Lawsuit: In Session Vanguard & Co v Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 32

[Dartanboy]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Vanguard & Co (Justice Compass Law Firm representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Naezaratheus
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Defendant, Naezaratheus, has committed a tremendous fraud – much larger, I believe, than the likes of any other crime we’ve seen in the history of the great Commonwealth of Redmont. Throughout the last two weeks or so, Naezaratheus has disregarded all common-sense decencies, abandoned moral justice, and most importantly, blatantly chose to disobey the law and gave in to greed and his own desires.

In this time, Naezaratheus has stolen more than NINE MILLION DOLLARS from Vanguard & Co, through fraudulent stock trading. The Plaintiff has been unable to resolve this matter privately, as more than 80% of these stolen funds have already been transferred to other citizens and institutions, and we require the courts to provide a swift and fair judgement on the fraudster known as Naezaratheus.

I. PARTIES
1. Vanguard & Co (Plaintiff; Victim)
2. Naezaratheus (Defendant; Fraudster)

II. FACTS
Note: After each Fact of Facts 1-34, I will put in parentheses the current balance of Naezaratheus’ bank account (BB for Bank Balance), market access account (MB for Market Balance), and the amount from the associated Fact that appears to be fraudulent (FA for Fraudulent Amount). I will not be adding up the Fraudulent Amounts throughout the facts to make it clearer in the Facts where fraud occurred. I have also bolded and made red the FA when it is not zero to show it more clearly.

Spoiler: ”Facts 1-34”

1. On March 17 at 10:08 PM, Naezaratheus (“Naez”) created a bank account with Vanguard, and deposited $5,000 [Exhibit P-001]. (5k BB, 0 MB, 0 FA).
2. On March 18 at 7:19 PM, Naez transferred $5,000 to Vanguard Market Access (VMA) [Exhibit P-001]. (0 BB, 5k MB, 0 FA).
3. On March 18, at 7:59 PM, Naez transferred $10 from VMA to his bank account [Exhibit P-001]. (10 BB, 4.99k MB, 0 FA).
4. On March 18, at 8:25 PM, Naez transferred $10 from his bank account to Voyager [Exhibit P-002]. (0 BB, 4.99k MB, 0 FA).
5. On March 19, at 5:31 AM, Naez transferred $21,000 from VMA to his bank account [Exhibit P-002]. (21k BB, 0 MB, 16.01k FA).
6. Naez immediately sent that $21,000 to absinf and then at 6:07AM received $1,000 and immediately transferred that $1,000 to MB [Exhibit P-002]. (0 BB, 1k MB, 0 FA).
7. On March 19, at 6:36 AM, Naez transferred $335,000 from VMA to his bank account [Exhibit P-003]. (350k BB, 0 MB, 349k FA).
8. Shortly thereafter, Naez transferred $150,000 to Volt and $150,000 to Voyager. (35k BB, 0 MB, 0 FA).
9. On March 19, at 6:59 AM, Naez transferred $5,000 to VMA and $30,000 to Volt (Exhibit P-003]. (0 BB, 5k MB, 0 FA).
10. On March 21, from 9:16 AM to 9:40 AM, Naez transferred $3.261 million from VMA to his bank account [Exhibit P-004]. (3.261M BB, 0 MB, 3.256M FA).
11. On March 21, from 9:42 AM to 9:46 AM, Naez transferred $1 million to Voyager and $2 million to MegaMinerM’s Legacy Account [Exhibit P-004]. (261k BB, 0 MB, 0 FA).
12. On March 21 from 10:18 AM to 10:22 AM, Naez transferred $260,000 to twilight2660 [Exhibit P-005]. (1k BB, 0 MB, 0 FA).
13. On March 21 at 7:46 PM, Naez received $1 million from MegaMinerM’s Legacy Account and transferred it to Voyager [Exhibit P-005]. (1k BB, 0 MB, 0 FA).
14. On March 22 at 8:16 PM, Naez transferred $572,800 from VMA to his bank account [Exhibit P-005]. (573.8k BB, 0 MB, 572.8k FA).
15. On March 22 from 8:28 PM to 9:13 PM, Naez transferred $500,000 to Gribble and $73,800 to MegaMinerM’s Legacy Account [Exhibit P-006]. (0 BB, 0 MB, 0 FA).
16. On March 22 at 10:15 PM, Naez transferred $500,000 from VMA to his bank account [Exhibit P-006]. (500k BB, 0 MB, 500k FA).
17. On March 22 at 10:16 PM, Naez transferred $500k to Gribble [Exhibit P-006]. (0 BB, 0 MB, 0 FA).
18. On March 22 at 10:29 PM, Naez transferred $500k from VMA to his bank account [Exhibit P-007]. (500k BB, 0 MB, 500k FA).
19. On March 23 at 2:58 AM, Naez transferred $500k to Voyager [Exhibit P-007]. (0 BB, 0 MB, 0 FA).
20. On March 23 at 9:30 AM, Naez transferred $1.9 million from VMA to his bank account [Exhibit P-007]. (1.9M BB, 0 MB, 1.9M FA).
21. On March 23 at 9:31 AM, Naez sent $1.9 million to Voyager. [Exhibit P-007]. (0 BB, 0 MB, 0 FA).
22. On March 23 at 6:21 PM, Naez transferred $200,000 from VMA to his bank account [Exhibit P-007]. (200k BB, 0 MB, 200k FA).
23. On March 23 from 6:22 PM to 8:17 AM on March 24, Naez transferred $1.3 million from VMA to his bank account and $500,000 back to VMA [Exhibit P-008]. (1M BB, 500k MB, 1.3M FA).
24. On March 24 from 8:19 AM to 10:31 AM, Naez transferred $110,001 from VMA to his bank account, and $50,000 back to VMA [Exhibit P-009]. (1.06M BB, 450k MB, 0 FA).
25. On March 24 from 10:32 AM to 1:53 PM, Naez transferred $22,999 from VMA to his bank account [Exhibit P-010]. (1.083M BB, 427k MB, 0 FA).
26. On March 24 from 9:35 PM to 9:44 PM, Naez transferred $9,000 to VMA and then $14,812 from VMA to his bank account [Exhibit P-011]. (1.08M BB, 441k MB, 0 FA).
27. On March 26 at 7:49 AM, Naez transferred $1.088812 million to Voyager [Exhibit P-011]. (0 BB, 441k MB, 0 FA).
28. On March 28 from 8:10 PM to 10:29 AM on March 29, Naez transferred $14,002 from VMA to his bank account, and $7,000 back to VMA [Exhibit P-012]. (7k BB, 434k MB, 0 FA).
29. On March 29 at 10:30 AM to 9:35 AM on March 30, Naez transferred $517,000 from VMA to his bank account [Exhibit P-013]. (517k BB, 0 MB, 83k FA).
30. On March 30 at 10:30 AM, Naez transferred $250,000 to KingBOB99878’s Personal Account [Exhibit P-013]. (267k BB, 0 MB, 0 FA).
31. On March 30 at 11:01 PM, Naez transferred $250,000 from VMA to his bank account [Exhibit P-014, Exhibit P-015]. (517k BB, 0 MB, 250k FA).
32. On March 31 from 10:59 AM to 11:00 AM, Naez transferred $27,900 from VMA to his bank account [Exhibit P-015]. (555k BB, 0 MB, 27.9k FA).
33. On March 31 from 11:00 AM to 7:50 PM, Naez transferred $49,995 from VMA to his bank account [Exhibit P-016]. (605k BB, 0 MB, 49.995k FA).
34. On March 31 from 7:50 PM to 7:51 PM, Naez transferred $48,995 from VMA to his bank account [Exhibit P-017]. (650k BB, 0 MB, 48.995k FA).

