Lawsuit: Dismissed The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Nacholebraa [2024] FCR 109

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Nacholebraa
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows:
The defendant, Nacholebraa, founded and now owns/operates a tax haven disguised as a "bank". This tax haven, however, is not a bank at all, but rather a place that simply stores money tax free and conducts no financial activities such as lending depositor money and disbursing interest. Given this, storing money in the BOR offers no fiscal benefit other than being protected by tax. Tax evasion is unlawful, and the BOR is conducting tax evasion on a massive scale. The extent of this evasion is yet to be uncovered, but will be through the process of discovery.

I. PARTIES
1. Bank of Reveille
2. Nacholebraa
3. Depositors of the Bank of Reveille
4. The Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. Nacholebraa owns Bank of Reveille, called 'BOR' in-game (Exhibit A).
2. BOR has a balance of over $13 million, presumably comprised entirely of depositor money if banking law is being followed (Exhibit A).
3. The Bank of Reveille does not offer interest to depositors, meaning depositors have no legitimate reason to deposit their money.
4. The Bank of Reveille directly facilitates tax evasion transactions, and therefore acts as an accessory to tax evasion en masse.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. The Tax Evasion Revaluation Act (link) makes "any means by which an individual or company manages monetary assets with the intent to avoid taxation" illegal. The Bank of Reveille is aiding and abetting tax evasion under this law on a mass scale.
2. The Commercial Standards Act (link) makes Personal Tax Evasion and Property Tax Evasion illegal. The Bank of Reveille is aiding and abetting both types tax evasion under this law on a mass scale.
3. The Standardized Criminal Code Act (link) makes serial crime illegal, and doubles any punishments for the third or higher offense.
4. The Accomplice and Conspiracy Offenses Act (link) makes acting as an accomplice or accessory to a crime illegal.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. 1 count of acting as an accomplice to TERA Tax Evasion: $7,500 fine

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: Exhibit A

VI. EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
The Commonwealth requests a full freeze on the Bank of Reveille and the BOR in-game account so that records may be collected and so that there isn't a bank run, especially when the depositors of said bank may themselves be criminals. Allowing the bank to continue to operate shall only permit criminal depositors to hide their involvement in their crimes and potentially launder away their money to avoid liability. BOR should be moved into the custody of the Department of Commerce for the duration of this case, where it may allow depositors to withdraw money in extenuating circumstances whilst logging all money that is withdrawn. Bank of Reveille's account records should also be transferred to the Department of Commerce so that it may administer these provisions properly and avoid withdrawal fraud.


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

DATED: This 21st day of July, 2024.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The request for an Emergency Injunction is denied. The court will not freeze the entire bank's assets, including the life savings and funds of depositors, without substantial evidence or justification to support such a drastic measure. Summons will be issued shortly.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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

@Nacho is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Nacholebraa. 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]

The request for an Emergency Injunction is denied. The court will not freeze the entire bank's assets, including the life savings and funds of depositors, without substantial evidence or justification to support such a drastic measure. Summons will be issued shortly.

Motion to Reconsider
We tried actually. We requested a warrant and you made a faulty assumption about how tax law works contrary to how it actually does. I urge you to reconsider your stance on the injunction so we can gather the evidence, or you reconsider your stance on the warrant so we have an avenue to quickly obtain evidence before grave damage is done.

We requested the injunction in a fair way where the DOC will administer withdrawals, so people can access their money in a regulated and monitored manner.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Denied. The warrant you requested lacked the necessary evidence for me to grant it. According to the JSA, a warrant must have probable cause. If you wish, I can declassify the warrant request so the public can see why it was denied. You have no standing to ask for this emergency injunction. If you have further evidence, you may file for another warrant. Furthermore, Mr. Love, I urge you to be respectful in this courtroom, or I will hold you in contempt. I did not make a "faulty" assumption about the law; the law is quite clear. The RBI requested a warrant with little to no evidence.

