Lawsuit: In Session Bank of Reveille v. Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) [2025] FCR 22

[Nacho]

Emergency Injunction
I request the court to put a stay on the outstanding warrant issued on or around February 17th against the Bank of Reveilles client information. The warrant provided misleading information from the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) to the Department of Justice, which, in turn, was provided to the court improperly. (P-2, p-3, p-4, p-5, p-6)

The Bank of Reveille was not asked to respond to the message from the FRB at the time it was sent (p-6), but the Department of Justice indicated within their warrant application that the bank has failed to comply and or take action, which is fundamentally false. A representative of the Bank of Reveille joined the FRB discord when the request was sent (P-5). The FRB failed to open a channel of communication within the FRB Discord to provide a process for providing the information requested.

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Bank of Reveille
Plaintiff

v.

Federal Reserve Bank (FRB)
Defendant

COMPLAINT
On February 17, 2025, at 3:33 pm Eastern Time, The Bank of Reveille was notified and provided a warrant issued by the Court within the Commonwealth of Redmont. The Bank of Reveille was provided a warrant by a representative of the Department of Justice. The information outlined to the court stipulated that the Bank of Reveille was non-compliant with the law. The DOJ noted that the bank did not respond or take action to comply. This information was fundamentally wrong. The Bank of Reveille sought further information from the Department of Justice regarding the warrant’s scope and nature. Upon being provided the information of the warrant, the Bank of Reveille was informed it was being pulled at the request of the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) for being non-compliant with FRB policy ‘Bank Reserve Requirement Act.’

Within this case, we will want to look into the facts that the FRB is not given the authority to be an investigative authority, and the FRB is attempting to assume powers that are not expressly given to them within the Constitution or the Federal Reserve Act. The FRB is actively working to assume the powers given to that of the Department of Commerce.

The Department of Justice furthermore failed to do their due diligence on their own investigative work. Instead, they have pivoted their authority and taken a non-investigative body’s word for the alleged crimes. As a result, a warrant has been issued based on wrong information.


I. PARTIES
1. Federal Reserve Bank of Redmont (Defendant)
2. Stoppers (Reserve Governor)
3. Department of Justice (Witness)
4. Bank of Reveille (Plaintiff)

II. FACTS
1. On January 26, 2025, at 12:46 AM EST, Reserve Governor Stoppers notified the Bank of Reveille and invited them to the Federal Reserve discord.
2. A Bank of Reveille representative joined the FRB discord on January 26, 2025, at 10:47 pm EST.
3. On the 17th of February, Attorney General Freeze_Line opened a support ticket to issue a search warrant for Bank of Reveille’s balance sheets.
4. On the 17th of February, The Bank of Reveille requested to view the warrant.
5. On the 18th of February, Bank of Reveille representatives notified the Attorney General of the clerical error of the warrants filing that the information presented was improper and that a Bank of Reveille representative did, in fact, join the FRB Discord.
6. On the 18th of February, The Attorney General ignored the indication of the clerical error in the warrants filing and still requested the information.
7. Evidence of the clerical error was provided to the Attorney General.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The FRB has assumed authority expressly given to the Department of Commerce within the Commercial Standards Act.
2. The FRB has attempted to expand the authority expressed within the Federal Reserve Act.
3. The above actions have violated the Bank of Reveilles right of 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.
4. The above actions have violated the Bank of Reveilles right of 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.
5. The above actions have violated the Bank of Reveilles right of XV. Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Bank Reserve Requirement Act is struck as an overreach of authority.
2. Declaratory judgment on the scope and purpose of the Federal Reserve Bank.
3. Declaratory judgment on the scope and purpose of the Federal Reserve Bank policy initiatives.
4. Legal Fees - $5,000

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

DATED: This 23 day of February 2025

 

[Dartanboy]

I am voluntarily recusing from the case as I was involved in the DoJ's investigation in this case when I was Solicitor General.

