Lawsuit: Dismissed ItsBlazeX v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 76

Status
Not open for further replies.
itsBlazeX

itsBlazeX

Citizen
Homeland Security Department
Construction & Transport Department
Change Maker Popular in the Polls Statesman
itsBlazeX
itsBlazeX
Recruit
Joined
Jul 5, 2023
Messages
283
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

ItsBlazeX (Prestige Law Firm Representing)
Plaintiff

V.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
In November of 2023, ItsBlazeX deposited $10,000 of his personal balance into Avalon Bank. Because of their high interest rates, he was certain it was a smart financial decision. It turns out he was very wrong. A month later, the bank disappeared, and so did his money. ItsBlazeX had quit DemocracyCraft when Avalon went bankrupt, but now that he has returned to DC, his money is nowhere to be found. And to make matters even worse, his business, Shopli, was unable to survive due to his lack of funds.

I. PARTIES
1. ItsBlazeX (Plaintiff)
2. Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)
3. v__d (Witness)


II. FACTS
1. In November of 2023, ItsBlazeX deposited $10,000 into Avalon Bank.
2. On December 12th, 2023, ItsBlazeX quit DemocracyCraft.
3. Later in December of 2023, Avalon went bankrupt.
4. Deposits at Avalon were insured up to $50,000. (Evidence A)
5. Since ItsBlazeX was gone from DC when Avalon went bankrupt, they were not paid their $10,000 back.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Make Commercial Tax less Convoluted Act states, “The Federal Government will guarantee deposits of up to $50,000 per person, per authorised financial institution.” Since Avalon Bank was disbanded, and did not return the Plaintiff’s deposit, ItsBlazeX is owed back his deposit of $10,000 by the Federal Government.
2. According to the Legal Damages Act, The Worsening of any Existing Conditions occurs in, “Situations in which a damage is caused by a party that caused harm to another party that were unforeseen or unrelated to the original harm.” This applies to this case as ItsBlazeX has been suffering from financial instability. Their personal balance is under $3,000, and continues to dwindle. As a result, their business, Shopli, has been forced to shut its doors. If the plaintiff had access to their funds when they should have been transferred back to him, Shopli would still have enough money to be operating today.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. $10,000 for their lost money deposited in Avalon Bank.
2. $10,000 for worsening of any existing conditions.
3. $6,000 (or 30% of case value) in legal fees.



V. EVIDENCE

Evidence A - Make Commercial Tax less Convoluted Act
Act of Congress - Taxation Act

Evidence B - Legal Damages Act

Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act.

A BILL To Define the different forms of damages. 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, do hereby enact the following provisions into law: 1 - Short...
www.democracycraft.net www.democracycraft.net


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 23rd day of May 2024
 
1716589646390-png.43687

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

@Unseatedduke1 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of ItsBlazeX v. Commonwealth of Redmont.

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 Information - Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 

Attachments

  • 1716589646390.png
    1716589646390.png
    233.8 KB · Views: 513
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

​
Your Honor,

The Commonwealth of Redmont respectfully requests that this case be dismissed under Rule 5.5 for lack of a valid claim. The plaintiff's claims lack standing and merit for the following reasons:

  1. The plaintiff alleges that the Commonwealth is responsible for the return of his $10,000 deposit under the provision that guarantees deposits up to $50,000 per person, per authorized financial institution. The plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient clarity to substantiate his claim of having $10,000 in Avalon Bank. The comments made by the plaintiff in a DOC ticket is contradictory, as it mentions he claimed over $10,000 to the Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice. The Commonwealth cannot be expected to accept the plaintiff's claim without clear and consistent proof of the deposit.

