Lawsuit: Dismissed xAntho_ny V. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 3

[dodrio3]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

xAntho_ny (Lovely Law Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On 3/01/2024 The Department of Commerce secretary sent a message stating “As you were a member of the Board of Directors during the collapse of Avalon, the Department will be attempting to seize your assets to repay depositors.” The secretary quotes the safer banking act where it states “DOC is able to seize Financial Institution and Director/Owner assets to recover the costs to depositors.” The secretary made one large mistake on this law as it states “Director/Owner '' The plaintiff was not an owner or director at the bank of Avalon; he served an advisory role on the Board of Directors. These proceedings caused a great deal of stress on the plaintiff where he even says “Stress and a Headache.” Government Departments shouldn't be putting anyone under this kind of stress when they don't even have legal justification to seize the assets.

I. PARTIES

1. xAntho_ny - Plaintiff
2. Commonwealth of Redmont - Defendant
3. Antilethal - Secretary of Commerce

II. FACTS

1. xAntho_ny served on the boards of directors at Avalon but did not own any shares of the company. (Exhibit A) (Exhibit B)
2. On 03/01/2024, the Secretary of Commerce, Antilethal, sent a threatening message to xAntho_ny. (Exhibit C)
3. Lovely Law made the Secretary of Commerce aware of their mistake on 03/01/2023 and provided evidence that xAntho_ny wasn't in an ownership position. (Exhibit D)
4. The following proceedings caused significant stress on the plaintiff. (Exhibit E)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Threat made by the Department of Commerce that isn't law-abiding.
2. Copious amounts of stress caused to xAntho_ny.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. $150,000 in punitive damages for the outrageous actions of the DOC.
2. $50,000 in emotional damages due to the large amounts of stress caused to xAntho_ny.
3. $50,000 for loss of enjoyment due to the large amounts of stress caused to xAntho_ny.
4. Disallow the DOC to seize any assets that belong to xAntho_ny
5. $50,000 In legal Fees paid to Lovely Law (20% of case Value)

Exhibit A:

Exhibit B:

Exhibit C:

Exhibit D:

Exhibit E:

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 07 day of 01 2024

 

[dodrio3]

Emergency Injunction

Due to the harm that a seizure of assets could harm xAntho_ny ability to make profits, we ask that the court grant this emergency injunction to

• Order the DOC to not seize any of xAntho_ny properties
• Order the DOC to not seize xAntho_ny Balance
• Order the DOC to not seize any of xAntho_ny bank account balance

 

[Neemfy]

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 xAntho_ny 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.​

 

[dodrio3]

You're Honour,

We are still awaiting a response on the emergency Injunction.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

I will be representing the State in this matter on behalf of the Department of Legal Affairs.

The State would like a chance to respond to the Emergency Injunction request if you will allow us to.

 

[Neemfy]

Apologies, the Emergency Injunction is granted. The DOC may not seize any of xAntho_ny's properties, balance, or bank account balance.

 

[Nacho]

Apologies, the Emergency Injunction is granted. The DOC may not seize any of xAntho_ny's properties, balance, or bank account balance.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Reconsider

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth requested a slight modification to this emergency injunction. We respect the request by the plaintiff; however, we also wish for the court to take into consideration that the individual was, in fact, a managing director within the institution he is currently suing over for being a part of a compliance push by the DOC.

The Commonwealth wishes to enter two requests and let your Honor choose one or reject both because, let's be honest, options are always nice to have when deciding one's fate.

Option 1 - Freeze the Plaintiff's assets to prevent the sale, pay, or transfer of assets to other individuals for the duration of this case. As the government is currently pursuing debt mitigation efforts for the failed institution the Plaintiff assisted in managing.

Option 2 - Order the Plaintiff to provide the court a list of assets to be held in reserve for the case is decided in favor of the Commonwealth; we are awarded the ability to collect assets as needed.

Option 3 - Reject this motion to consider and inform me to respectfully pound sand and cry myself to sleep.

DATED: This 11 day of January 2024

 

[dodrio3]

Objection Perjury

The defence contends that the plaintiff was the "managing director"; however, evidence presented in court reveals that the Commonwealth of Redmont is aware of his position on the board of directors, and that he is not a "managing director.”

 

[Nacho]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff is grasping at straws to make this make sense, but in reality, the objection makes no sense. The Plaintiff has presented to the court that the plaintiff selected an emoji indicating they wished to remain on the 'Board of Directors', indicating that the Plaintiff was a member of the management board. Resulting in our comment stating that being a managing director is factual.

The Board of Directors is a management body in charge of dictating the direction and operation of companies. They operate as advisors and managers of a business. If we break it further down to technicalities, a different form of phrases could be used. However, the Plaintiff's business wished to label the entity as 'Board of Directors.' The official title and semantics in which the plaintiff's council wishes to play are a waste of this court time.

I attached a screenshot definition of 'Board of Directors'

DATED: This 12 day of January 2024

 

[Neemfy]

I will be rejecting the Motion to Reconsider.

The plaintiff's objection is overruled.

The Defendant still has to post an Answer to Complaint.

 

[Nacho]

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

xAntho_ny (Lovely Law Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Affirms - Facts 1
2. Disputes - Facts 2-4
3. Disputes - Claim for relief 1-2


II. DEFENCES
1. The Department of Commerce is awarded the ability to ensure accountability and compliance with regulations established by Congress. In this instance, it's clear that's all a message being sent to a member of the board of directors for a Bank that is being seized and claiming insurance claims for account holders in which the Plaintiff has failed to uphold their fiduciary responsibility as a member of the board of directors to do.