 

[Matthew100x]

Good Afternoon your Honor,

Prodigium | Attorneys at Law will be representing Nacholebraa. Kindly see our proof of representation below.

The defendant wishes to request a 48 hour extension to answer the complaint due to the complexity of this case.

Thank you,
Matthew100x, Managing Partner at Prodigium | Attorneys at Law.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Denied. Three days from today is sufficient to file a motion to dismiss or respond to the complaint. If you find that you need additional time as the deadline approaches, you may request an extension at that time.

 

[Matthew100x]

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

The Commonwealth of Redmont (Represented by Prosecutor AlexanderLove from the Department of Justice)
Prosecution

v.

Nacholebraa (Represented by Lead Attorney Matthew100x from Prodigium | Attorneys at Law)
Defendant


I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. Nacholebraa owns Bank of Reveille, called 'BOR' in-game (Exhibit A).

Defendant affirms this fact.

2. BOR has a balance of over $13 million, presumably comprised entirely of depositor money if banking law is being followed (Exhibit A).

Defendant denies this fact. While a significant number of the Bank of Reveille’s (henceforth “BOR”) balance, which is over $13 million dollars, is made of depositors money, the BOR has earned interest in various investments, loans, or other financial projects that also makes up a sizable portion of the BOR’s balance. Additionally, the defendant denies this fact due to an unfounded presumption of “banking law.”

3. The Bank of Reveille does not offer interest to depositors, meaning depositors have no legitimate reason to deposit their money.

Defendant denies this fact on the basis of presumption. Additionally, the defendant denies this fact because it calls for a conclusion instead of establishing factual information. Additionally, the defendant denies this fact on grounds that it conjectures an opinion.

The only thing true about this fact is that the BOR does not offer interest to depositors.

4. The Bank of Reveille directly facilitates tax evasion transactions, and therefore acts as an accessory to tax evasion en masse.

Defendant entirely denies this fact on the basis of presumption. Additionally, the defendant denies this fact because it calls for a conclusion instead of establishing factual information. Additionally, the defendant denies this fact on grounds that it conjectures an opinion.


II. DEFENCES
1. Relating to Charge #1: The Tax Evasion Revaluation Act (see Act of Congress - Taxation Act) is void due to being superseded and subsequently repealed. The act, signed into law (either 12/28/2020 or 01/06/2021, there were two amendments to the Taxation Act that are closely dated, one of which includes The Tax Evasion Revaluation Act, and it is unclear which amendment was signed by then President Westray at what time), established the “Tax Evasion” definition as “Any means by which an individual or company manages monetary assets with the intent to avoid taxation” and allowed the Attorney General or private attorneys to sue for Tax Evasion. Then, on 01/23/2022, the White-Collar CrackDown Act (see Rescinded - White-Collar Crack Down Act) was signed into law and established a new definition for “Tax Evasion” as “The Fraudulent non-payment or underpayment of actual tax liabilities due.” The Act also allowed both the Attorney General or private attorneys to sue for Tax Evasion. When a law with overlapping terms with another statute gets passed, the newer definition and terms win (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - zLost v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 12). Thus the White-Collar CrackDown Act superseded and voided the original definition established by The Tax Evasion Revaluation Act.

The White-Collar CrackDown Act (see Rescinded - White-Collar Crack Down Act) was then repealed by the Commercial Standards Act (see Act of Congress - Commercial Standards Act). In conclusion, “Tax Evasion” as a crime no longer exists in law.

2., Relating to Charge #2: Personal Tax Evasion is defined as “The act of intentionally or maliciously transferring, funds to one or more personal balances or company bank accounts with no legitimate purpose, with the result that less tax is paid” (see https://www.democracy craft.net/threads/commercial-standards-act.19886/). The defendant has not intentionally or maliciously transferred funds from personal balances or company bank accounts without legitimate purpose.