 

[ColonelKai]

I will be hereby denying the emergency injunction as filed by the plaintiff. The movant has failed to demonstrate that that remedies sought by the preliminary injunction will prevent irreparable damage which can not later be remedied by a permanent injunction or a court order.

 

[ColonelKai]

Writ of Summons

@Stoppers is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of NacholeBraa v. Federal Reserve Bank

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Writ of Summons

@Stoppers is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of NacholeBraa v. Federal Reserve Bank

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

Dragon Law representing, your honor.

 

[ColonelKai]

Dragon Law representing, your honor.

Can you please present your proof of representation?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Can you please present your proof of representation?

 

[ColonelKai]

The defendant has 72 hours starting now to submit their response to the complaint.

 

[Angryhamdog]

Your Honor, the lawyer in charge of this case has left, and I will need additional time to familiarize myself due to IRL conflicts. I kindly ask for a 36 hour extension on the answer to complaint as a precautionary measure. Thank you so much, and my apologies.

 

[Angryhamdog]

Motion

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

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Under Rule 5.7 (Failure to Include Party), this lawsuit is invalid as the lawsuit was filed using mismatched, unrelated Plaintiffs. This can be seen in the lawsuit title "Nacholebraa v. Federal Reserve Bank (FRB)", stating Nacholebraa as the Plaintiff, and I. Parties stating "Bank of Reveille" as the Plaintiff.

DATED: 27th of February, 2025

 

[ColonelKai]

The extension has been granted. You have 36 hours from the original deadline. The motion to dismiss is hereby pending a ruling on a later date.

 

[Angryhamdog]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Bank of Reveille
Plaintiff

v.

Federal Reserve Bank (FRB)
Defendant


I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. The defense AFFIRMS that “ On January 26, 2025, at 12:46 AM EST, Reserve Governor Stoppers notified the Bank of Reveille and invited them to the Federal Reserve discord.”
2. The defense AFFIRMS that “A Bank of Reveille representative joined the FRB discord on January 26, 2025, at 10:47 pm EST.”
3. The defense AFFIRMS that “ On the 17th of February, Attorney General Freeze_Line opened a support ticket to issue a search warrant for Bank of Reveille’s balance sheets.”
4. The defense AFFIRMS that “On the 17th of February, The Bank of Reveille requested to view the warrant.”
5. The defense NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that “On the 18th of February, Bank of Reveille representatives notified the Attorney General of the clerical error of the warrants filing that the information presented was improper and that a Bank of Reveille representative did, in fact, join the FRB Discord.”
6. The defense DENIES that “On the 18th of February, The Attorney General ignored the indication of the clerical error in the warrants filing and still requested the information.”
7. The defense NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that “Evidence of the clerical error was provided to the Attorney General.”

II. DEFENSES

1. The Commercial Standards Act does not mandate that ONLY the Department of Commerce may exercise the authorities related to investigating and enforcing monetary policies and issues, in fact, the Federal Reserve Act mandates that the Federal Reserve ‘bears the primary responsibility for shaping and executing policies relating to money.’ The Federal Reserve Act additionally states that the Federal Reserve shall ‘exclusively’ have the power to ‘set reserve requirements, which are the minimum amounts of funds that banks must hold in reserve against their deposits.’
2. The actions of the Federal Reserve Bank have not violated the Bank of Reveille’s constitutional rights, as the Bank of Reveille broke the Federal Reserve Bank's established requirements by failing to provide the mandated reserves by the established due date of the 28th of January, and such were subject to compulsory measures, in this case being the requesting and issuance of a search warrant.
3. The Bank of Reveille failed to make all reasonable measures to establish communications regarding compliance with the Bank Reserve Requirement Act.The Bank of Reveille’s representatives failed to contact the Reserve Governor, other reserve representatives, or open inquiry tickets in order to comply.
4. The search warrant provided by Attorney General Freeze_Line was completely reasonable as it only requested information that was already required by the FRB Bank Reserve Requirement Act. It did not ask for client information, as stated by the Plaintiff.

