Lawsuit: Pending twilight2660 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 28

[Twilight2660]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


twilight2660
Plaintiff

v.

the commonwealth of redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

i am making a bank and casino and they unfairly denied my tax exemption for my bank even though i meet all the requirements and the law says they have to grant it. avaneesh2008 just hates my bank and is trying to control my business and denied it based on names and assumptions with no proof.

I. PARTIES
1. twilight2660
2. the department of commerce
3. avaneesh2008
4. vernicia

II. FACTS
1. i am making a set of businesses that is a bank and a casino. i am making the bank first since it is critical for the casino to work
2. i spent lots of time making a bank bot already for discord and i just need financial institution tax exemption
3. the commerce department unfairly denied my exemption

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. the commercial standards act in section 18 says that "A Financial Institution is a business that deals with deposits, loans, and/or investments." i am making a bank that will take deposits and it will give loans to guests at my casino to let them keep gambling. i have a financial institution legally
2. i have a commercial bank. i meet all the requirements in the law to be a commercial bank because i own the company (owned owner) and make the decisions. i am a financial institution as said above. profits will go to me, the owner. i meet all the requirements and i havent taken any deposits yet either so i comply with part c
3. the taxation act in section six says my bank (discasino) gets tax exemption because it is a financial institution. "Deposit-taking financial institutions will be exempt from all balance taxes, as defined in the Banking Act (or succeeding acts)."
4. no laws regulate what other activities i can do with the company. also it is called discasino so my customers can find it easier since the bank is a backend to the casino, it doesnt mean my casino profits will go there if thats illegal
5. "Registration: The Department of Commerce will have the power to assess an institution's eligibility, financial viability, and compliance with regulatory requirements prior to registration as a financial institution." i am eligible as i talked about already. they can assess my financial viability but the law doesnt let them deny my legal right to tax exemption over it. i have complied with everything
6. the lawsuit discovery bank v. the commonwealth of redmont showed a similar situation where the commerce department overstepped and illegally revoked tax exemption and the bank won a lot of money so i expect to too

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. tax exemption to be granted immediately
2. $100,000 in punitive damages because the legal damages act says it can be granted for outrageous conduct and unfairly discriminating my bank is outrageous. also in the case i cited in claim 6, they got $100,000
3. $10,000 in loss of enjoyment damages because the legal damages act says i can get money if i lose enjoyment which i did because i cant run my bank and the law prevents me from taking deposits until the exemption is granted and i need the bank to get the casino up but the casino bot depends on the bank bot where people put in money and have tokens to play the games so now i cant enjoy all this and i am potentially losing guests and guests wont get to play so they also lose enjoyment
4. $33,000 in legal fees because i have to spend time to do this case and the legal damages act says i get money for that if i win even if i represent myself. this is 30% of the case

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 (18th) day of (march) (2025)

Spoiler: P-001

https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/twilight2660-financial-institution-registration.25261/

 

[Twilight2660]

if you grant my tax exemption i will stop this case

 

[ColonelKai]

if you grant my tax exemption i will stop this case

The court hereby warns you for speaking out of turn. Repeat of this behaviour will result in a contempt of court charge.

 

[ColonelKai]

Writ of Summons

@Freeze_Line is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of twilight2660 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 28

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.

 

[Nacho]

Good Evening your honor,

I am the State Prosecutor assigned to represent the commonwealth within this matter.

 

[ColonelKai]

Understood. You have 72 hours to submit a response to complaint.

 

[Nacho]

Answer to Complaint

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

twilight2660
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defense denies fact 1.
2. The Defense neither affirms nor denies fact 2.
3. The Defense denies fact 3.

II. DEFENCES
1. A casino is not a defined financial institution in Section 18(b) of the Commercial Standards Act. The Plaintiff indicated to the Department of Commerce that they intend and/or are considering utilizing casino services within their commercial bank. By the plaintiff admitting this service potential to the Department of Commerce, the department exercised the right awarded to them under section 8(2), 8(3.a) of the Taxation Act.
2. The Plaintiff outlined within their registration application the company name being ‘Twilight Casino & Bank' and their in-game company account being 'discasino’ which indicated to the Department of Commerce that the companies primary responsibilities will be a casino. Further, they outline that they will not operate as a standard commercial bank as they implied in their registration. Please reference the attached (D-1)
3. Tax Exemptions are reviewed and awarded at the discretion and supervision of the Department of Commerce. Tax exemption is not an automatic guarantee provided to any company wishing to claim they are a Financial Institution. Referencing section 8(2), 8(3.a) of the Taxation Act to further stipulate, the Department of Commerce reserves the right to approve or reject these applications.
4. Section 8(3.a) of the Taxation Act stipulates that the Department of Commerce has the ability to "Assess an institution’s eligibility, financial viability, and compliance with regulatory requirements prior to registration." The Department of Commerce has determined that the financial viability and the regulatory requirements have not been met.
5. Case law cited [2023] FCR 77 cites a dispute where the Department of Commerce revoked the tax exemption of an already established financial institution. In this case, the Department of Commerce is rejecting an application. The case law does not apply in the same sense here. The law cited was additionally updated on February 15, 2024 - The verdict of the cited case was on November 23, 2023.

