Lawsuit: Adjourned v__d v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 12

Status
Not open for further replies.
Admin23

Admin23

Citizen
Commerce Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Admin23
Admin23
economist
Joined
Oct 2, 2021
Messages
156
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

v__d (Dragon Law representing)
Plaintiff

vs.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant



COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains as follows:
The DoC has seized the Plaintiff’s assets under the Financial Institutions Tax Act. The process of seizing the Plaintiff’s assets was not done with the least practical disruption to his estate. On December 28, and January 3, the DoC made announcements that have ruined the reputation of the Plaintiff. In addition, the DoC slandered the Plaintiff in a public announcement. These announcements have disrupted my client’s estate and personal reputation (thus affecting his future earning potential) beyond what is necessary to recover depositor’s money.
The DoC did indeed seize the Plaintiff’s assets under this section. However, the DoC disrupted my client’s estate far beyond what is necessary. The DoC’s announcements pertaining to Avalon were beyond acceptable. These announcements have ruined the reputation of Avalon and the Plaintiff thus eliminating possible future earnings.
Ruining an individual’s reputation is not in the DoC’s list of duties and powers and the Government is not allowed to ruin a person or business’ reputation in announcements. The DoC announced that Avalon was lying. The Plaintiff, on behalf of Avalon, simply stated to contact someone in the government about getting their deposits back. The Plaintiff did not make a factually inaccurate statement. This constitutes slander.

I. PARTIES
1. v__d
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. The Defendant seized the assets of the Plaintiff.
2. The Defendant then posted announcements pertaining to the situation surrounding the asset seizure which disrupted the Plaintiff’s estate beyond what is legal.
3. The Defendant slandered the Plaintiff.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The Defendant violated the Financial Institutions Tax Act in that they did not take the time and effort to make the least practical disruption to the Plaintiff’s estate.
2. The Defendant slandered the Plaintiff in saying that he was lying, when he was not lying.
3. The Defendant ruined the reputation of the Plaintiff to the point of losing a vast majority of his earning potential.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $3,500,000 in Compensatory Damages due to unlawfully disrupting the Plaintiff’s estate and extensively damaging the Plaintiff’s future earning potential.
2. $500,000 in Humiliation
3. $500,000 in Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont
4. $2,000,000 in Punitive Damages
5. 20% of the total in Legal Fees

V. EVIDENCE
Exhibit A
Screen_Shot_2024-01-24_at_4.20.17_PM.png

Exhibit B
Screen_Shot_2024-01-24_at_4.23.45_PM.png

Exhibit C (2 part screenshot)
IMG_1620.jpeg

IMG_1621.jpeg

Exhibit D
Screen_Shot_2024-01-24_at_4.17.53_PM.png

Exhibit E
Screen_Shot_2024-01-24_at_7.38.39_PM.png



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 26th day of January 2024
 
AMICUS BRIEF
I request that the Federal Court allows me to file an amicus brief.
 
It has been nearly a week and there has still been no summons. Can we get this show on the road?
 
Seal_Judiciary.png

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

The Attorney General is required to appear before the court in the case of the v__d v. The Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


V__D
(Plaintiff)

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
(Defendant)

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defense AFFIRMS the Defendant seized the assets of the Plaintiff in accordance to the Financial Institutions Tax Act.

2. The Defense AFFIRMS that they posted announcements and updates pertaining to the situation surrounding the asset seizure but DISPUTES that the announcements went beyond what is legal.

3. The defense DISPUTES The Defendant slandered the Plaintiff.

II. DEFENCES
1. While the seizure of assets may cause disruption, it was carried out with the intention of safeguarding the interests of depositors and ensuring compliance with tax regulations. Any disruption caused to the Plaintiff's estate was incidental to the lawful execution of the DoC's duties.

2. The announcements made by the DoC were made in the interest of transparency and to inform the public about the status of Avalon and the actions taken by the government. The DoC has a responsibility to provide accurate information to the public regarding financial matters, particularly when there are concerns about the solvency of financial institutions.