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: February 27, 2024

 

[Angryhamdog]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The Plaintiff stated that that warrant issued on or around February 17th was ‘against the Bank of Reveilles client information.’ This is a clear lie and attempt to mislead the court, as you can clearly see in P-003 that Attorney General Freeze_Line requested only for the balance sheets of the Bank of Reveille, as mandated by the FRB Bank Reserve Requirements Act.

​

 

[Nacho]

Motion

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

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Under Rule 5.7 (Failure to Include Party), this lawsuit is invalid as the lawsuit was filed using mismatched, unrelated Plaintiffs. This can be seen in the lawsuit title "Nacholebraa v. Federal Reserve Bank (FRB)", stating Nacholebraa as the Plaintiff, and I. Parties stating "Bank of Reveille" as the Plaintiff.

DATED: 27th of February, 2025

Response to Motion to Dismiss

Your Honor,

I am filing the case on behalf of the Bank of Reveille. While I wouldn’t have thought this would be that big of a deal, being a Director within the bank, we ask the following of the court.

We request the court to amend the case title within the thread title to align with every other aspect of our case filing... The proper filing of the case should be “Bank of Reveille v. Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) [2025] FCR 22.”... We appreciate the court’s consideration of the matter.

 

[Nacho]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Bank of Reveille
Prosecution

v.

Federal Reserve Bank (FRB)
Defendant


I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. The defense AFFIRMS that “ On January 26, 2025, at 12:46 AM EST, Reserve Governor Stoppers notified the Bank of Reveille and invited them to the Federal Reserve discord.”
2. The defense AFFIRMS that “A Bank of Reveille representative joined the FRB discord on January 26, 2025, at 10:47 pm EST.”
3. The defense AFFIRMS that “ On the 17th of February, Attorney General Freeze_Line opened a support ticket to issue a search warrant for Bank of Reveille’s balance sheets.”
4. The defense AFFIRMS that “On the 17th of February, The Bank of Reveille requested to view the warrant.”
5. The defense NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that “On the 18th of February, Bank of Reveille representatives notified the Attorney General of the clerical error of the warrants filing that the information presented was improper and that a Bank of Reveille representative did, in fact, join the FRB Discord.”
6. The defense DENIES that “On the 18th of February, The Attorney General ignored the indication of the clerical error in the warrants filing and still requested the information.”
7. The defense NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that “Evidence of the clerical error was provided to the Attorney General.”

II. DEFENSES

1. The Commercial Standards Act does not mandate that ONLY the Department of Commerce may exercise the authorities related to investigating and enforcing monetary policies and issues, in fact, the Federal Reserve Act mandates that the Federal Reserve ‘bears the primary responsibility for shaping and executing policies relating to money.’ The Federal Reserve Act additionally states that the Federal Reserve shall ‘exclusively’ have the power to ‘set reserve requirements, which are the minimum amounts of funds that banks must hold in reserve against their deposits.’
2. The actions of the Federal Reserve Bank have not violated the Bank of Reveille’s constitutional rights, as the Bank of Reveille broke the Federal Reserve Bank's established requirements by failing to provide the mandated reserves by the established due date of the 28th of January, and such were subject to compulsory measures, in this case being the requesting and issuance of a search warrant.
3. The Bank of Reveille failed to make all reasonable measures to establish communications regarding compliance with the Bank Reserve Requirement Act.The Bank of Reveille’s representatives failed to contact the Reserve Governor, other reserve representatives, or open inquiry tickets in order to comply.
4. The search warrant provided by Attorney General Freeze_Line was completely reasonable as it only requested information that was already required by the FRB Bank Reserve Requirement Act. It did not ask for client information, as stated by the Plaintiff.