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 20 day of March 2025

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. Violation Rule 3.2 (Initial Answer Format Requirements) - The plaintiff has failed to utilize the proper format within their initial filings of this case.
2. Violation Rule 2.1 (Standing Application) - The plaintiff has failed to show a law the commonwealth violated in filing this case. The complaint is filled with bias and does not connect or clarify under which law the commonwealth has violated.
3. Violation Rule 5.7 (Failure to Include Party) - The Plaintiff has submitted legit words, not people, to be parties in this case.
4. Violation Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) - The plaintiff has failed to submit proper evidence before the court to support their claims.

 

[ColonelKai]

1. Violation Rule 3.2 (Initial Answer Format Requirements) - The plaintiff has failed to utilize the proper format within their initial filings of this case.

The defendant has failed to demonstrate how.

2. Violation Rule 2.1 (Standing Application) - The plaintiff has failed to show a law the commonwealth violated in filing this case. The complaint is filled with bias and does not connect or clarify under which law the commonwealth has violated.

The plaintiff has listed multiple laws within their complaint. If taken at face value, these would constitute a valid case against the commonwealth.

3. Violation Rule 5.7 (Failure to Include Party) - The Plaintiff has submitted legit words, not people, to be parties in this case.

The plaintiff has technically included all the necessary parties into the parties section. However, the court hereby orders the plaintiff to clean up the parties section before end of discovery.

4. Violation Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) - The plaintiff has failed to submit proper evidence before the court to support their claims.

This cannot be ruled on until end of discovery. If defense disagrees, you may feel free to file a motion to reconsider with necessary legal groundwork.

This motion is denied. We will enter a discovery period to last no more than 72 hours.

 

[Twilight2660]

The plaintiff has technically included all the necessary parties into the parties section. However, the court hereby orders the plaintiff to clean up the parties section before end of discovery.

what do i need to clean up i am sorry~

 

[Twilight2660]

interrogation
the court rules say i can ask 5 questions to the other side so here are 3:
1. what clause in the law says my bank cant also be a casino?
2. is there a law prohibiting a company from using two in-game /db businesses for different purposes?
3. where are the "financial viability" requirements posted in the law?

 

[Twilight2660]

i would like to calll the witnesses avaneesh2008, louder_leo, and vernicia

 

[Nacho]

interrogation
the court rules say i can ask 5 questions to the other side so here are 3:
1. what clause in the law says my bank cant also be a casino?
2. is there a law prohibiting a company from using two in-game /db businesses for different purposes?
3. where are the "financial viability" requirements posted in the law?

Objection

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

Your Honor,

This Is not a valid request made by the plaintiff. An interrogation is not defined within the court rules and procedures.

We request the court to strike this comment.

 

[Nacho]

i would like to calll the witnesses avaneesh2008, louder_leo, and vernicia

Objection

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

The following witnesses have no purpose within this case.

Vernicia is not an employee of the Department of Commerce and did not have input on the denial of the registration of the financial institution.

 

[Nacho]

REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY

Your Honor,

The defense would like to request the following from the plaintiff.

1. Business Incorporation Registration Documents
2. Company Operating Agreement
3. We request the court to authorize the DOJ the ability to pull the Support Ticket Transcript opened by the Plaintiff (Staff require a warrant, and we wish to use our document request as one)

 

[ColonelKai]

what do i need to clean up i am sorry~

The parties section of your complaint.

Objection

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

Your Honor,

This Is not a valid request made by the plaintiff. An interrogation is not defined within the court rules and procedures.

We request the court to strike this comment.

Overruled. It clearly is meant to be interrogatory. The court hereby warns the plaintiff on mistaken wording. This will be the last warning for small mistakes like this, continuation will result in contempt of court charges. The objection is only overruled for the sake of saving everyone's time.

Objection

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

The following witnesses have no purpose within this case.

Vernicia is not an employee of the Department of Commerce and did not have input on the denial of the registration of the financial institution.

The plaintiff has 24 hours to respond to this objection.

REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY

Your Honor,

The defense would like to request the following from the plaintiff.

1. Business Incorporation Registration Documents
2. Company Operating Agreement
3. We request the court to authorize the DOJ the ability to pull the Support Ticket Transcript opened by the Plaintiff (Staff require a warrant, and we wish to use our document request as one)

Approved.

 

[Twilight2660]

Objection

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

The following witnesses have no purpose within this case.

Vernicia is not an employee of the Department of Commerce and did not have input on the denial of the registration of the financial institution.

they are all relevant sir. avaneesh is the mean guy who discriminated me. vernicia is a customer so she can attest to being a customer impacted by the discrimination. louder leo runs a bank that uses multiple in game db accounts and he can testify to that and being accepted by the doc unless the defense wants to accept those as facts

 

[Nacho]

Objection

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

The following witnesses have no purpose within this case.

Louder_Leo serves no legitimate purpose and cannot provide expert insight into the process within the DOC. Louder_Leo is not involved in this situation in any capacity. We request that this witness be denied.

 

[Twilight2660]

Objection

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

The following witnesses have no purpose within this case.

Louder_Leo serves no legitimate purpose and cannot provide expert insight into the process within the DOC. Louder_Leo is not involved in this situation in any capacity. We request that this witness be denied.

i stated why he is relevant. surely its against the rules to object twice for the same thing?

 

[Technofied]

Your Honour, may it pleasure the court that the Plantiff has been banned.

 

[Nacho]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

The Commonwealth moves to have this case taken to summary judgment on the basis that the Plaintiff has been banned. Neither side made entries for discovery. However, the facts remain firm, and we wish to have the Judiciary move forward with a verdict on the matter.