  2. Worsening of Existing Conditions: The plaintiff's claim under the Legal Damages Act, asserting financial instability due to the Commonwealth's actions, is baseless and contrary to Supreme Court precedent SCR 18. This precedent states, "Purposely allowing damages to occur makes the damaged party’s request for compensation invalid." The plaintiff only recently contacted the DOC regarding the funds, and the DOC, in cooperation with the DOJ, began investigating and addressing the issue promptly. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit in the midst of this investigation, indicating a possible intent to seek greater compensation than initially warranted. When Avalon Bank failed, its representatives collaborated with the DOC to retrieve funds for depositors. The plaintiff’s failure to engage in this process suggests that he either did not have the claimed funds in the first place or intentionally allowed the damages to escalate by prematurely filing this suit rather than allowing the proper resolution process to conclude.
The plaintiff has not provided insight or information required to substantiate his claims. The inconsistencies in his statements regarding the deposited amount and the premature filing of this lawsuit undermine the validity of his claims. Therefore, the Commonwealth requests that this case be dismissed with prejudice.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

​
Your Honor,

The Commonwealth of Redmont respectfully requests that this case be dismissed under Rule 5.5 for lack of a valid claim. The plaintiff's claims lack standing and merit for the following reasons:

  1. The plaintiff alleges that the Commonwealth is responsible for the return of his $10,000 deposit under the provision that guarantees deposits up to $50,000 per person, per authorized financial institution. The plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient clarity to substantiate his claim of having $10,000 in Avalon Bank. The comments made by the plaintiff in a DOC ticket is contradictory, as it mentions he claimed over $10,000 to the Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice. The Commonwealth cannot be expected to accept the plaintiff's claim without clear and consistent proof of the deposit.

  2. Worsening of Existing Conditions: The plaintiff's claim under the Legal Damages Act, asserting financial instability due to the Commonwealth's actions, is baseless and contrary to Supreme Court precedent SCR 18. This precedent states, "Purposely allowing damages to occur makes the damaged party’s request for compensation invalid." The plaintiff only recently contacted the DOC regarding the funds, and the DOC, in cooperation with the DOJ, began investigating and addressing the issue promptly. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit in the midst of this investigation, indicating a possible intent to seek greater compensation than initially warranted. When Avalon Bank failed, its representatives collaborated with the DOC to retrieve funds for depositors. The plaintiff’s failure to engage in this process suggests that he either did not have the claimed funds in the first place or intentionally allowed the damages to escalate by prematurely filing this suit rather than allowing the proper resolution process to conclude.
The plaintiff has not provided insight or information required to substantiate his claims. The inconsistencies in his statements regarding the deposited amount and the premature filing of this lawsuit undermine the validity of his claims. Therefore, the Commonwealth requests that this case be dismissed with prejudice.
Click to expand...
Your honor,
It is true that the Plaintiff believed to have had over $10,000 in his Avalon Bank account. The Plaintiff's original deposit was $10,000 and would have accrued 1 month of interest. However, this is incalculable due to Avalon's interest rates being no longer publicly available due to the deletion of Avalon's Discord server. Therefore, the Plaintiff is only claiming what they can prove to have had in their Avalon Bank account. In addition, lack of evidence is not a valid reason for dismissing a case, especially as further evidence is to be submitted with Discovery.

The Defendant claims that the Plaintiff was "purposely allowing damages to occur." However, this is just a false statement. The only reason this lawsuit was filed is because a DOC official stated to the Plaintiff that there was nothing to be done. Because of this statement, one could argue that no true investigation actually occurred, and the Plaintiff believed the only way they could get their money back was through a lawsuit. The Defendant also states, "When Avalon Bank failed, its representatives collaborated with the DOC to retrieve funds for depositors." The reason the Plaintiff did not engage in the process was not because they didn't have the claimed funds, but because they had quit DC when Avalon Bank failed, and would not return until the process was over. As a result of this, the Plaintiff was denied by the DOC access to the funds they rightfully deserve, and has grounds for a lawsuit.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

​
Your Honor,

The Commonwealth of Redmont respectfully requests that this case be dismissed under Rule 5.5 for lack of a valid claim. The plaintiff's claims lack standing and merit for the following reasons:

  1. The plaintiff alleges that the Commonwealth is responsible for the return of his $10,000 deposit under the provision that guarantees deposits up to $50,000 per person, per authorized financial institution. The plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient clarity to substantiate his claim of having $10,000 in Avalon Bank. The comments made by the plaintiff in a DOC ticket is contradictory, as it mentions he claimed over $10,000 to the Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice. The Commonwealth cannot be expected to accept the plaintiff's claim without clear and consistent proof of the deposit.