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: February 27, 2024

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

The defense improperly filed their answer to the complaint. The defense has listed the plaintiff as having prosecutorial authority. We have identified this case as a civil action of The Bank of Reveille against the Federal Reserve Bank.

We ask the answer to the complaint be struck and refiled with the proper wording. However, we will also accept it if they wish to amend their answer to the complaint with the court’s permission, of course.

 

[Nacho]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The Plaintiff stated that that warrant issued on or around February 17th was ‘against the Bank of Reveilles client information.’ This is a clear lie and attempt to mislead the court, as you can clearly see in P-003 that Attorney General Freeze_Line requested only for the balance sheets of the Bank of Reveille, as mandated by the FRB Bank Reserve Requirements Act.

​

Response to Objection

Your Honor,

The information requested by the Attorney General through their warrant was for the Banks Balance sheet. The bank balance sheet includes all bank liabilities, including client deposits. The Bank of Reveilles balance sheets include information on the account holder. This requested information is considered ‘client information’ in the eyes of the Bank of Reveille.

 

[Angryhamdog]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

The defense improperly filed their answer to the complaint. The defense has listed the plaintiff as having prosecutorial authority. We have identified this case as a civil action of The Bank of Reveille against the Federal Reserve Bank.

We ask the answer to the complaint be struck and refiled with the proper wording. However, we will also accept it if they wish to amend their answer to the complaint with the court’s permission, of course.

My apologies for the improper wording. I will be amending the Answer to Complaint as follows:

Bank of Reveille
ProsecutionPlaintiff

 

[Kaiserin_]

Response to Motion to Dismiss

Your Honor,

I am filing the case on behalf of the Bank of Reveille. While I wouldn’t have thought this would be that big of a deal, being a Director within the bank, we ask the following of the court.

We request the court to amend the case title within the thread title to align with every other aspect of our case filing... The proper filing of the case should be “Bank of Reveille v. Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) [2025] FCR 22.”... We appreciate the court’s consideration of the matter.

Objection

Breach of Procedure

Motions do not automatically warrant responses without request. No response was granted by the court, and the defense asks that it be struck.

 

[ColonelKai]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The Plaintiff stated that that warrant issued on or around February 17th was ‘against the Bank of Reveilles client information.’ This is a clear lie and attempt to mislead the court, as you can clearly see in P-003 that Attorney General Freeze_Line requested only for the balance sheets of the Bank of Reveille, as mandated by the FRB Bank Reserve Requirements Act.

​

Response to Objection

Your Honor,

The information requested by the Attorney General through their warrant was for the Banks Balance sheet. The bank balance sheet includes all bank liabilities, including client deposits. The Bank of Reveilles balance sheets include information on the account holder. This requested information is considered ‘client information’ in the eyes of the Bank of Reveille.

This objection is overruled. You may use evidence and arguments on your end to argue a point to be false, but Perjury requires proof that the submitter is aware of the fact that the information is false. The movant has failed to demonstrate this bar.

Motion

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

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Under Rule 5.7 (Failure to Include Party), this lawsuit is invalid as the lawsuit was filed using mismatched, unrelated Plaintiffs. This can be seen in the lawsuit title "Nacholebraa v. Federal Reserve Bank (FRB)", stating Nacholebraa as the Plaintiff, and I. Parties stating "Bank of Reveille" as the Plaintiff.

DATED: 27th of February, 2025

Motion is denied. The mismatch does not fall strictly under the definition of 5.7, and extending 5.7 to apply to this situation would not add any further stability to the case, and dismissing without prejudice (which is what this motion would result in) would only delay court procedures as the court does not see a fundamental threat to the validity of the case.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

The defense improperly filed their answer to the complaint. The defense has listed the plaintiff as having prosecutorial authority. We have identified this case as a civil action of The Bank of Reveille against the Federal Reserve Bank.