3. The statements made by the DoC were based on the information available to them at the time and were made in good faith to inform the public. There was no intent to slander the Plaintiff. Furthermore, slander is defined in the forums as “A purposeful false statement of a player to cause damage to that player's reputation.” The statements made by the doc were not purposefully false nor were they intended to cause damage to a player's reputation. They were simply addressing the situation and keeping the depositors and public informed.

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.
 
You’re honor can I get a response on my amicus brief?
 
You may file an amicus brief.
 
We will now move onto the Discovery phase of the trial. Please provide any evidence and a list of evidence within 7 days.
 
Thank you you're honor for allowing me to file an amicus brief
Admin23 said:
2. The Defendant slandered the Plaintiff in saying that he was lying, when he was not lying.
Click to expand...
The plaintiff claims that the defendant says that they were lying. In the Avalon discord, after the DoC transferred the ownership of the discord back to the plaintiff, the plaintiff said that they needed to open a DoC ticket. The Dept. Commerce, was alerting the players that the plaintiff was indeed lying, and that they do not need to open a DoC ticket. Because of what the plaintiff said, the department was not slandering the plaintiff but was just notifying the public to not open a ticket and to wait for congress to approve the budget.
Admin23 said:
On December 28, and January 3, the DoC made announcements that have ruined the reputation of the Plaintiff.
Click to expand...

The Department of Commerce Secretary at the time was notifying the public that Avalon Bank has failed and assuring the public that all accounts have been reported to the Department so that they can start the process to return all of depositors money in accordance with the Safer Banking Act (click here). The message from January 3rd I also explained in my point above.


I figured this is something the courts should know and should take into consideration when a verdict for this case comes out to the public.
 
Also you're honor I left one more thing out of my amicus brief if you would allow me to add my last thing?
 
Your Honor, I would like to request an additional 48 hours of Discovery on top of the original 7 day deadline.
 
Discovery can only be extended by 7 days at a time. Does the Defendant agree to an extension of Discovery?
 
The extension of 7 days as opposed to 48 hours is acceptable to the Plaintiff.
 
Your Honor,
The Commonwealth would not like to extend discovery by 7 days nor 48 hours. Thank you.
 
The Plaintiff will call razorsharpread as a witness.

Additionally, we would like to submit this screenshot into evidence as Exhibit F.
 

Attachments

  • Screen_Shot_2024-02-07_at_8.11.33_PM.png
    Screen_Shot_2024-02-07_at_8.11.33_PM.png
    255.8 KB · Views: 34
Your Honor, can we move this along?
 
We will now move onto Opening Statements. The plaintiff has 72 hours to post an opening statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

This court case before you is about government overreach.

There are two main points here.

1. According to the (now repealed) Financial Institutions Tax Act:

“The DOC is able to seize Financial Institution and Director/Owner assets to recover the costs to depositors. This process must be done with the least practicable disruption to the estate targeted.”

The government here did indeed seize Owner assets to recover the costs to depositors. However, this process was absolutely not done with the least practicable disruption to my client’s estate. The government’s handling of this situation was done with such negligence that they caused my client to lose future earning potential. The government did not pay attention to my client’s reputation as a part of my client’s estate. That reputation is key in future earning potential. The government was under the assumption that they could make as much of a scare as possible about Avalon as they wanted. That is not the case as my client’s reputation is a key part of his estate.

2. The idea that the government can seize the assets of an owner/director of a financial institution is illegal.

According to the Commercial Standards Act:

“All companies will be considered to be legal entities distinct from their shareholders, board members, or management.”

This is enshrining a principle of corporate personhood into Redmont Law. This principle goes back to the formation of the Dutch East India Corporation of 1602. Ever since, corporations have been separate legal entities from their shareholders and managers. This law means it is illegal to seize the assets of my client’s estate as he is legally separate from Avalon. The entire idea of forming a corporation is to separate liability from the corporation and its owners/managers.

If every single time a company failed, the owner was held liable for everything that happened to it, the populace would simply never want to open a business because of the risks involved. This is the entire idea of a Limited Liability Company. To limit the liability of its managers and owners. In Redmont, companies are treated as LLC’s as shown in the quote from the Commercial Standards Act.



The ability of the government to seize assets from a corporation’s owners/directors is equivalent to letting the government seize assets of an individual because of the actions of that individual’s friend. These are separate entities and you cannot hold a person liable for the actions of a different person.