Facts 1-34 TLDR: Naezaratheus fraudulently created $9,303,691 through hacking, abusing exploits, or otherwise falsifying records to create money within Vanguard’s banking systems.

35. As of this morning (April 1), Naezaratheus has $650,894 in his bank account [Exhibit P-018].
36. Throughout the time Naezaratheus has used Vanguard Market Access, we can see several fraudulent trades in the logs, which have been exported to a spreadsheet in Exhibit P-019. These are how he funded the $9M+ that went from VMA into his bank account.

Spoiler: ”All Trades List In Order (Fraudulent Trades Bold)”

From the beginning of his use of VMA:

• BUY 50 LTC-USD
• SELL 294 LTC-USD (by selling 49 shares 6 times)
• BUY 250 LTC-USD
• SELL 240 LTC-USD (by selling 200, then 40)
• BUY 10 ETH-USD
• BUY 2 LTC-USD
• BUY 7 ETC-USD
• SELL 7 ETC-USD
• SELL 10 ETH-USD
• BUY 9,000 ADA-USD (by buying 500, 18 times)
• SELL 63,420 ADA-USD (by selling 4200 shares 15 times, and 420 once)
• BUY 20 ETH-USD
• SELL 164 ETH-USD (by selling 40 shares 4 times, and 4 once)
• BUY 2 BTC-USD
• BUY 500 SOL-USD
• SELL 2 BTC-USD
• SELL 500 SOL-USD
• BUY 2 ETH-USD
• BUY 4 TSLA (by buying 1 share and then 3)
• SELL 36 TSLA (by selling 4 shares 9 times)
• BUY 14 SPY
• SELL 182 SPY (by selling 14 shares, 13 times)
• BUY 240 DIA
• SELL 2,600 DIA (by selling 200 shares, 13 times)
• BUY 260,000 RCT
• SELL 800,000 RCT (by selling 200,000 shares, 4 times)
• BUY 3 XMR-USD (by buying 1 share, then 2 more)
• SELL 33 XMR-USD (by selling 3 shares, 11 times)
• BUY 20 ZEC-CNY
• SELL 320 ZEC-CNY (by selling 20 shares, 16 times)
• BUY 100,000 ADA-USD
• SELL 810,000 ADA-USD (by selling 45,000 shares, 18 times)
• BUY 250 ETC-USD
• SELL 3,000 ETC-USD (by selling 250 shares, 12 times)
• BUY 20 ETH-USD
• BUY 900 LINK-USD
• SELL 16,200 LINK-USD (by selling 900 shares, 18 times)
• BUY 10,000 AVAX-USD
• SELL 50,000 AVAX-USD (by selling 10,000 shares, 5 times)
• Buy 20 BNB-USD
• SELL 340 BNB-USD (by selling 20 shares, 17 times)
• BUY 2 BTC-USD
• SELL 22 BTC-USD (by selling 2 shares, 11 times)
• BUY 60,000 TRX-USD
• SELL 660,000 TRX-USD (by selling 60,000 shares, 11 times)
• BUY 30,000 DOT-USD
• SELL 540,000 DOT-USD (by selling 30,000 shares, 18 times)
• BUY 1,000 BCH-USD
• SELL 7,000 BCH-USD (by selling 1,000 shares, 7 times)

37. Vanguard Market Access’ Terms of Service expressly disallow exploits [Exhibit P-020].

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of Contract - Exploiting System Mechanics was expressly disallowed by the Terms of Service.
2. Fraud - Intentionally or recklessly misrepresenting the amount of shares of various stocks owned by the Defendant, and thus tricking VMA into buying over $9 MILLION worth of stocks the Defendant never owned.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $9,303,691 in Compensatory Damages, for defrauding Vanguard of this amount and claiming it as their own, even transferring the majority of it to other institutions.
2. $5,000,000 in Punitive Damages, for the Defendant’s reckless disregard for the law and outrageous, deplorable Fraud unlike anyone has ever seen before in Redmont, through at least fourteen individual fraudulent actions totalling over $9 million.
3. $2,790,000 in Legal Fees (30% of 9 million, because I’m not so greedy to make it exactly 30% of total damages, also ignored punitive for this calculation).
Total: $14,303,691 to Vanguard (Nexalin) + $2,790,000 to Justice Compass Law Firm (Dartanboy).

Evidence

Spoiler: ”Exhibit P-001”

Spoiler: ”Exhibit P-002”

Spoiler: ”Exhibit P-003”

Spoiler: ”Exhibit P-004”

Spoiler: ”Exhibit P-005”

Spoiler: ”Exhibit P-006”

Spoiler: ”Exhibit P-007”

Spoiler: ”Exhibit P-008”

Spoiler: ”Exhibit P-009”

Spoiler: ”Exhibit P-010”

Spoiler: ”Exhibit P-011”

Spoiler: ”Exhibit P-012”

Spoiler: ”Exhibit P-013”

Spoiler: ”Exhibit P-014”

Spoiler: ”Exhibit P-015”

Spoiler: ”Exhibit P-016”

Spoiler: ”Exhibit P-017”

Spoiler: ”Exhibit P-018”

Spoiler: ”Exhibit P-019”

naez_trades.xlsx

docs.google.com

Spoiler: ”Exhibit P-020”

Vanguard Market Access TOS

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 1st day of April 2025

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, I forgot to include proof of retainer. It is here:

Spoiler: Retainer

 

[juniperfig]

Writ of Summons

@naez is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Vanguard & Co v Naezaratheus.

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.

 

[Vernicia]

Writ of Summons

@naez is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Vanguard & Co v Naezaratheus.

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.