3. Relating to Charge #2: Property Tax Evasion is defined as “The act of intentionally or maliciously transferring property to one or more persons over which they have no legal ownership without a legitimate purpose, with the result that less tax is paid” (see Act of Congress - Commercial Standards Act). The defendant has not intentionally or maliciously transferred property to another person. No property has been transferred without legitimate purpose. Neither the BOR nor Defendant offers to hold properties in trust for their clients. The Bank does not hold property for their clients, so no transfers of property ever occur.

4. Relating to Charge #3: The defendant has not committed any crimes accused by the prosecution, therefore Serial Crime would not be applicable.

5. Relating to Charge #3: According to the Standardized Criminal Code Act (see Act of Congress - Standardized Criminal Code Act), Serial Crime is only applicable when the accused commits a crime which already appears twice on their criminal record. The defendant has never been found guilty of any form of Tax Evasion or Tax Fraud, therefore Serial Crime would not be applicable.

5. Relating to Charge #4: The defendant has not given any assistance to a crime, has not given assistance to a perpetrator of a crime, nor has conspired to commit a crime.

6. Relating to Charge #4: The prosecution accuses the defendant of being an accomplice or accessory to a crime, but neglects to inform the defendant whom they assisted in committing a crime. The prosecution’s failure to inform the defendant of whom they helped, as to be an accomplice or accessory to a crime, represents a violation of the defendant’s IX constitutional right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation” (see Government - Constitution). The defendant therefore cannot be found guilty of being an accessory or accomplice because they do not know who they helped.

7. The BOR is current on all tax reports to the DOC per the Taxation Act (see Act of Congress - Taxation Act).

8. The defendant asserts the Statute of Limitations as a defense for any accused criminal action that is more than 2 months old (see Act of Congress - Standardized Criminal Code Act).

Defendant maintains the right to amend this answer under rule 3.4 (see Information - Court Rules and Procedures) during the course of discovery.


III. COUNTERCLAIMS

1. The defendant demands $2,600,000+ (two million six hundred thousand plus dollars) in legal fees under Section 9.2(f) of the Legal Damages Act (see Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act.). The prosecution is intent on going after the BOR’s balance using the defendant as a proxy. The Defendant is a citizen thus their counsel is able to collect a legal fee on this criminal case if the defendant is found not guilty. Defendant, as the proxy to BOR, is potentially liable for the BOR’s balance of over $13,000,000 dollars. The prosecution, in constructing their case, in both fact and exhibit, see the overall value of the case as conjoined with the BOR’s total balance. The defendant is allowed to request for legal fees of 20% of the case’s overall value under Section 9.2(f) of the Legal Damages Act. Defendant’s counsel is seeking the 20% legal fee as total and only payment for their legal services provided to the defendant (see Exhibit A).

Exhibit A:

Nacho Prodigium & Partners at Law Case Retainer

This Agreement is a Case Retainer Agreement made between the client, Nacholebraa, referred to as “You”, and Prodgium and Partners at Law, referred to as “Prodigium”. Legal Services Provided: You agree that Prodigium will represent your interests in this matter and/or case: The Commonwealth of Re...

docs.google.com

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 22nd day of July, 2024.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

We will now move into a 3 Day Discovery period. Should both sides agree, discovery can be ended early.

During this time any evidence or witnesses need to be asked/submitted. We will not be allowing new evidence or witnesses to be submitted during the course of the trial.

 

[Matthew100x]

Interrogatories

1. Did the Department of Justice consult with the Department of Commerce regarding the status of the BOR’s tax reports and how much tax was collected prior to launching this case against the defendant?
2. Did the Department of Justice request the Department of Commerce conduct an investigation of commerce-related white-collar crimes that the Department of Justice suspected either the defendant or the BOR to be committing prior to launching this case against the defendant?
3. Did the Department of Justice have the Redmont Bureau of Investigation conduct any information gathering efforts, other than requesting a warrant, towards the BOR or defendant prior to launching this case against the defendant?
4. Does the Department of Justice have a case ticket opened for this prosecution?
5. If the answer to question #4 is by any way affirmative, does the ticket contain any information that could provide suspicion that the BOR or defendant committed the alleged crimes?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

We will now move into a 3 Day Discovery period. Should both sides agree, discovery can be ended early.