  2. Worsening of Existing Conditions: The plaintiff's claim under the Legal Damages Act, asserting financial instability due to the Commonwealth's actions, is baseless and contrary to Supreme Court precedent SCR 18. This precedent states, "Purposely allowing damages to occur makes the damaged party’s request for compensation invalid." The plaintiff only recently contacted the DOC regarding the funds, and the DOC, in cooperation with the DOJ, began investigating and addressing the issue promptly. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit in the midst of this investigation, indicating a possible intent to seek greater compensation than initially warranted. When Avalon Bank failed, its representatives collaborated with the DOC to retrieve funds for depositors. The plaintiff’s failure to engage in this process suggests that he either did not have the claimed funds in the first place or intentionally allowed the damages to escalate by prematurely filing this suit rather than allowing the proper resolution process to conclude.
The plaintiff has not provided insight or information required to substantiate his claims. The inconsistencies in his statements regarding the deposited amount and the premature filing of this lawsuit undermine the validity of his claims. Therefore, the Commonwealth requests that this case be dismissed with prejudice.
Click to expand...
Apologies for not responding sooner, I have been deliberating regarding this Motion to Dismiss about how to rule.

We have two coins here and one of them is hurting themself. Within the Motion to Dismiss we see the statement within the Plaintiff's rebuttal being "Therefore, the Plaintiff is only claiming what they can prove to have had in their Avalon Bank account" why would the Plaintiff state this if they know how much was in their account? This was not a quote and rather taken directly from the Plaintiff's rebuttal.

Now, this may make it seem that this case is surely to be ruled in favor of the Commonwealth and thus dismissed right? Not yet. Although the Plaintiff did not provide any evidence within their original filing, there is still warrant for the lawsuit to continue as there is a high chance the Plaintiff needs Discovery to add new evidence to the filing. While I am disappointed in the Plaintiff for not providing any evidence within the original filing as Discovery is meant for new evidence, I will still be allowing this case to continue as of now.

This of course does not inhibit the Commonwealth from filing another and will be ruled on should another be raised.

With that done, we will now be moving into Discovery, this will last 7 days.
 
Your honor, the Plaintiff wishes to call v__d to the stand.
 
Interrogatories
​
1. Please Explain how the loss of $10,000 directly impacted your business, Shopli, considering you were away from DemocracyCraft when Avalon Bank went bankrupt.

2. Please Describe in detail the transaction wherein you deposited $10,000 into Avalon Bank, including the date of the deposit, the method of deposit, and any documentation you received from the bank confirming the deposit.

3. Did you reach out to the DOC to attempt and retrieve your funds and in the middle of the ticket you filed this lawsuit?


We may ask our 2 follow up questions after these are answered
 
MOTION TO COMPEL
​
Your Honor,
We respectfully request that the plaintiff be ordered to provide the complete record of the ticket they submitted to the Department of Commerce regarding their efforts to recover the deposited funds.
 
1. Shopli was founded when I returned to DC. I founded it with the anticipation that I would receive the funds which I am entitled to. When I contacted v__d, the owner of Avalon Bank to receive my money back, he pointed me in the direction of the DOC. As a result of the delayed process, Shopli ran out of money. We couldn’t afford to pay suppliers, and our rent was too expensive to pay. Because of this, the only reasonable course of action, was to close Shopli.

2. I deposited $10,000 into Avalon Bank using the /db deposit command in November of 2023. Since the Avalon Discord has been deleted, all documents related to my deposit were deleted as well. However, the owner of Avalon agrees that I did deposit $10,000 into Avalon, but he has since deleted all documents related to Avalon.

3. I reached out to the DOC and they told me they didn’t think they could do anything. Because of that statement from the DOC, I filed a lawsuit to get my money back, and try and revive Shopli with those funds.
 
Witnesses
​
The Commonwealth wishes to call the DC staff team as a witness
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
MOTION TO COMPEL
​
Your Honor,
We respectfully request that the plaintiff be ordered to provide the complete record of the ticket they submitted to the Department of Commerce regarding their efforts to recover the deposited funds.
Click to expand...
I will be granting this Motion to Compel and the Plaintiff is to file this within 48 hours.
 