I will be representing naez in this case. We are now present.

 

[juniperfig]

I will be representing naez in this case. We are now present.

View attachment 53889

Thank you. You have 48 hours to submit an Answer to Complaint.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Your Honour, I wish to file an Amicus Brief regarding the defendant's lack of rights to representation.

 

[juniperfig]

Your Honour, I wish to file an Amicus Brief regarding the defendant's lack of rights to representation.

You may.

 

[AmityBlamity]

You may.

Thank you, Your Honour.

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF

Ladies, gentlemen, enbies, and others. Since former Justice Nacho's ruling in StressedGV v. SalsaStar [2022] FCR 52, a precedent has been set that deported players do not have the same rights as citizens of Redmont. A precedent affirmed in Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 11 by former Justice dygyee that "[Lord_Donuticus] cannot represent someone in court as [Krix] has been deported."

A precedent affirmed again in gsse v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 101 by former Justice Unseatedduke1, who affirmed that "DC staff has been clear that deported players have no rights in Redmont. Therefore, deported players do not have the right to challenge this in court..."

A precedent yet again affirmed in UnityMaster v. lcn [2025] SCR 2, Chief Justice Aladeen22, writing the court's verdict, specifically mentioned the following: "Finally, at the time of filling this case, the plaintiff was indeed deported. Deported players have no rights in our nation and have no rights to dispute this in court."

When this case was filed, and at the time of posting this Amicus Brief, the defendant Naezaratheus is deported. The defendant currently has no rights in this nation, and as several precedents have established, deported players do not have the right to dispute legal challenges in court, nor do they have the right to appoint someone on their behalf.

Going against these previous decisions could set a very dangerous precedent. I humbly request that the court consider these previous verdicts and how best to resolve the case.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Vernicia]

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defendant respectfully moves this Court to dismiss under Rule 5.5

I. FAILURE TO FOLLOW CONTRACTUAL REMEDIES
Exhibit P-020 (Vanguard Market Access TOS) explicitly provides the procedure for addressing alleged exploitative trades:

"Customers are strictly prohibited from engaging in trades designed to exploit system mechanics, including placing trades outside of real-life market hours to gain an unfair advantage. If any trade is determined to be exploitative, Vanguard Market Access reserves the right to reverse the trade and undo all associated gains or losses. Customers engaging in exploitative trading practices may have their accounts restricted or suspended at Vanguard’s sole discretion."

My client did not commit any of the prohibited acts listed in the Terms of Service (TOS). The TOS explicitly uses the term 'including'—rather than 'including but not limited to'—which means the specified prohibitions are exhaustive, not illustrative.

As such, my client:

1. Did not exploit any system mechanics, and

2. Did not breach the contract in any manner.

Consequently, the Plaintiff’s Claims for Relief lack any legal basis and must be dismissed under Rule 5.5.

II. In addition, the evidence provided by the Plaintiff is nonsensical and proves nothing. It appears this documentation may have been intended for submission to the Department of Commerce (DOC) months ago regarding a tax exemption, rather than for this proceeding.


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 6th day of April, 2025.

 

[Dartanboy]

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defendant respectfully moves this Court to dismiss under Rule 5.5

I. FAILURE TO FOLLOW CONTRACTUAL REMEDIES
Exhibit P-020 (Vanguard Market Access TOS) explicitly provides the procedure for addressing alleged exploitative trades:

"Customers are strictly prohibited from engaging in trades designed to exploit system mechanics, including placing trades outside of real-life market hours to gain an unfair advantage. If any trade is determined to be exploitative, Vanguard Market Access reserves the right to reverse the trade and undo all associated gains or losses. Customers engaging in exploitative trading practices may have their accounts restricted or suspended at Vanguard’s sole discretion."

My client did not commit any of the prohibited acts listed in the Terms of Service (TOS). The TOS explicitly uses the term 'including'—rather than 'including but not limited to'—which means the specified prohibitions are exhaustive, not illustrative.

As such, my client:

1. Did not exploit any system mechanics, and

2. Did not breach the contract in any manner.

Consequently, the Plaintiff’s Claims for Relief lack any legal basis and must be dismissed under Rule 5.5.

II. In addition, the evidence provided by the Plaintiff is nonsensical and proves nothing. It appears this documentation may have been intended for submission to the Department of Commerce (DOC) months ago regarding a tax exemption, rather than for this proceeding.


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 6th day of April, 2025.

Objection

Breach of Procedure

Naezaratheus is deported and cannot contest the lawsuit.

We ask this Motion be struck and Vernicia warned for speaking in a court case without cause.

If it is for some reason not struck, we ask to be permitted a response.

 

[KingBOB99878]

Your Honour, I wish to file an Amicus Brief regarding the Objection

 

[Vernicia]

Thank you, Your Honour.

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF

Ladies, gentlemen, enbies, and others. Since former Justice Nacho's ruling in StressedGV v. SalsaStar [2022] FCR 52, a precedent has been set that deported players do not have the same rights as citizens of Redmont. A precedent affirmed in Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 11 by former Justice dygyee that "[Lord_Donuticus] cannot represent someone in court as [Krix] has been deported."

A precedent affirmed again in gsse v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 101 by former Justice Unseatedduke1, who affirmed that "DC staff has been clear that deported players have no rights in Redmont. Therefore, deported players do not have the right to challenge this in court..."

A precedent yet again affirmed in UnityMaster v. lcn [2025] SCR 2, Chief Justice Aladeen22, writing the court's verdict, specifically mentioned the following: "Finally, at the time of filling this case, the plaintiff was indeed deported. Deported players have no rights in our nation and have no rights to dispute this in court."

When this case was filed, and at the time of posting this Amicus Brief, the defendant Naezaratheus is deported. The defendant currently has no rights in this nation, and as several precedents have established, deported players do not have the right to dispute legal challenges in court, nor do they have the right to appoint someone on their behalf.

Going against these previous decisions could set a very dangerous precedent. I humbly request that the court consider these previous verdicts and how best to resolve the case.

Thank you for your time.

Objection

Breach of Procedure
Your Honor, the defendant is not deported. Moreover, the purpose of an amicus brief is to offer the Court impartial analysis from interested third parties regarding the facts and legal claims at issue. Instead, the author has chosen to focus on court procedure and advocate for the plaintiff’s position, effectively acting as supplemental counsel rather than providing the neutral perspective expected of an amicus. For these reasons, I move to strike the brief. If plaintiff’s counsel wishes to raise procedural arguments, they may do so themselves.

 

[Vernicia]

Objection

Breach of Procedure

Naezaratheus is deported and cannot contest the lawsuit.

We ask this Motion be struck and Vernicia warned for speaking in a court case without cause.

