provisions of the rights and freedom charter and their respective limitations. The lack of a defined process impeded the court from answering all questions pertaining to the 15th provision. However, this case does establish a great deal of precedence in regards to the 13th provision and will hopefully be used as a basis for future verdicts.

IV. DECISION
The Supreme Court hereby unanimously adjourns this case in favour of the Defendant, while recognizing that the court cannot say whether the law is reasonably justified until its process is implemented.

Thank you to both parties for their time in presenting these arguments.