During this time any evidence or witnesses need to be asked/submitted. We will not be allowing new evidence or witnesses to be submitted during the course of the trial.

Motion to Compel

Your honor, it is necessary to determine sentencing to see depositor records and logs of transactions, as well as company financial reports, to determine which funds in the BOR account are from depositors and which are from earnings such as loans. I therefore motion to compel the above information for the good of this Court. Probable cause has been established as it is justified that BOR offers its depositors no material benefit, and therefore the only reasonable thing depositors could be doing is evading balance taxes.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Did the Department of Justice consult with the Department of Commerce regarding the status of the BOR’s tax reports and how much tax was collected prior to launching this case against the defendant?

Objection your honor, compound question.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Interrogatories

1. Did the Department of Justice consult with the Department of Commerce regarding the status of the BOR’s tax reports and how much tax was collected prior to launching this case against the defendant?
2. Did the Department of Justice request the Department of Commerce conduct an investigation of commerce-related white-collar crimes that the Department of Justice suspected either the defendant or the BOR to be committing prior to launching this case against the defendant?
3. Did the Department of Justice have the Redmont Bureau of Investigation conduct any information gathering efforts, other than requesting a warrant, towards the BOR or defendant prior to launching this case against the defendant?
4. Does the Department of Justice have a case ticket opened for this prosecution?
5. If the answer to question #4 is by any way affirmative, does the ticket contain any information that could provide suspicion that the BOR or defendant committed the alleged crimes?

1. Awaiting objection ruling.
2. The Department of Justice did ask the Department of Commerce for help investigating these crimes.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
5. Yes.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Interrogatory
1. How many accounts are opened by different entities with the Bank of Reveille?
2. How much of the Bank of Reveille's balance are depositor balances?
3. What is the interest rate as of July 15th, 2024, that the Bank of Reveille offers depositors?

 

[Matthew100x]

Motion to Compel

Your honor, it is necessary to determine sentencing to see depositor records and logs of transactions, as well as company financial reports, to determine which funds in the BOR account are from depositors and which are from earnings such as loans. I therefore motion to compel the above information for the good of this Court. Probable cause has been established as it is justified that BOR offers its depositors no material benefit, and therefore the only reasonable thing depositors could be doing is evading balance taxes.

Motion to Strike

The prosecution is demanding access to see depositor records and logs of transactions and company financial reports. They state that probable cause has been established because it “offers depositors no material benefit”, which is false on its face. The prosecution then comes to a false conclusion because they cannot see any material benefit.

To begin with, access to information is privileged under contract between the BOR and accountholders. The DOJ is not authorized by law to carry out a warrant in such a manner unless “it is unclear which department should investigate the crime” (see Act of Congress - Commercial Standards Act). The Department of Commerce is “charged with investigating commerce-related white-collar crimes”. Both personal tax evasion and property tax evasion are forms of tax fraud under the Commercial Standards Act, which is a type of white-collar crime. The DOC is “afforded access to financial institution accounts on request for the purposes of monitoring them for compliance” and “Findings are referred to the Department of Legal Affairs for prosecution.” Therefore, this motion to compel should not be granted because the DOC should be investigating and referring crimes to the DOJ (the successor to the DLA, see “Department Modernisation Act.” Act of Congress - Executive Standards Act) instead of the DOJ requesting information via warrant or discovery for information.