If it is for some reason not struck, we ask to be permitted a response.

Objection

Perjury


Your Honor, opposing counsel has knowingly misrepresented the facts under oath by falsely claiming that Mr. Naez is deported. This is demonstrably untrue, and I am submitting evidence confirming that my client remains in the country. We move to strike this false assertion from the record and further request that the Court consider sanctions against opposing counsel for perjury, as this deliberate misinformation undermines the integrity of these proceedings.

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection

Perjury


Your Honor, opposing counsel has knowingly misrepresented the facts under oath by falsely claiming that Mr. Naez is deported. This is demonstrably untrue, and I am submitting evidence confirming that my client remains in the country. We move to strike this false assertion from the record and further request that the Court consider sanctions against opposing counsel for perjury, as this deliberate misinformation undermines the integrity of these proceedings.
View attachment 53933

Clearly, he has been un-deported. He certainly  was deported.

 

[Vernicia]

Clearly, he has been un-deported. He certainly  was deported.

Clearly, he was not deported when you wrote the objection making this a Perjury.

 

[Dartanboy]

Clearly, he was not deported when you wrote the objection making this a Perjury.

Objection

Breach of Procedure

Responses to responses are not permitted.

 

[juniperfig]

Objection

Breach of Procedure

Naezaratheus is deported and cannot contest the lawsuit.

We ask this Motion be struck and Vernicia warned for speaking in a court case without cause.

If it is for some reason not struck, we ask to be permitted a response.

Objection overruled. Naezaratheus is not currently deported and you have offered no proof of deportation at the time of this statement. In the future, you need to substantiate your accusations with proof, as this comes shockingly close to perjury.
You may respond.

Objection

Breach of Procedure
Your Honor, the defendant is not deported. Moreover, the purpose of an amicus brief is to offer the Court impartial analysis from interested third parties regarding the facts and legal claims at issue. Instead, the author has chosen to focus on court procedure and advocate for the plaintiff’s position, effectively acting as supplemental counsel rather than providing the neutral perspective expected of an amicus. For these reasons, I move to strike the brief. If plaintiff’s counsel wishes to raise procedural arguments, they may do so themselves.

Objection sustained, as the defendant is clearly not deported at this time. However, this amicus brief is impartial analysis from an interested third party, and you have brought no evidence to suggest otherwise. Amicus briefs are meant to bring insights that may not otherwise be brought to the court, which AmityBlamity has done.
The brief will be struck.

Objection

Perjury


Your Honor, opposing counsel has knowingly misrepresented the facts under oath by falsely claiming that Mr. Naez is deported. This is demonstrably untrue, and I am submitting evidence confirming that my client remains in the country. We move to strike this false assertion from the record and further request that the Court consider sanctions against opposing counsel for perjury, as this deliberate misinformation undermines the integrity of these proceedings.
View attachment 53933

Objection overruled. Intent to perjure has not been proven, and the Court has reason to believe the Defendant likely was deported at some point recently due to two statements under oath being made asserting the fact.

Objection

Breach of Procedure

Responses to responses are not permitted.

Objection sustained. The response will be struck.

Your Honour, I wish to file an Amicus Brief regarding the Objection

No.

Additionally, the deadline for the Answer to Complaint has passed. Defendant, this is your warning. Any further missed deadlines will have you held in contempt.

 

[Vernicia]

Objection overruled. Naezaratheus is not currently deported and you have offered no proof of deportation at the time of this statement. In the future, you need to substantiate your accusations with proof, as this comes shockingly close to perjury.
You may respond.


Objection sustained, as the defendant is clearly not deported at this time. However, this amicus brief is impartial analysis from an interested third party, and you have brought no evidence to suggest otherwise. Amicus briefs are meant to bring insights that may not otherwise be brought to the court, which AmityBlamity has done.
The brief will be struck.


Objection overruled. Intent to perjure has not been proven, and the Court has reason to believe the Defendant likely was deported at some point recently due to two statements under oath being made asserting the fact.


Objection sustained. The response will be struck.


No.

Additionally, the deadline for the Answer to Complaint has passed. Defendant, this is your warning. Any further missed deadlines will have you held in contempt.

Your Honor,

I respectfully request a 24-hour extension. I got confused by active motion and Amicus Briefs and assumed deadline is standart 72 hours not 48 hours. We will post answer to complaint ASAP

 

[Dartanboy]

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defendant respectfully moves this Court to dismiss under Rule 5.5

I. FAILURE TO FOLLOW CONTRACTUAL REMEDIES
Exhibit P-020 (Vanguard Market Access TOS) explicitly provides the procedure for addressing alleged exploitative trades:

"Customers are strictly prohibited from engaging in trades designed to exploit system mechanics, including placing trades outside of real-life market hours to gain an unfair advantage. If any trade is determined to be exploitative, Vanguard Market Access reserves the right to reverse the trade and undo all associated gains or losses. Customers engaging in exploitative trading practices may have their accounts restricted or suspended at Vanguard’s sole discretion."

My client did not commit any of the prohibited acts listed in the Terms of Service (TOS). The TOS explicitly uses the term 'including'—rather than 'including but not limited to'—which means the specified prohibitions are exhaustive, not illustrative.

As such, my client:

1. Did not exploit any system mechanics, and

2. Did not breach the contract in any manner.

Consequently, the Plaintiff’s Claims for Relief lack any legal basis and must be dismissed under Rule 5.5.

II. In addition, the evidence provided by the Plaintiff is nonsensical and proves nothing. It appears this documentation may have been intended for submission to the Department of Commerce (DOC) months ago regarding a tax exemption, rather than for this proceeding.


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 6th day of April, 2025.

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

On Contractual Remedies
The Terms of Service do indeed say "including" instead of "including but not limited to" however the Defense is incorrect in stating that this makes the list exhaustive. Oxford defines "including" as "having something as part of a group or set" (see including preposition - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced American Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com) which means that this list is NOT exhaustive.

Furthermore, it became impossible to undo the trades as much of the funds had already been transferred to other entities when this was discovered.

On The Defense's Logic
Even assuming that the Plaintiff did fail to attempt any potential alternative remedies (which they did not), it does not logically follow that Naezaratheus "did not exploit any system mechanics" nor does it logically follow that he "did not breach the contract."

Furthermore, even if he didn't breach the contract (which he did), he still committed Fraud on a massive scale, and this point was not even addressed in the Motion to Dismiss.

In Conclusion
It is clear that the Plaintiff's claims of Breach of Contract and Fraud (one of which was not even mentioned in the Motion to Dismiss) are real and valid. The Motion to Dismiss cannot be sustained.

 

[Vernicia]

Answer to Complaint

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

Vanguard & Co
Plaintiff

v.