RelaxedGV said:
I will be granting this Motion to Compel and the Plaintiff is to file this within 48 hours.
Click to expand...
Your honor, I need an extension. Due to the ticket being closed, I no longer have access to it. I am in contact with the DOC right now to attempt to get a transcript of the ticket. I am unsure of when the transcript will be found by the DOC.
 
Your honor the plaintiff is the one who opened the ticket they should have been sent a log of it after it was closed.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion for Closed Court
Your honor, I have found the transcript which I realized was sent to me through DM. However, some of the contents of the transcript are confidential. Because of this, the Plaintiff move for a closed court.
 
Your honor unless they can specify what exactly is in the ticket that is confidential (which is nothing because they have no authority to classify anything) we request that you deny this request court is public for a reason.
 
itsBlazeX said:
IN THE FEDERAL COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion for Closed Court
Your honor, I have found the transcript which I realized was sent to me through DM. However, some of the contents of the transcript are confidential. Because of this, the Plaintiff move for a closed court.
Click to expand...
Can you explain why exactly this the ticket would be classified? As in what in it is unable to be shown in a public setting.
 
RelaxedGV said:
Can you explain why exactly this the ticket would be classified? As in what in it is unable to be shown in a public setting.
Click to expand...
Your honor, this ticket contains information about other players. I cannot reasonably make this public.
 
itsBlazeX said:
Your honor, this ticket contains information about other players. I cannot reasonably make this public.
Click to expand...
That does not explain as to why it cannot be public. No Closed Court Session is needed and you will provide the ticket within 24 hours.
 
RelaxedGV said:
That does not explain as to why it cannot be public. No Closed Court Session is needed and you will provide the ticket within 24 hours.
Click to expand...
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Reconsider
Your honor, I am willing to private this transcript to you privately, however, I will not make this transcript public for the sake of the other people involved.
 
Your Honor, the Plaintiff does not have the authority to refuse to present the transcript, claiming, "I will not make this transcript public for the sake of the other people involved." This statement indicates a refusal to comply with a court order to provide the transcript. We request that you deny this motion, as the Plaintiff lacks the authority to classify any information and has not provided a valid reason for its classification.
 
itsBlazeX said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Reconsider
Your honor, I am willing to private this transcript to you privately, however, I will not make this transcript public for the sake of the other people involved.
Click to expand...
I will be overruling this Motion to Reconsider as that is not a sufficient reason for us to host a Closed Court Session. You are to post the ticket transcripts within this lawsuit.
 
RelaxedGV said:
I will be overruling this Motion to Reconsider as that is not a sufficient reason for us to host a Closed Court Session. You are to post the ticket transcripts within this lawsuit.
Click to expand...
Your honor, I reiterate my request for closed Court as this ticket contains whistleblower activity and is protected under the law. I fear retaliation by anyone I commented on in pursuit of blowing the whistle. In cases of businesses shutting down, the circumstances surrounding them are often full of corruption and other illicit activity that I may have remarked on in the confidential setting of a ticket. I apologize for not being able to express this earlier, I was looking for a way to give the court sufficient reasoning whilst maintaining the sensitivity this situation requires.
 
itsBlazeX said:
Your honor, I reiterate my request for closed Court as this ticket contains whistleblower activity and is protected under the law. I fear retaliation by anyone I commented on in pursuit of blowing the whistle. In cases of businesses shutting down, the circumstances surrounding them are often full of corruption and other illicit activity that I may have remarked on in the confidential setting of a ticket. I apologize for not being able to express this earlier, I was looking for a way to give the court sufficient reasoning whilst maintaining the sensitivity this situation requires.
Click to expand...
Why not mention before?
 
Your Honor, the Commonwealth requests that you deny the closed court hearing for several reasons. Firstly, whistleblower status is only classified if they are really a whistleblower and have reported a crime to the DOJ. The law concerning whistleblowers protects them from retaliation by their employers, such as being fired, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or otherwise discriminated against in terms of employment. This is illustrated by the following provision:

No employer may discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against a covered individual in the terms and conditions of employment of the covered individual because of any lawful act done by the covered individual to report information regarding a violation of a corporate crime.
Individual Fine: Up to $10,000 + Damages + up to 10 mins Jail


A whistleblower is defined as someone who reports a crime or criminal activity. As the Attorney General, I can confirm that no one has come forward with information related to this case. Therefore, there is no justification for a closed court hearing.
 