Under case law, access to information is privileged . In https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/discover-bank-v-the-commonwealth-of-redmont-2023-fcr-77.18489/, the Government, whom was the defendant, pulled tax exempt status from Discovery Bank for failure to comply DOC information requests. It was held that “The same day that the defendant first demanded the information, the defendant also made no attempt to resolve this judicially or show any form of due process… Proper notice must be given and the financial institution must be given time to respond… they are not allowed to unreasonably search a financial institution since such measures would harm the financial institution’s accountholders.” The decision was made to protect accountholders. In likewise manner, the defendant argues that this motion request, which is statutorily unfounded, harms the accountholders of BOR. Therefore, the information is privileged and should not be granted for view in the public record.

Additionally, there are material benefits that negate the probable cause proposed by the prosecutor. First and foremost, is anonymity.

Anonymity allows individuals or businesses to make financial decisions without fear of retribution or social stigma. When people know that their financial information is private, they are more likely to take calculated risks, invest in innovative ideas, and pursue entrepreneurial ventures that could lead to economic growth and job creation. Without the burden of public scrutiny, individuals can focus on building sustainable businesses rather than worrying about how their financial decisions will be perceived by others.

Additionally, anonymity enables individuals to protect themselves from financial exploitation and fraud. When personal financial information is publicly available, it becomes a target for scammers, identity thieves, and other malicious actors. By maintaining anonymity, individuals can safeguard their financial well-being and avoid the consequences of financial fraud by bad actors.

The second significant material benefit of keeping money in a bank is the added layer of security and protection it provides. When individuals deposit their funds into a reputable financial institution, they are not only safeguarding their assets from theft or loss but also transferring the risk of mistakes and errors to the bank.

For instance, if an individual were to make a mistake while handling cash, such as miscounting or misplacing funds, they would be personally liable for the error. This can lead to significant financial losses, reputational damage, and even legal consequences. In contrast, when money is deposited into a bank, the institution assumes responsibility for any errors or mistakes that may occur.

This in and of itself adds two sub-benefits:

1. Reduced risk: By transferring the risk of mistakes to the bank, individuals can reduce their personal exposure to financial losses and reputational damage.
2. Increased confidence: Knowing that their funds are secure and protected by the bank's insurance and regulatory oversight, individuals can make more informed financial decisions with greater confidence.

Therefore, the prosecution's motion to compel should be denied because law demands it, case law demands it, and because there is no probable cause.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection to Motion to Compel

The prosecution is demanding access to see depositor records and logs of transactions and company financial reports. They state that probable cause has been established because it “offers depositors no material benefit”, which is false on its face. The prosecution then comes to a false conclusion because they cannot see any material benefit.

To begin with, access to information is privileged under contract between the BOR and accountholders. The DOJ is not authorized by law to carry out a warrant in such a manner unless “it is unclear which department should investigate the crime” (see Act of Congress - Commercial Standards Act). The Department of Commerce is “charged with investigating commerce-related white-collar crimes”. Both personal tax evasion and property tax evasion are forms of tax fraud under the Commercial Standards Act, which is a type of white-collar crime. The DOC is “afforded access to financial institution accounts on request for the purposes of monitoring them for compliance” and “Findings are referred to the Department of Legal Affairs for prosecution.” Therefore, this motion to compel should not be granted because the DOC should be investigating and referring crimes to the DOJ (the successor to the DLA, see “Department Modernisation Act.” Act of Congress - Executive Standards Act) instead of the DOJ requesting information via warrant or discovery for information.

Under case law, access to information is privileged . In https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/discover-bank-v-the-commonwealth-of-redmont-2023-fcr-77.18489/, the Government, whom was the defendant, pulled tax exempt status from Discovery Bank for failure to comply DOC information requests. It was held that “The same day that the defendant first demanded the information, the defendant also made no attempt to resolve this judicially or show any form of due process… Proper notice must be given and the financial institution must be given time to respond… they are not allowed to unreasonably search a financial institution since such measures would harm the financial institution’s accountholders.” The decision was made to protect accountholders. In likewise manner, the defendant argues that this motion request, which is statutorily unfounded, harms the accountholders of BOR. Therefore, the information is privileged and should not be granted for view in the public record.