The Plaintiff wishes to make it appear that the position of 'director' and 'owner' is exclusive to those specific titles and can only be held by one individual. However, the difference between the two is relatively simple: corporate structure indicates an 'owner' is the sole owner of a company with sub-members of management below them. The' Director' title indicates a board or group of individuals collectively managing an entity. In this instance, it would be a Bank.

2. Anyone can state they have stress in any situation. However, the Plaintiff sent their client a simple message asking if they felt stressed. Just because an individual says they are stressed doesn't mean they are stressed. It's clear to the defense that it's a staged message one intended to merely exploit the commonwealth for money based on a non-issue item.

3. The Plaintiff declares that the notice and request of information issued by the Department of Commerce does not comply with current legislation. However, current law supports this notice of compliance being held to the Department of Commerce to enforce these regulations and insurance claims to members of failed financial institutions as outlined within Section 4(2.c) of the 'Financial Institution Tax Act.' The stipulations clearly outline that the department is attempting to collect the debts owed by the bank to its depositors.

Note: The Defense has evidence for the case but wishes to submit it only within discovery.

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 12th day of January 2024

 

[Neemfy]

Thank you, Nacho. We will now move onto the Discovery phase. Both the plaintiff and the defendant have 7 days to provide any evidence and a list of witnesses.

 

[Nacho]

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. Claims for relief 1 - Violation Rule Rule 5.14 - The plaintiff contradicts themselves in their filing, indicating that the notice given by the department is illegal. Under section 4(2.c) of the 'Financial Institutions Tax Act,' the Department of Commerce is provided the power to seize assets of collapsed financial institutions' Directors / Owners.
2. Rule 2.1 - The Plaintiff has failed to provide reasonable standing for the case filing. They have indicated the Commonwealth has violated the law but have not quoted any section of the law in which the Commonwealth has violated it.
3. Rule 3.1 - The Plaintiff has failed to follow the specified formatting in order to file a court case within the Federal Court. The format requires that they specify which laws were broken and how.
4. Rule 5.7 - The Plaintiff has failed to list all appropriate parties within the Case. As the Plaintiff was acting as an agent of Avalon, the Plaintiff is required also to list the employer as a party. The notice was delivered to him within his official capacity as a member of the Board of Directors.
5. Rule 5.14 - The Plaintiff has declared that a threatening message was sent to the plaintiff by antilethal and declared they provided evidence proving this. (Exhibit C) however, the evidence does not include who sent the message and coincidently cuts off the discord profile of who sent the message. The plaintiff appears to have intentionally avoided showing the discord account as, within exhibit D, it displays a discord user as what appears as the sender of a message.

DATED: This 18th day of January 2024

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

The defense would like to call the following individuals as witnesses in the following capacity.

Witnesses
1. antilethal - Former DOC Secretary
2. xAntho_ny - Plaintiff
3. V__D - Chairmen Board of Directors Avalon

The Defense would also like to request the following information in accordance with our right within Discovery and requests that the court subpoena the information from Avalon (V__D) and the Plaintiff.

Document Acquisition
1. All messages submitted by the plaintiff within any Avalon channel be subpoenaed and provided to the court. If the discussions have sensitive information, we would like to ask that these documents be submitted within the closed court.
2. Any and all financial statements that Avalon has provided the plaintiff in terms of employment payments/compensation packaged.

 

[Nacho]

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. Claims for relief 1 - Violation Rule Rule 5.14 - The plaintiff contradicts themselves in their filing, indicating that the notice given by the department is illegal. Under section 4(2.c) of the 'Financial Institutions Tax Act,' the Department of Commerce is provided the power to seize assets of collapsed financial institutions' Directors / Owners.
2. Rule 2.1 - The Plaintiff has failed to provide reasonable standing for the case filing. They have indicated the Commonwealth has violated the law but have not quoted any section of the law in which the Commonwealth has violated it.
3. Rule 3.1 - The Plaintiff has failed to follow the specified formatting in order to file a court case within the Federal Court. The format requires that they specify which laws were broken and how.
4. Rule 5.7 - The Plaintiff has failed to list all appropriate parties within the Case. As the Plaintiff was acting as an agent of Avalon, the Plaintiff is required also to list the employer as a party. The notice was delivered to him within his official capacity as a member of the Board of Directors.
5. Rule 5.14 - The Plaintiff has declared that a threatening message was sent to the plaintiff by antilethal and declared they provided evidence proving this. (Exhibit C) however, the evidence does not include who sent the message and coincidently cuts off the discord profile of who sent the message. The plaintiff appears to have intentionally avoided showing the discord account as, within exhibit D, it displays a discord user as what appears as the sender of a message.

DATED: This 18th day of January 2024

Note: I have updated a few wording mistakes from council to plaintiff and wish to notify the court I did update this post.

 

[Neemfy]

The Motion to Dismiss is rejected. Witness summons will be issued shortly.

 

[Neemfy]

I would like to rescind my previous statement about witness summons as it was in error.

The Plaintiff, in accordance with the rules of Discovery, is hereby ordered to provide all messages they have submitted within any Avalon channel, and to report on any financial statements that Avalon has provided them in terms of employment payments and compensation packages. If any of these are to be considered confidential or have sensitive information, the plaintiff may request they be provided in a closed court setting.

 

[dodrio3]

Your Honour, The Plaintiff no longer has access to the requested channels and wished for it to be posted within a close court setting should they be obtained

 

[dodrio3]

The Plaintiff Wishes to put this case into recess for 1 week while negotiations are going on to resolve this matter out of court.

 

[dodrio3]

The Plaintiff Wishes to Dismiss this case as negations have been successful.

 

[Neemfy]

Case dismissed at the request of the plaintiff.