Last edited:
Your Honor, the plaintiff has yet to provide the requested transcript. We respectfully ask that you either compel them to produce it promptly or hold them in contempt.
 
Your Honor, I am informing the plaintiff that they need to submit screenshots, as the link provided is only viewable by them.
 
My apologies, I can submit them when I return to my hotel at the end of the day.
 
IMG_2111.png
IMG_2112.png
IMG_2113.png
IMG_2114.png
IMG_2115.png
 
Your honor, I have provided the transcript.
 
OBJECTION
Perjury
​
Your Honor, upon reviewing the transcript, the Commonwealth is confused as to how it pertains to a whistleblower. We believe the Plaintiff misled this court with false statements to attempt to pressure for a closed court session. We request that you ask the Plaintiff to provide a detailed explanation of the situation or consider charging them with perjury.
 
Your honor, perjury occurs when a party knowingly makes a false statement to the court. I misinterpreted the law. I did not knowingly lie to the court, I simply incorrectly considered mentioning the untruthfulness of a party as a whistleblower act.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Recuse
Your honor, given that the Plaintiff has voted Aye in the Redmont Bar Association’s recent motion to censor RelaxedGV, the Plaintiff respectfully requests you recuse yourself from this case for the sake of a fair trial.
 
Your Honor, there is no compelling reason for you to recuse yourself from this case. In Redmont, if we recused a judge every time there was an open disagreement, we would end up having to recuse all of our judges from all of our cases.
 
itsBlazeX said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Recuse
Your honor, given that the Plaintiff has voted Aye in the Redmont Bar Association’s recent motion to censor RelaxedGV, the Plaintiff respectfully requests you recuse yourself from this case for the sake of a fair trial.
Click to expand...
I will not be recusing as regardless of that I will rule fairly. A good Presiding Officer can put it aside and to be completely honest, I would not have known about the censure if you had not told me within this lawsuit.

Unseatedduke1 said:
OBJECTION
Perjury
​
Your Honor, upon reviewing the transcript, the Commonwealth is confused as to how it pertains to a whistleblower. We believe the Plaintiff misled this court with false statements to attempt to pressure for a closed court session. We request that you ask the Plaintiff to provide a detailed explanation of the situation or consider charging them with perjury.
Click to expand...
This is also rejected as although there is maybe a bit of contradiction, I don't believe this is of sufficient cause for a Perjury charge.
 
With the Resignation of Former Chief Justice RelaxedGV, i will be stepping in. Given there are no outstanding motions or objections a Witness Summons will be issued shortly
 
Your honor, opening statements have not been presented.
 
May it please the Court,
This is a simple case your honor. The government is responsible for insuring a depositor's funds in a bank for up to $50,000. The Commonwealth has failed to uphold that responsibility. Not only did they fail to give me back my money which I am entitled to, as soon as they heard the word lawsuit, they overreacted and refused to help me! Now I am stuck without my money which I trusted would be safe with Avalon.

Because of the Commonwealth's refusal to assist me in claiming my deposited funds, I am suffering from even worse financial hardship. When I left DC, I did what a good citizen would do, and donated all of my money. I gave over $120,000 to Snowy_Heart. When I came back to DC, I didn't have a single dime. I had to work my way back up to the top again. When I returned, I was planning to use the $10,000 I was certain I would be given from Avalon to start a new business, Shopli. I spent hours building up my business, building a wild base, collecting resources, and I was planning to use my Avalon funds to pay my rent. However, as shown above, the Commonwealth refused to help me! I couldn't afford to pay my rent anymore, and I even got to the point where I couldn't afford food! If the Commonwealth had simply been willing to assist me, Shopli would still be open, and I would never have had to dealt with the financial hardship I went through. It is only right that someone be compensated after they have to experience a pain like that, especially one that could have been prevented if the Commonwealth had simply been willing to help.