In the constitution, it states:

“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.
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.”

Under the definition of right XIII, it is completely unfair to punish one person for the actions of another. You cannot get sent to prison for murder because someone else committed murder. That is a fundamental principle of law.



The principles of fundamental justice are:
- Procedural Fairness: This principle ensures that any individual facing an adjudicative process is afforded basic procedural rights. It encompasses the right to a fair hearing, the presumption of innocence, and the right to make full answer and defense.
- Substantive Standards Related to the Rule of Law: These standards regulate the actions of the state and include principles such as the rule against unclear or vague laws, as well as protections against arbitrary, overbroad, or grossly disproportionate laws.
- Evolutionary Nature: The principles of fundamental justice are not static and may evolve over time to reflect changing societal values and to ensure that they remain consistent with the rule of law and respect for human dignity and autonomy.
- Common Law Requirements: The principles of fundamental justice are closely associated with common law requirements of procedural fairness, ensuring that individuals have access to justice and are treated fairly within the legal system.


I would love for the government to explain to the court that it is fair, and is a standard as related to the rule of law that one can be punished for the actions of another person.

It is illegal and unconstitutional to seize the assets of an owner or director of a company. There is no way to get around it. Even if it is deemed legal and constitutional, the way the government handled this was illegal under the Financial Institutions Tax Act.


DATED: This 18th day of February, 2024
 
Thank you. The Defendant has 72 hours to post their Opening Statement.
 
Neemfy said:
Thank you. The Defendant has 72 hours to post their Opening Statement.
Click to expand...
Your honor, the defense has missed their deadline by over 12 hours now. I motion to move on to witness statements.
 
I hereby hold the Commonwealth in Contempt of Court and order the DOJ to fine accordingly. I will issue witness summons shortly.
 
Your honor, this is still going on? lmfao.
 
Seal_Judiciary.png

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

@razorsharpbread is required to appear before the court as a witness in the case of the v__d v. The Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a Contempt of Court Charge.​
 
The Plaintiff has 72 hours to ask any questions to the witness.
 
Question for razorsharpbread:

1. Why did you deny v__d employment at your bank?
 
1. Why did you deny v__d employment at your bank?

I denied v__d employment at Wells Fargo because after an uproar with my board of shareholders, we came to the conclusion that VD would not be a good fit for our bank. We came to this conclusion because the shareholders were frightened by the government announcements which ruined VD's reputation, my shareholders believed the information set forth in the announcements, and therefore did not want to hire VD at Wells Fargo.
 
The Defendant has 72 hours to cross examine the witness.
 
We will now move onto Closing Statements. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide a closing statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT


Your Honor,

I would like to note that the Defendant has refused to either submit an opening statement OR cross examine the witness. It seems that the Defendant simply has no argument in this case, otherwise they would have made one.


The biggest issue at hand is that the seizure of my client’s assets is unconstitutional and illegal. The Commercial Standards Act states:

“All companies will be considered to be legal entities distinct from their shareholders, board members, or management.”

This means that all companies are legal persons, separate from anyone else. It is illegal to punish one individual for the actions of another.

Let’s put it this way: If an individual murders someone, their friend cannot be sent to jail simply because of an association.

This principle is provided for in the constitution. It states:

“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.
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.”

These three excerpts from foundational law in this country construct the idea of corporate personhood.

This is a sacred principle in capitalism — and has been for 422 years. The idea that a corporation is a different legal entity from its managers or employees is essential to run an economy. Small shop owners are a great example. They have about a 50% success rate. If those small shop owners were personally liable for their business that failed, no one would be a shop owner because the risk is too high. Their home would be taken, their vehicle would be taken, etc. A legal buffer to allow for risk is absolutely necessary.

This is why the government created these laws. To legally separate corporations from their managers and employees.

If these separations did not exist, we would not have a functional economy with efficient markets because no one would start a business.


Next, even if those separations did not exist (which they do), within the (now repealed) Financial Institutions Tax Act, the government violated the law.

The Act states:

“The DOC is able to seize Financial Institution and Director/Owner assets to recover the costs to depositors. This process must be done with the least practicable disruption to the estate targeted.”