We ask the answer to the complaint be struck and refiled with the proper wording. However, we will also accept it if they wish to amend their answer to the complaint with the court’s permission, of course.

My apologies for the improper wording. I will be amending the Answer to Complaint as follows:

Bank of Reveille
ProsecutionPlaintiff

The amendment has been acknowledged by the courts. The defendant may amend their answer to complaint.

Objection

Breach of Procedure

Motions do not automatically warrant responses without request. No response was granted by the court, and the defense asks that it be struck.

This objection is sustained. The plaintiff may still request that the title be modified separately. The original response will be struck.

---

That all being said, this court hereby enters the discovery period, which is to last no more than 72 hours if not extended.

 

[Angryhamdog]

Your Honor, the defense submits D-001 and D-002 as evidence.

Spoiler: D-001

Spoiler: D-002

 

[Angryhamdog]

Your Honor, the defense submits D-003 as evidence.

Spoiler: D-003

 

[ColonelKai]

Apologies for the delay.


The deadline for the discovery period has passed. The plaintiff has 48 hours for their opening statement.

 

[Nacho]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

Today, we are here because The Bank of Reveille and the more significant financial industry have been unjustly targeted, wrongfully accused, and subjected to an improper warrant based on flawed information. The Federal Reserve Bank of Redmont (FRB), an entity with no investigative authority, sought to impose its will on The Bank of Reveille by assuming powers beyond its legal scope. It did so with the uncritical assistance of the Department of Justice (DOJ), which failed in its fundamental duty to conduct due diligence. As a result, an improper search warrant was issued, violating the rights of The Bank of Reveille and setting a dangerous precedent of unchecked authority.

The facts in this case are clear. On January 26, 2025, the FRB’s Reserve Governor, Stoppers, invited a representative of The Bank of Reveille to join an FRB-controlled communication platform. That invitation was accepted and acted upon. Yet, despite this compliance, on February 17, 2025, the Department of Justice—relying on fundamentally incorrect information provided by the FRB— was issued a warrant against The Bank of Reveille under the claim that it had failed to comply with FRB policy under the so-called ‘Bank Reserve Requirement Act.’ Upon receiving this warrant, The Bank of Reveille immediately sought clarification and the correction of the errors underlying its issuance. However, the DOJ ignored the truth rather than acknowledging these critical errors and persisted in its wrongful demand.

This case presents fundamental legal questions regarding the Federal Reserve Bank’s overreach. The FRB is not an investigative agency and does not possess the authority to assume investigatory powers granted by law to the Department of Commerce. The FRB’s actions violate the Federal Reserve and Commercial Standards Act. Furthermore, the Department of Justice, which is entrusted with the duty of impartially enforcing the law, has failed to ensure that its actions are grounded in proper investigative findings.

The violations suffered by The Bank of Reveille are not merely procedural but constitutional. The warrant was issued in direct violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in law:

• The right to equal protection under the law, free from unfair discrimination.
• The right to life, liberty, and security of the person, free from arbitrary deprivation.
• The right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.

In this case, the warrant was based on demonstrably false claims, disregarding clear evidence provided to the DOJ of a clerical error. The refusal of the DOJ to correct its mistake and its insistence on pursuing an improper course of action exemplifies a grave miscarriage of justice. The Bank of Reveille has suffered harm through the invasion of its lawful operations and the reputational damage caused by this baseless accusation.

We will present evidence demonstrating that the FRB exceeded its authority, that the DOJ failed to conduct its due diligence, and that The Bank of Reveille was unfairly targeted. We will establish that the search warrant was unlawful and that the FRB and the DOJ actions are not supported under the law.

At the conclusion of this case, we will ask the Court to recognize these violations and grant appropriate relief to The Bank of Reveille. Justice demands accountability, fairness, and the correction of this wrongful act.

 

[ColonelKai]

The defendant has 48 hours for their opening statement.