Additionally, there are material benefits that negate the probable cause proposed by the prosecutor. First and foremost, is anonymity.

Anonymity allows individuals or businesses to make financial decisions without fear of retribution or social stigma. When people know that their financial information is private, they are more likely to take calculated risks, invest in innovative ideas, and pursue entrepreneurial ventures that could lead to economic growth and job creation. Without the burden of public scrutiny, individuals can focus on building sustainable businesses rather than worrying about how their financial decisions will be perceived by others.

Additionally, anonymity enables individuals to protect themselves from financial exploitation and fraud. When personal financial information is publicly available, it becomes a target for scammers, identity thieves, and other malicious actors. By maintaining anonymity, individuals can safeguard their financial well-being and avoid the consequences of financial fraud by bad actors.

The second significant material benefit of keeping money in a bank is the added layer of security and protection it provides. When individuals deposit their funds into a reputable financial institution, they are not only safeguarding their assets from theft or loss but also transferring the risk of mistakes and errors to the bank.

For instance, if an individual were to make a mistake while handling cash, such as miscounting or misplacing funds, they would be personally liable for the error. This can lead to significant financial losses, reputational damage, and even legal consequences. In contrast, when money is deposited into a bank, the institution assumes responsibility for any errors or mistakes that may occur.

This in and of itself adds two sub-benefits:

1. Reduced risk: By transferring the risk of mistakes to the bank, individuals can reduce their personal exposure to financial losses and reputational damage.
2. Increased confidence: Knowing that their funds are secure and protected by the bank's insurance and regulatory oversight, individuals can make more informed financial decisions with greater confidence.

Therefore, the prosecution's motion to compel should be denied because law demands it, case law demands it, and because there is no probable cause.

Objection
Breach of Procedure

No actual objection was tendered. This is effectively a response to the motion which was not requested. I motion to strike this from the record.

 

[Matthew100x]

1. Awaiting objection ruling.
2. The Department of Justice did ask the Department of Commerce for help investigating these crimes.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
5. Yes.

Motion to Compel:

The prosecution did not adequately answer question #1. The objection ruling is irrelevant to whether or not the Department of Justice consulted with the Department of Commerce for the BOR's tax reports and/or tax payments made by the the BOR.

Motion to Compel:

The defendant would like the following information requested:

1. Any and all information from the Department of Justice and Redmont Bureau of Investigations showing the investigation into the defendant and BOR. If information is privileged, any information that can be released showing efforts made to investigate prior to the launch of this prosecution.

2. Any and all information from the Department of Justice's case ticket related to the defendant and BOR. Defendant wishes to know the nature of the accusation made against them per their IX constitutional right. If information is privileged, any information that can be released showing whether or not the prosecutor had permission before launching this case or details showing risk analysis for this prosecution.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The defendant would like the following information requested:

1. Any and all information from the Department of Justice and Redmont Bureau of Investigations showing the investigation into the defendant and BOR. If information is privileged, any information that can be released showing efforts made to investigate prior to the launch of this prosecution.

2. Any and all information from the Department of Justice's case ticket related to the defendant and BOR. Defendant wishes to know the nature of the accusation made against them per their IX constitutional right. If information is privileged, any information that can be released showing whether or not the prosecutor had permission before launching this case or details showing risk analysis for this prosecution.

Response, your honor?

 

[Matthew100x]

Interrogatory
1. How many accounts are opened by different entities with the Bank of Reveille?
2. How much of the Bank of Reveille's balance are depositor balances?
3. What is the interest rate as of July 15th, 2024, that the Bank of Reveille offers depositors?

1. 47.
2. As answered in the Answer to Complaint, depositors money is significant.
3. As answered in the Answer to Complaint, the bank does not offer an interest rate.

 

[Matthew100x]

Motion to Compel:

While the defendant has access to their tax records, the information is otherwise privileged. The defendant would like to request that the DOC release the defendant's tax reports so that it is legally admissible in court.