Naezaratheus
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. The Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 1 of the complaint regarding the
Plaintiff and Defendant.
2. The Defendant DENIES the general allegations of fraud and theft as
described in the introductory paragraphs of the complaint. The
Defendant asserts that all trading activities were conducted within
the parameters of the Vanguard Market Access (VMA) system, and that
there was no intention to defraud Vanguard & Co. The Defendant
admits to taking advantage of in-game mechanics and strategies to
maximize profits.
3. Regarding Fact 1, the Defendant AFFIRMS that he created a bank
account and deposited $5,000.
4. Regarding Fact 2, the Defendant AFFIRMS that he transferred $5,000 to
Vanguard Market Access (VMA).
5. Regarding Fact 3, the Defendant AFFIRMS that he transferred $10 from
VMA to his bank account.
6. Regarding Fact 4, the Defendant AFFIRMS that he transferred $10 from
his bank account to Voyager.
7. Regarding Fact 5, the Defendant DENIES that the transfer of $21,000
from VMA to his bank account was fraudulent. The Defendant asserts
that this was a result of legitimate trading activity, however
unorthodox.
8. Regarding Fact 6, the Defendant AFFIRMS that he sent $21,000 to
absinf and then at 6:07AM received $1,000 and immediately
transferred that $1,000 to MB
9. Regarding Fact 7, the Defendant DENIES that the transfer of $335,000
from VMA to his bank account was fraudulent. The Defendant asserts
that this was a result of legitimate trading activity, however
unorthodox.
10. Regarding Fact 8, the Defendant AFFIRMS that he transferred $150,000
to Volt and $150,000 to Voyager.
11. Regarding Fact 9, the Defendant AFFIRMS that he transferred $5,000 to
VMA and $30,000 to Volt
12. Regarding Fact 10, the Defendant DENIES that the transfer of
$3.261 million from VMA to his bank account was fraudulent. The
Defendant asserts that this was a result of legitimate trading
activity, however unorthodox.
13. Regarding Fact 11, the Defendant AFFIRMS that he transferred $1
million to Voyager and $2 million to MegaMinerM’s Legacy Account.
14. Regarding Fact 12, the Defendant AFFIRMS that he transferred $260,000
to twilight2660
15. Regarding Fact 13, the Defendant AFFIRMS that he received $1 million
from MegaMinerM’s Legacy Account and transferred it to Voyager.
16. Regarding Fact 14, the Defendant DENIES that the transfer of
$572,800 from VMA to his bank account was fraudulent. The Defendant
asserts that this was a result of legitimate trading activity,
however unorthodox.
17. Regarding Fact 15, the Defendant AFFIRMS that he transferred $500,000
to Gribble and $73,800 to MegaMinerM’s Legacy Account.
18. Regarding Fact 16, the Defendant DENIES that the transfer of $500,000
from VMA to his bank account was fraudulent. The Defendant asserts
that this was a result of legitimate trading activity, however
unorthodox.
19. Regarding Fact 17, the Defendant AFFIRMS that he transferred $500k to
Gribble
20. Regarding Fact 18, the Defendant DENIES that the transfer of $500,000
from VMA to his bank account was fraudulent. The Defendant asserts
that this was a result of legitimate trading activity, however
unorthodox.
21. Regarding Fact 19, the Defendant AFFIRMS that he transferred $500k to
Voyager
22. Regarding Fact 20, the Defendant DENIES that the transfer of
$1.9 million from VMA to his bank account was fraudulent. The
Defendant asserts that this was a result of legitimate trading
activity, however unorthodox.
23. Regarding Fact 21, the Defendant AFFIRMS that he sent $1.9 million to
Voyager.
24. Regarding Fact 22, the Defendant DENIES that the transfer of
$200,000 from VMA to his bank account was fraudulent. The Defendant
asserts that this was a result of legitimate trading activity,
however unorthodox.
25. Regarding Fact 23, the Defendant DENIES that the transfer of
$1.3 million from VMA to his bank account was fraudulent. The
Defendant asserts that this was a result of legitimate trading
activity, however unorthodox, and AFFIRMS that $500,000 was sent
back to VMA
26. Regarding Fact 24, the Defendant AFFIRMS that he transferred $110,001
from VMA to his bank account, and $50,000 back to VMA
27. Regarding Fact 25, the Defendant AFFIRMS that he transferred $22,999
from VMA to his bank account
28. Regarding Fact 26, the Defendant AFFIRMS that he transferred $9,000 to
VMA and then $14,812 from VMA to his bank account
29. Regarding Fact 27, the Defendant AFFIRMS that he transferred
$1.088812 million to Voyager
30. Regarding Fact 28, the Defendant AFFIRMS that he transferred $14,002
from VMA to his bank account, and $7,000 back to VMA
31. Regarding Fact 29, the Defendant DENIES that the transfer of
$517,000 from VMA to his bank account was fraudulent. The Defendant
asserts that this was a result of legitimate trading activity,
however unorthodox.
32. Regarding Fact 30, the Defendant AFFIRMS that he transferred $250,000
to KingBOB99878’s Personal Account
33. Regarding Fact 31, the Defendant DENIES that the transfer of $250,000
from VMA to his bank account was fraudulent. The Defendant asserts
that this was a result of legitimate trading activity, however
unorthodox.
34. Regarding Fact 32, the Defendant DENIES that the transfer of $27,900
from VMA to his bank account was fraudulent. The Defendant asserts
that this was a result of legitimate trading activity, however
unorthodox.
35. Regarding Fact 33, the Defendant DENIES that the transfer of
$49,995 from VMA to his bank account was fraudulent. The Defendant
asserts that this was a result of legitimate trading activity,
however unorthodox.
36. Regarding Fact 34, the Defendant DENIES that the transfer of
$48,995 from VMA to his bank account was fraudulent. The Defendant
asserts that this was a result of legitimate trading activity,
however unorthodox.
37. Regarding Fact 35, the Defendant AFFIRMS that he has $650,894 in his
bank account.
38. Regarding Fact 36, the Defendant acknowledges the trading logs but
DENIES that these trades were inherently fraudulent. The Defendant
maintains that he was exploiting in-game market mechanics, but that
this does not constitute fraud.
39. Regarding Fact 37, the Defendant acknowledges Vanguard Market
Access’ Terms of Service and does not dispute the clarity of "Fair
Trading and Exploit Prevention" as defined, however asserts that the
trades conducted were not explicitly in violation of these terms.