I ask the Court to recognize the severity of the situation the Commonwealth has put the Plaintiff in, and to compensate the Plaintiff accordingly. If not, all this case will be is precedent that the government doesn't owe anyone a dime, even when it is explicitly stated in our nation's laws.
 
Defense has 72 Hours to give their opening statement
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS
​
Your Honor,

The Commonwealth of Redmont respectfully requests that this case be dismissed under Rule 5.5 for lack of a valid claim. Under Rule 5.2, a motion to dismiss may be filed under Rule 5.5 before witness testimony.

When Justice Relaxed responded to the first motion to dismiss, he stated it was denied because evidence could be brought to light during discovery. Now that discovery has passed, it is clear the plaintiff has no valid claim.

I would like to begin with the relevant law, specifically the Taxation Act, which insures accounts. Section 9 of the Taxation Act, titled "Deposit Guarantee," states: "(b) Deposits will be covered by the Deposit Guarantee for 30 days post-deregistration." The bank in question was deregistered last year, well over 30 days ago. This fact alone should be grounds to dismiss this case. The plaintiff's absence and subsequent return do not warrant overlooking the law itself.

I would like to reiterate two points from the original motion to dismiss. The plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient clarity to substantiate his claim of having $10,000 in Avalon Bank. The comments made by the plaintiff in a DOC ticket is contradictory, as it mentions he claimed over $10,000 to the Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice. The Commonwealth cannot be expected to accept the plaintiff's claim without clear and consistent proof of the deposit. The plaintiff submitted no evidence during discovery to back their claim of having ANY funds in the bank even so the law is very clear that deposits are only covered 30 days post-deregistration.

Additionally, I would like to highlight another point from the Commonwealth's previous motion. The plaintiff's claim under the Legal Damages Act, asserting financial instability due to the Commonwealth's actions, is baseless and contrary to Supreme Court precedent SCR 18. This precedent states, "Purposely allowing damages to occur makes the damaged party’s request for compensation invalid." The plaintiff only recently contacted the DOC regarding the funds, and the DOC, in cooperation with the DOJ, began investigating and addressing the issue promptly. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit in the midst of this investigation, indicating a possible intent to seek greater compensation than initially warranted. When Avalon Bank failed, its representatives collaborated with the DOC to retrieve funds for depositors. The plaintiff’s failure to engage in this process suggests that he either did not have the claimed funds in the first place or intentionally allowed the damages to escalate by prematurely filing this suit rather than allowing the proper resolution process to conclude. The plaintiff may argue that the Commonwealth did not assist them at all, but the conversation submitted during discovery clearly demonstrates our willingness to investigate the matter.


Your Honor, The Commonwealth is appalled that the plaintiff would attempt to defraud taxpayers of their money. The law is clear that accounts are only covered for 30 days post-deregistration. The plaintiff's absence is not the fault of the Commonwealth or the people. This law itself invalidates the plaintiff's claim. Additionally, the plaintiff has failed to submit any evidence to indicate funds in the account. While they may attempt to produce a witness to state that funds were in the account, I refer back to the law itself.

The Commonwealth would like to hold off on opening statements until you rule on this motion.

Thank you.
 
The plaintiff has 48 hours to respond.
 
Your honor, the Defendant claims that deposits are only insured for 30 post-deregistration. While this can be true, this list from the Taxation Act is non exhaustive. Exceptions can be made to this law if it is in good faith. And denying a depositor of their funds because there was no way for the depositor to possibly be notified is not in good faith. Yet again, when Avalon Bank failed, all records and documents from it were no longer public. Therefore, I do not have documentation. However, the owner of Avalon, v__d, would be the person to ask about this, not me. Additionally, the conversation shown in the DOC ticket does not demonstrate the Commonwealth's willingness to investigate. It shows the DOC Secretary stating he can't help, and when the Plaintiff was discussing possible ways to get their money back, a lawsuit being one of them, the Commonwealth abruptly closed the ticket! All this shows is that the Commonwealth refused to help, and that a lawsuit was the only possible way for the Plaintiff to have their money returned to them.

Edit: Name correction
 
The Motion to Dismiss here hereby ACCEPTED. The Court thanks everyone involved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top