 

[Matthew100x]

For clarity, the defendant only needs the last two months tax reports.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Motion to Compel:

While the defendant has access to their tax records, the information is otherwise privileged. The defendant would like to request that the DOC release the defendant's tax reports so that it is legally admissible in court.

Response, your honor?

 

[Unseatedduke1]

You both may respond to all of the motions to compel

 

[Matthew100x]

You both may respond to all of the motions to compel

Your honor, I have responded to the only motion to compel that the prosecution has submitted (this post Lawsuit: In Session - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Nacholebraa [2024] FCR 109). May I have permission to reclassify my objection as a motion to strike so the defendant may respond to the motion to compel?

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Your honor, I have responded to the only motion to compel that the prosecution has submitted (this post Lawsuit: In Session - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Nacholebraa [2024] FCR 109). May I have permission to reclassify my objection as a motion to strike so the defendant may respond to the motion to compel?

You may.

 

[Matthew100x]

Thank you your honor, I have reclassified the posting.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Objection your honor, compound question.

Overruled. This pertains to witness testimony. Please answer the question as you see fit.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Motion to Compel

Your honor, it is necessary to determine sentencing to see depositor records and logs of transactions, as well as company financial reports, to determine which funds in the BOR account are from depositors and which are from earnings such as loans. I therefore motion to compel the above information for the good of this Court. Probable cause has been established as it is justified that BOR offers its depositors no material benefit, and therefore the only reasonable thing depositors could be doing is evading balance taxes.

Denied. Mr. Love, the Commonwealth does not have probable cause. All you are presenting is a claim that you "think" tax fraud is being committed. You assert that because the bank offers no benefits, the only reason depositors use it is to evade taxes. However, you have failed to provide any legal standing that banks are required to offer benefits to depositors. or ANY proof of tax fraud other than your word. You use words like "only reasonable thing" such as you are assuming of a crime with no proof.

The CSA states:"(a) A Financial Institution is a business that deals with deposits, loans, and/or investments.(b) There are four types of financial institutions: Commercial Banks, Investment Banks, Stock Exchanges, and Credit Unions."

BOR is a Commercial Bank, which is defined as a) A Commercial Bank is a Financial Institution that is privately owned.(b) A Commercial Bank is only governed by the owner or a group of owners who may make all decisions regarding the bank and its investments, employees, and interest rates, among other business decisions.(c) Profits of a Commercial Bank are shared among owners/shareholders.

I am tempted to dismiss this case. The Commonwealth is hanging on by a thread, and until you can show probable cause with legal standing, I will not be handing over private banking information.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Denied. Mr. Love, the Commonwealth does not have probable cause. All you are presenting is a claim that you "think" tax fraud is being committed. You assert that because the bank offers no benefits, the only reason depositors use it is to evade taxes. However, you have failed to provide any legal standing that banks are required to offer benefits to depositors. or ANY proof of tax fraud other than your word. You use words like "only reasonable thing" such as you are assuming of a crime with no proof.

The CSA states:"(a) A Financial Institution is a business that deals with deposits, loans, and/or investments.(b) There are four types of financial institutions: Commercial Banks, Investment Banks, Stock Exchanges, and Credit Unions."

BOR is a Commercial Bank, which is defined as a) A Commercial Bank is a Financial Institution that is privately owned.(b) A Commercial Bank is only governed by the owner or a group of owners who may make all decisions regarding the bank and its investments, employees, and interest rates, among other business decisions.(c) Profits of a Commercial Bank are shared among owners/shareholders.

I am tempted to dismiss this case. The Commonwealth is hanging on by a thread, and until you can show probable cause with legal standing, I will not be handing over private banking information.