II. DEFENSES

1. Legitimate Trading Activity: The Defendant maintains that all
trading activity was conducted through the VMA platform, utilizing
in-game mechanics available to all users. The Defendant denies any
intentional misrepresentation or falsification of records. The
scale of the trades does not inherently make them fraudulent.
2. Clear Definition of Exploit: The Defendant acknowledges that
VMA defines "exploits" clearly within its General Trading Rules as
"trades designed to exploit system mechanics, including placing
trades outside of real-life market hours to gain an unfair
advantage." However, the Defendant asserts that the specific trades
in question did not violate this definition. The Defendant's
actions did not involve trading outside of market hours. The
Defendant's understanding of the system mechanics, combined with
his trading strategies, allowed him to capitalize on in-game
opportunities, which, while profitable, do not inherently
constitute an illegal exploit.
3. No Intent to Defraud: The Defendant asserts that he had no
intention to defraud Vanguard & Co. His actions were driven by a
desire to maximize profits through trading within the VMA platform.

III. RESPONSE TO CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Breach of Contract: The Defendant denies breaching the contract,
arguing that his actions, while taking advantage of in-game
mechanics, were not explicitly prohibited by the Terms of Service,
as the trades were not conducted outside of market hours and the
system mechanics in question were not explicitly defined as
prohibited.
2. Fraud: The Defendant vehemently denies the claim of fraud. The
Defendant asserts that all trades were conducted within the VMA
system, and there was no intention to deceive or misrepresent any
information.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Dismiss the Plaintiff’s claims for compensatory damages. The
Defendant argues that the Plaintiff has not provided sufficient
evidence to prove that the Defendant’s actions constitute fraud or
caused direct financial harm.
2. Deny the Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages. The Defendant
asserts that his actions were not malicious, reckless, or in
outrageous disregard for the law.
3. Deny the Plaintiff’s request for legal fees.

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: April 7th, 2025

 

[Dartanboy]

The Defendant
admits to taking advantage of in-game mechanics and strategies to
maximize profits.

Objection

Perjury

Stock-trading activities do not and cannot occur in-game. This is a lie.

 

[Dartanboy]

The Defendant
maintains that he was exploiting in-game market mechanics, but that
this does not constitute fraud.

Objection

Perjury

Defendant once-again claims these transactions involved "in-game market mechanics" but this did not occur in-game, as stock-trading activities cannot occur in-game.

Furthermore, the Defendant asserts they did not exploit anything while also claiming they were "exploiting ... mechanics"

 

[Vernicia]

Objection

Perjury

Stock-trading activities do not and cannot occur in-game. This is a lie.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your honor, the defense apologizes for the confusion. The defense concurs that the use of the word "in-game" is a mischaracterization of what actually happened, and consents to that word being struck or amended from the answer to complaint. Nevertheless, the defense's statements about the manipulation of market mechanics, whether specifically "in-game" or not, remains true. A perjury charge requires an intent to perjure, which is not present here. The perceived mistake is the result of simple miscommunication.

 

[Vernicia]

Objection

Perjury

Defendant once-again claims these transactions involved "in-game market mechanics" but this did not occur in-game, as stock-trading activities cannot occur in-game.

Furthermore, the Defendant asserts they did not exploit anything while also claiming they were "exploiting ... mechanics"

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
Your honor, the defense apologizes for the confusion. The defense concurs that the use of the word "in-game" is a mischaracterization of what actually happened, and consents to that word being struck or amended from the answer to complaint. Nevertheless, the defense's statements about the manipulation of market mechanics, whether specifically "in-game" or not, remains true. A perjury charge requires an intent to perjure, which is not present here. The perceived mistake is the result of simple miscommunication.

 

[Dartanboy]

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your honor, the defense apologizes for the confusion. The defense concurs that the use of the word "in-game" is a mischaracterization of what actually happened, and consents to that word being struck or amended from the answer to complaint. Nevertheless, the defense's statements about the manipulation of market mechanics, whether specifically "in-game" or not, remains true. A perjury charge requires an intent to perjure, which is not present here. The perceived mistake is the result of simple miscommunication.

The Defense has admitted that their claims are "a mischsracterization of what actually happened" and is now trying to disguise it as a grammatical error.

Given the abundance of evidence and the Defense's confession, we ask that these statements be struck for Perjury.

 

[Dartanboy]

The Defense has admitted that their claims are "a mischsracterization of what actually happened" and is now trying to disguise it as a grammatical error.

Given the abundance of evidence and the Defense's confession, we ask that these statements be struck for Perjury.

Motion

MOTION TO STRIKE

My apologies, your honor. I responded to a response, which is not permitted.

 

[Vernicia]

The Defense has admitted that their claims are "a mischsracterization of what actually happened" and is now trying to disguise it as a grammatical error.

Given the abundance of evidence and the Defense's confession, we ask that these statements be struck for Perjury.

Objection

Breach of Procedure

Responses to responses are not permitted.

 

[juniperfig]

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defendant respectfully moves this Court to dismiss under Rule 5.5

I. FAILURE TO FOLLOW CONTRACTUAL REMEDIES
Exhibit P-020 (Vanguard Market Access TOS) explicitly provides the procedure for addressing alleged exploitative trades:

"Customers are strictly prohibited from engaging in trades designed to exploit system mechanics, including placing trades outside of real-life market hours to gain an unfair advantage. If any trade is determined to be exploitative, Vanguard Market Access reserves the right to reverse the trade and undo all associated gains or losses. Customers engaging in exploitative trading practices may have their accounts restricted or suspended at Vanguard’s sole discretion."

My client did not commit any of the prohibited acts listed in the Terms of Service (TOS). The TOS explicitly uses the term 'including'—rather than 'including but not limited to'—which means the specified prohibitions are exhaustive, not illustrative.

As such, my client:

1. Did not exploit any system mechanics, and

2. Did not breach the contract in any manner.

Consequently, the Plaintiff’s Claims for Relief lack any legal basis and must be dismissed under Rule 5.5.

II. In addition, the evidence provided by the Plaintiff is nonsensical and proves nothing. It appears this documentation may have been intended for submission to the Department of Commerce (DOC) months ago regarding a tax exemption, rather than for this proceeding.


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 6th day of April, 2025.

Motion denied. This is not a lack of legal basis, it's a defence. Additionally, there is still the Fraud claim that has gone unaddressed.

Objection

Perjury

Stock-trading activities do not and cannot occur in-game. This is a lie.

Overruled, intent was not proven. However, the statement will be struck.

Objection

Perjury

Defendant once-again claims these transactions involved "in-game market mechanics" but this did not occur in-game, as stock-trading activities cannot occur in-game.

Furthermore, the Defendant asserts they did not exploit anything while also claiming they were "exploiting ... mechanics"

Overruled, intent was not proven. However, as above, the statement will be struck.