This process was not don with the least practicable disruption to my client’s estate. The government ruined my client’s reputation in the financial world, as is seen by razorsharpbread’s testimony. It is one thing to seize enough assets to compensate depositors, but it is a completely different issue to ruin his future earning potential with inflammatory statements and announcements.

This law allows for legalized theft by the government targeted singularly towards directors of Financial Institutions. It is illegal to discriminate based on social status.

No matter which way you cut this problem, your Honor, the government was out of line and violated the law and the constitution. This must not be left uncorrected.

Thank you for your time.


DATED: This 14th day of March, in the year of our Lord, 2024
 
Thank you. The Defendant has 72 hours to post a Closing Statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor, First off, I would like to apologize to the court for my absence in this case. I have been taking care of my sick daughter and participating in legal discourse was not a priority on my list. I should have reached out and organized someone else to take over this case. My formal apologies.

In the plaintiff's complaint, two principal arguments are presented. Firstly, they allege that the Department of Commerce exceeded its authority and encroached upon their personal estate, and secondly, they assert that the DOC defamed them by making an announcement. However, upon scrutiny, both claims falter due to the plaintiff's failure to substantiate their arguments within the legal framework.

Regarding the first claim, the plaintiff contends that the DOC infringed upon their personal estate and laid claim to assets that belonged to them. Nevertheless, the plaintiff has not furnished any concrete evidence demonstrating the alleged seizure of assets. Rather, their accusations remain obscure, lacking specificity as to which assets were supposedly taken. Furthermore, they have not submitted any evidence linking the relief sought to any taken assets or establishing a direct causative link between the alleged disruption and its impact on their estate.

Turning to the second claim, the plaintiff alleges slander on the basis of an announcement made by the DOC within a Discord channel The Defamation Act 2020 defines slander as “A false statement which defames another pearson” However, it is evident that the DOC did not propagate any false statements within their announcement. Therefore, the essential element of falsity for a claim of slander remains absent.
In conclusion, the plaintiff's arguments, both with regard to the purported disruption of their personal estate and the allegation of slander, lack substantiation within the purview of established legal principles. Their failure to meet the burden of proof in demonstrating the purported violations undermines the viability of their claims.
Thank you, your Honor,
Again, I apologize to the courts for my repeated tardiness.
 
Thank you. The Court will now be in recess pending a verdict.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
v__d v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [FCR 12] 2024

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The DOC harmed the plaintiff’s reputation through the announcement about Avalon Bank’s failure and stating that Avalon is lying.
2. The DOC did not ensure the least disruption to the plaintiff through the seizure.
3. The Financial Institution is a separate entity and therefore the Owner and Shareholders should not have their assets seized should it fail.

II. DEFENDANT’S POSITION
1. The seizure was in the interests of depositors, and was therefore within legal grounds of seizure.
2. The announcements were not made to intentionally harm the company or owner, and were instead in the interest of transparency.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The Financial Institutions Tax Act (FITA) states that the DOC can seize Financial Institutions and its Owner’s assets in order to cover costs of depositors being reimbursed.
2. Disruption will inherently be caused through this, as seizure of assets is not meant to benefit the person whose assets are being seized, but rather the depositors. The burden of proof is always on the plaintiff, and they did not state or prove the extent that the DOC seized assets, and whether or not it caused the least amount of disruption.
3. The Commercial Standards Act does state that Financial Institutions are separate legal entities than shareholders, board members, and management. This does not give this Financial Institution the Rights and Freedoms chartered in the Constitution, as those are directed towards the citizens of Redmont, directly stated within the Rights. While a Financial Institution is a separate legal entity, this does not mean the Owner is completely absolved of responsibility.
4. The seizure of assets is codified, and is therefore in accordance with fundamental justice.
5. In the Constitution, the Department of Commerce is charged with “Enforcing compliance with national corporate standards.” Therefore the clauses within the FITA and subsequent acts are Constitutional as they are expanding upon already-ratified Constitutional clauses.
6. Again, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has failed to prove any damages as a result of false statements, and thus failed to meet the burden of proof.

IV. DECISION
The Federal Court hereby rules in favor of the Defendant.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
  • Like
Reactions: End
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top