 

[Angryhamdog]

Opening Statement

Your Honor, opposing counsel, and all citizens of Redmont who are present, thank you for your presence today. May it please the court,

The claim of the plaintiff is that the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) has overreached its lawfully delegated authority. However, they have thoroughly failed to provide any reasonable claims.

Firstly, they argue that the FRB lacks investigative authority. However, the Federal Reserve Act grants the FRB the power to oversee banks and ensure the stability and strength of the financial system in section 3.3. This makes it clear that banks are legally required to comply with reasonable requests from the reserve.

Additionally, the plaintiff's claim is fundamentally flawed, as it alleges that the FRB conducted an investigation. As seen in D-003, the FRB requested the Department of Justice (DOJ) take investigative action to ensure the bank’s compliance. It was Attorney General Freeze_Line, the Department of Justice, and the Commonwealth Judiciary that exercised independent authority in issuing the search warrant. Any claims of improper investigative actions or miscarriage of justice – including any breach of rights due to the search warrant – should be directed at the Department of Justice as part of the Commonwealth, not the Federal Reserve.

The plaintiff has stated that the FRB assumed powers that it is not legally entitled to, but they’ve failed to provide any examples as to what precise powers the Reserve attempted to expand that were not already granted to it by the Federal Reserve Act.

Now, let us examine the damages the Plaintiff is claiming. They assert their XIV and XV rights of life, liberty and security of the person against unreasonable search were violated. However, the plaintiff was already legally required to provide those documents, solely consisting of the Bank of Reveille’s balance sheets, search warrant or not. No “unreasonable search” was undertaken, and no rights were threatened as a result of these actions, because the only information requested was already required by law.

The Bank of Reveille (BOR) had ample opportunity to establish communication with the Reserve. In D-003, it can be seen that the Reserve only requested DOJ intervention for a singular bank. If Stoppers did not make it clear that the Bank needed to share the balance sheets, why were other banks not receiving similar warrants? The answer is simple: the BOR attempted minimum possible compliance in order to avoid having to pay the cash required by law. This is further proven by their claim for relief of having the Bank Reserve Requirement Act struck, which is listed in order to further avoid holding 10% of their balance with the Federal Reserve, even though it's a reasonably small amount of money that is being held with interest.

It is clear to the defense that this case is an effort to circumvent congressionally-delegated economic regulations through the court system. The Plaintiff accused the Federal Reserve of violation of their constitutional rights, even though the Defendant was uninvolved with the actions of the Commonwealth while obtaining and executing a search warrant. The Plaintiff has attempted to exploit the Federal Reserve by making no reasonable efforts to comply with the Reserve Governors directive. Finally, there are no reasonable claims for relief, as Congress, through the Federal Reserve Act, has given the Federal Reserve the authority to establish regulatory measures relating to money in order to create a stable economy. Therefore, we petition the court to deny the claims sought by the Plaintiff, and award the Defendant reasonable legal fees in order to compensate for the unwarranted filing against the FRB.

We thank the court for their time.

 

[ColonelKai]

The court thanks both parties for their opening statements.

For clarification, the plaintiff has listed within their parties list the Department of Justice as a witness in parenthesis. Does this mean they wish to call upon them during witness examinations?

 

[Nacho]

The court thanks both parties for their opening statements.

For clarification, the plaintiff has listed within their parties list the Department of Justice as a witness in parenthesis. Does this mean they wish to call upon them during witness examinations?

That is correct your honor, as well as Stoppers as the reserve governor listed as a party.

 

[ColonelKai]

You have not listed Stoppers as a witness, so the DoJ Secretary will be the only one to be summonsed as a witness.

Writ of Summons

@Freeze_Line is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Bank of Reveille v. Federal Reserve Bank (FRB).

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[Freeze_Line]

Present.

 

[ColonelKai]

Thank you for the timely response. The plaintiff has 48 hours to present questions, and the witness has 48 hours starting from the time of presentation to answer them.