Motion to Reconsider
Your honor, the CSA states that personal tax evasion is done when someone moves their money into an account with no other reason than to evade taxes. Because there is no interest, which was proven in this trial already, there are no other material benefits for someone to place their money in BOR. Because the bank offers no interest, they are taking deposits solely by offering them a place where they won’t be taxed. This is why banks are “required” to offer benefits: if they don’t, then the only benefit they offer is a tax haven. I am not sure how the court is missing this point.

Anonymity and security aren’t real benefits because the same would be offered by just keeping the money in one’s /balance. So yet again, I contend that the only reason depositors are using the bank is to not have to pay taxes. This is what a reasonable person would conclude when faced with these facts.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Mr. Love, what you are stating is pure speculation. The court is not "missing" your point, but you have no proof and no probable cause for what you are requesting. You simply keep reiterating the same point without any backing whatsoever. You claim that the only reason people are using the bank is to commit personal tax fraud, but you have nothing other than speculation to support this. I will not be handing over private banking information unless the Commonwealth has reasonable grounds. Simply stating that you think tax fraud is happening because you can't imagine another reason for someone to bank with this institution is not reasonable grounds.

Furthermore, you are referring to the CSA Personal Tax Evasion law, which states: "The act of intentionally or maliciously transferring funds to one or more personal balances or company bank accounts with no legitimate purpose, with the result that less tax is paid." Personal balances refer to players' in-game balances, and company bank accounts refer to a company account in the business plugin. You are misapplying this law. Motion denied.

I would also like to clarify that the defense has demonstrated they provide benefits to their depositors. While the Commonwealth claims that interest is the primary benefit not being offered, the defense has stated that anonymity is one of the benefits of this account. Although you argue that keeping money in one's balance is equivalent, I disagree. Anyone can view your balance if your funds are in your personal or company balance.

The DOJ and DOC should have conducted a thorough investigation before laying these charges and then attempting to use discovery to investigate the bank.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Mr. Love, what you are stating is pure speculation. The court is not "missing" your point, but you have no proof and no probable cause for what you are requesting. You simply keep reiterating the same point without any backing whatsoever. You claim that the only reason people are using the bank is to commit personal tax fraud, but you have nothing other than speculation to support this. I will not be handing over private banking information unless the Commonwealth has reasonable grounds. Simply stating that you think tax fraud is happening because you can't imagine another reason for someone to bank with this institution is not reasonable grounds.

Furthermore, you are referring to the CSA Personal Tax Evasion law, which states: "The act of intentionally or maliciously transferring funds to one or more personal balances or company bank accounts with no legitimate purpose, with the result that less tax is paid." Personal balances refer to players' in-game balances, and company bank accounts refer to a company account in the business plugin. You are misapplying this law. Motion denied.

I would also like to clarify that the defense has demonstrated they provide benefits to their depositors. While the Commonwealth claims that interest is the primary benefit not being offered, the defense has stated that anonymity is one of the benefits of this account. Although you argue that keeping money in one's balance is equivalent, I disagree. Anyone can view your balance if your funds are in your personal or company balance.

The DOJ and DOC should have conducted a thorough investigation before laying these charges and then attempting to use discovery to investigate the bank.

Motion to Nolle Prosequi
The Commonwealth will be dropping this case at this time. We request the case be dismissed without prejudice, so that we may investigate further to see if any crimes have been committed.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Amendment to Complaint
The prosecution amends the sentencing portion of the complaint to:
1 count of acting as an accomplice to TERA Tax Evasion: $7,500 fine

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Amendment to Complaint
The prosecution amends the sentencing portion of the complaint to:
1 count of acting as an accomplice to TERA Tax Evasion: $7,500 fine

Mr .Love are you wanting to Nolle Prosequi or not?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Mr .Love are you wanting to Nolle Prosequi or not?

The prosecution retracts the previous motion and now makes a new one:

Motion to Nolle Prosequi
The Commonwealth will be dropping this case at this time. We request the case be dismissed without prejudice, so that we may investigate further to see if any crimes have been committed.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Granted. If the defense wishes to pursue the counterclaim, please file it separately shortly.