Motion

MOTION TO STRIKE

My apologies, your honor. I responded to a response, which is not permitted.

Granted. Thank you. Your response will be struck.

Objection

Breach of Procedure

Responses to responses are not permitted.

Sustained. See above.

The Plaintiff has 72 hours to submit their opening statement. Additionally, I apologize for the delay.

 

[Dartanboy]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Introduction
The Defendant, Naezaratheus, is a fraudster who intentionally and maliciously tricked the Plaintiff, Vanguard & Co, into paying him more than $9.3 Million through a series of fraudulent stock trades, and throughout this filing, it will become clear not only through a Balance of Probabilities (as required for civil suits), but even Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that the Defendant’s actions were intentional, illegal Fraud.

On The Agreed Upon Facts
1. The Defendant has, while disagreeing on whether they were fraudulent, affirmed that every transaction listed in Facts 1-34 as well as the stock trades in Fact 36 did in-fact occur.

2. The Defendant has affirmed their bank account’s balance to be $650,894.

3. The Defendant has affirmed the contents of Vanguard Market Access’ Terms of Service, although disagrees on the meaning.

On The Disagreed Upon Facts
1. Although the Defendant affirms that the stock trades listed in Fact 36 did occur, the Defendant also “DENIES that these trades were inherently fraudulent. The Defendant maintains that he was exploiting … market mechanics, but that this does not constitute fraud.”

On Fraud
Fraud is defined by the Commercial Standards Act (Act of Congress - Commercial Standards Act) as “An intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation; and the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission.”

Now, we recall the Defendant affirmed the Stock Trades of Fact 36, including the eighteen sets of trades where he sold more shares than he owned. Through these trades, the Defendant intentionally or recklessly misrepresented the amount of shares of stocks he owned, and sold them to the Plaintiff. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered an actual, quantifiable injury of $9,303,691.

This is not a stretch, your honor – this case is exactly the definition of Fraud, and there is simply no alternative way to view this.

Conclusion
My client, Vanguard & Co, is the victim of a Grand Fraud, costing the Plaintiff more than $9.3 Million through the deplorable actions of Naezaratheus, who misrepresented his stocks and caused immense damage to the Plaintiff.

It is clear that the Defendant committed Fraud on a massive scale, and there is no two ways about it.

 

[juniperfig]

The Defendant has 72 hours to submit their opening statement.

 

[Vernicia]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff's case against the Defendant rests upon two critical claims: breach of contract and fraud. However, when we examine their own documentation and the applicable laws of the Commonwealth, it becomes evident that neither claim can be substantiated.

Regarding the breach of contract claim, there are several fatal flaws:

1. Vanguard's own Terms establishes an unambiguous method for contract formation. On page two, it explicitly states:

"By signing the agreement, you're agreeing to the Agreements and acknowledging receipt of the disclosures contained in the Booklet..."

It further reinforces this requirement by stating:

"For any like-titled accounts you open in the future, you'll need to sign an Additional Account Acknowledgement where you will confirm that the most current version of the Booklet applies..."

The Defendant never signed any such agreement. No signature was ever solicited, provided, or received. Yet Vanguard now attempts to enforce terms that, according to their own Terms, required signature for acceptance.

2. Vanguard creates a direct contradiction in their acceptance methods. While their Terms requires signature, their login page states:

"By logging in, you agree to our Terms of Service."

This contradiction fails to meet the "clear and unequivocal" communication standard required by Section 4(a) of the Contracts Act.

Even if the Defendant accepts the login page's method of acceptance, their Terms of Service were not reasonably accessible at that point. Users were told they were agreeing to terms they could not readily access or review from the website itself. This undermines the "positive and unambiguous" acceptance requirement of Section 4(b) of the Contracts Act.

3. Turning to the specific trading rules that Vanguard claims were violated, their "Fair Trading and Exploit Prevention" clause states:

"Customers are strictly prohibited from engaging in trades designed to exploit system mechanics, including placing trades outside of real-life market hours to gain an unfair advantage."

While the Defendant acknowledges taking advantage of market mechanics through unorthodox trading strategies, these activities occurred within normal market hours. The prohibition specifically identifies trading "outside of real-life market hours" as the example of prohibited exploitation. The Defendant's activities, though utilizing system mechanics advantageously, do not fall within this specified prohibition.

4. The same section outlines Vanguard's remedy for allegedly exploitative trades: "If any trade is determined to be exploitative, Vanguard Market Access reserves the right to reverse the trade and undo all associated gains or losses." Despite having this contractual remedy available, Vanguard evidently did not identify these trades as exploitative or exercise their right to reverse them at the time they occurred. Instead, they waited until after the funds had been largely transferred before taking any action.

5. Regarding the fraud claim, the Commercial Standards Act Section 6 explicitly defines fraud as: "An intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation; and the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission."

This definition requires four distinct elements, and the plaintiff must prove all four to establish fraud:

1. An intentional or reckless misrepresentation - The Defendant made no false statements whatsoever. When executing trades through Vanguard's platform, he simply used the interface buttons and functions provided to all users, employing unorthodox yet legitimate trading strategies. The system itself processed and approved each transaction. If Vanguard's system permitted these trading activities, this represents a system design issue that the Defendant strategically utilized, not a misrepresentation by the Defendant.
   
   
2. Of an important fact - Even if we were to accept, for argument's sake, that there was some implicit representation about share ownership in each trade, Vanguard's own database contained the definitive record of the Defendant's holdings. Vanguard had perfect information about exactly how many shares the Defendant owned at any given moment. They cannot claim to have been misled about facts that existed in their own records.
   
   
3. Justifiable reliance by the victim - This element is perhaps most clearly absent. Vanguard cannot claim to have justifiably relied on any implied representation when they maintained the authoritative database of all user holdings. As the system operator, they had both the means and responsibility to verify share ownership before executing trades. It is a fundamental principle of fraud law that a party cannot justifiably rely on representations about facts they themselves are in a superior position to verify.
   
   
4. Actual damages resulting from that misrepresentation - While Vanguard may have suffered financial consequences, these resulted from their own system design failures rather than from any misrepresentation by the Defendant. Their system should have had safeguards to prevent transactions that exceeded a user's holdings - a standard feature in properly designed trading platforms.

The Defendant made no misrepresentations whatsoever. All trades were conducted openly through Vanguard's own system, using the exact functionality they provided to all users. There was no deception, no false statements, and no withholding of material information. The Defendant simply used the system as it was designed and as it functioned.

The plaintiff may attempt to characterize the Defendant's trading as "Securities Fraud" under Section 8 of the Commercial Standards Act. However, none of the defined types of securities fraud apply here. This was not insider trading—the Defendant possessed no non-public information. It was not market manipulation—the Defendant had no responsibility for any company or asset values. It was not third-party misrepresentation—Defendant did not aid or abet any party in market manipulation. And it was not embezzlement—no assets were entrusted to the Defendant for conversion.

Your Honor, this case represents an attempt by Vanguard to shift responsibility for their own system's design onto a user who strategically utilized that system's mechanics. While the Defendant acknowledges employing unorthodox trading strategies to maximize profits, these actions do not constitute fraud or breach of contract. We submit:

1. No valid contract was formed due to the lack of signature required by Vanguard's own Terms
2. The contradictory methods of acceptance fail to meet the standards set by the Contracts Act
3. Defendant's trading activities did not violate the specifically prohibited conduct in the Terms
4. Vanguard had a contractual remedy they chose not to exercise
5. No misrepresentation occurred that would constitute fraud under the Commercial Standards Act

 

[Vernicia]

Motion

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

Justification for Motion

The Defendant respectfully moves this Court to strike all instances of the word "fraud" (or variations thereof) as used by the Plaintiff, Dartanboy, in the case of Vanguard & Co v Naezaratheus. The justification for this motion is as follows:

1. Presumption of Innocence: The Defendant, Naezaratheus, is presumed innocent of any criminal wrongdoing until proven guilty in a court of law.

2. Prejudicial Language: The repeated use of the term "fraud" by the Plaintiff is prejudicial and could unduly influence the Court's judgment before all evidence has been presented and a determination of facts has been made.

3. Lack of Criminal Conviction: There is no indication that the Defendant has been criminally convicted of fraud. Therefore, the use of this term is an unsubstantiated allegation rather than an established fact.

4. Scandalous Language: The use of the term "fraud," without a criminal conviction, could be considered scandalous and impertinent, as it unfairly tarnishes the Defendant's reputation.

 

[Dartanboy]

Motion

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

Justification for Motion

The Defendant respectfully moves this Court to strike all instances of the word "fraud" (or variations thereof) as used by the Plaintiff, Dartanboy, in the case of Vanguard & Co v Naezaratheus. The justification for this motion is as follows:

1. Presumption of Innocence: The Defendant, Naezaratheus, is presumed innocent of any criminal wrongdoing until proven guilty in a court of law.

2. Prejudicial Language: The repeated use of the term "fraud" by the Plaintiff is prejudicial and could unduly influence the Court's judgment before all evidence has been presented and a determination of facts has been made.

3. Lack of Criminal Conviction: There is no indication that the Defendant has been criminally convicted of fraud. Therefore, the use of this term is an unsubstantiated allegation rather than an established fact.

4. Scandalous Language: The use of the term "fraud," without a criminal conviction, could be considered scandalous and impertinent, as it unfairly tarnishes the Defendant's reputation.

May we respond to this ridiculous motion, your honor?

 

[juniperfig]

May we respond to this ridiculous motion, your honor?

You may, but the insult was unnecessary. Any future attacks on opposing counsel will have you held in contempt.

 

[Dartanboy]

Motion

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

Justification for Motion

The Defendant respectfully moves this Court to strike all instances of the word "fraud" (or variations thereof) as used by the Plaintiff, Dartanboy, in the case of Vanguard & Co v Naezaratheus. The justification for this motion is as follows:

1. Presumption of Innocence: The Defendant, Naezaratheus, is presumed innocent of any criminal wrongdoing until proven guilty in a court of law.

2. Prejudicial Language: The repeated use of the term "fraud" by the Plaintiff is prejudicial and could unduly influence the Court's judgment before all evidence has been presented and a determination of facts has been made.

3. Lack of Criminal Conviction: There is no indication that the Defendant has been criminally convicted of fraud. Therefore, the use of this term is an unsubstantiated allegation rather than an established fact.

4. Scandalous Language: The use of the term "fraud," without a criminal conviction, could be considered scandalous and impertinent, as it unfairly tarnishes the Defendant's reputation.

I apologize for the uncouth vocabulary, your honor, but Objections and aggressive Motions are harshly overused these days, and it drives me up a wall.

RESPONSE TO MOTION
1. On presumption of innocence: it is the court's job to presume innocence until shown otherwise, and it is my job to show the court how the Defendant has committed Fraud. As such, it would make no sense for the Plaintiff to be disallowed from using a word, especially when that word is the very action being alleged.

2. On prejudicial language: This goes hand-in-hand with number 1, of course the Plaintiff is using the term Fraud - the Plaintiff contends that the Defendant committed Fraud. Should Plaintiffs be barred from alleging anything ever? This notion does not hold.

3. On Lack of Criminal Conviction: This is a civil case; criminal conviction is largely irrelevant. Even if we assume it isn't, though, we could certainly allege that he should be criminally guilty, although we lack the power to prosecute.

4. On scandalous language: The Plaintiff contends that Naezaratheus committed Fraud on a massive scale, and that it is in-fact a scandal. Of course our language will reflect this.

To arbitrarily strike a specific word ("fraud") from case filings would be a wildly unfair action, removing one of the very core arguments of this case: that the Defendant committed Fraud.

The Plaintiff implores the court to consider the Constitutional Right to a Fair Trial and to uphold Common Sense and Reason before ruling on this motion.

 

[juniperfig]

Motion

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

Justification for Motion

The Defendant respectfully moves this Court to strike all instances of the word "fraud" (or variations thereof) as used by the Plaintiff, Dartanboy, in the case of Vanguard & Co v Naezaratheus. The justification for this motion is as follows:

1. Presumption of Innocence: The Defendant, Naezaratheus, is presumed innocent of any criminal wrongdoing until proven guilty in a court of law.

2. Prejudicial Language: The repeated use of the term "fraud" by the Plaintiff is prejudicial and could unduly influence the Court's judgment before all evidence has been presented and a determination of facts has been made.

3. Lack of Criminal Conviction: There is no indication that the Defendant has been criminally convicted of fraud. Therefore, the use of this term is an unsubstantiated allegation rather than an established fact.

4. Scandalous Language: The use of the term "fraud," without a criminal conviction, could be considered scandalous and impertinent, as it unfairly tarnishes the Defendant's reputation.

Denied. The use of “fraud” is not vague, scandalous, or inadmissible. It’s a legal claim the Court has been asked to evaluate. While the Defendant is presumed innocent of any criminal wrongdoing, they are being sued on the basis of fraud, which the Plaintiff is entitled to argue. Alleging fraud is not the same as declaring guilt — it is the reason the case exists, and it is entirely valid to include such language in civil filings.

 

[juniperfig]

As no witnesses have been requested, we will enter directly into closing statements.

The Plaintiff has 72 hours to submit their closing statement.