Lawsuit: Dismissed Vanguard & Co v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 49

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dartanboy

Dartanboy

Citizen
Supporter
3rd Anniversary Change Maker Popular in the Polls Legal Eagle
Dartanboy
Dartanboy
Attorney
Joined
May 10, 2022
Messages
1,634

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Department of Commerce has illegally seized Vanguard's assets, alleging illiquidity and an inability to pay back depositors. They immediately began attempting to forcibly liquidate assets and attempted to seize control of the entirety of Vanguard National Bank and Discover Bank.

These actions, if allowed to continue, will cause irreversible harm to the Plaintiff, in the form of forced liquidation of assets and an inability to operate the aforementioned banking institutions.

Thus, we ask that for the duration of this case:

  • All seized assets remain frozen
  • All seized businesses remain intact and non-dissolved
  • The seized businesses be permitted to continue day-to-day business operations



Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Vanguard & Co.
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Vanguard & Co - a popular and law-abiding finance and banking company - was performing business as usual when the Department of Commerce suddenly seized their two banking institutions, Vanguard National Bank and Discover Bank. These seizures, along with announcements and actions around it, have violated the rights of the Plaintiff, defamed the Plaintiff, and caused immense harm to the Plaintiff.

The egregious and outrageous actions made by the Commonwealth must be met with the swift action of justice.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. Vanguard & Co
2. Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. On May 15, 2025, at 10:39pm Central Time, the Department of Commerce announced a so-called Bank Holiday to prevent all banking activity for 36 hours [see Exhibit P-001].
2. On May 16, 2025, at 1:37am Central Time, the Department of Commerce lifted the so-called Bank Holiday and seized Vanguard National Bank and Discover Bank [see Exhibit P-002]. In the announcement of this, they made bold, false claims about Vanguard, including that the banks had “grave liquidity concerns” and “misrepresentation of financial statements” [see Exhibit P-002].
3. The Department of Commerce did not serve Vanguard a warrant nor did they properly initiate bankruptcy proceedings, and refused to mention it whenever confronted about it [see Exhibit P-003].
4. The Department of Commerce did not provide any evidence of insolvency until many hours later after arguing with Vanguard's lawyers, and even then, it was grossly insufficient and unconfirmed evidence provided by a 3rd party [see Exhibit P-004].
5. The Constitution gives every “citizen … the right to a … fair trial, presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them …” [see Constitution, Part IV, Section 9].
6. The Constitution gives every citizen the right to “life, liberty, and security of a person and not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice” [see Constitution, Part IV, Section 14].
7. The Constitution gives every citizen “the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure” [see Constitution, Part IV, Section 15].
8. The No More Defamation Act defines defamation as “Defamation is a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel and slander” libel as “A method of defamation expressed by documents, signs, published media, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business, profession or organization” [see Act of Congress - No More Defamation Act]
9. Public reaction to the announcement shows significant harm to Vanguard’s reputation [see Exhibit P-005].
10. The Government seized Vanguard’s in-game cash and assets on The Exchange [see Exhibit P-006, Exhibit P-007, Exhibit P-008, Exhibit P-009].

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Violation of the Right to a Fair Trial & Be Confronted With Evidence – By skipping any and all court proceedings and immediately seizing two banks without evidence to support their claims, Vanguard and its shareholders were denied the right to a Fair Trial and to be Confronted with the Evidence Against Them.
2. Violation of the Right to Life, Liberty, and Security – By seizing the life’s work of Nexalin and a significant amount of the shareholders’ interests, the security of these people was violated.
3. Violation of the Right to be Secure Against Unreasonable Seizure – By seizing the banks and millions of dollars worth of their assets without a warrant or court order, the Department of Commerce performed an Unreasonable Seizure.
4. Defamation (Libel) – The false statement declaring Vanguard’s illiquidity and misrepresentation of financial statements, and the illegal seizure of Vanguard’s banks, caused immense harm to Vanguard’s reputation.
5. Consequential Damages (Humiliation) – Vanguard has been disgraced, belittled, and made to look foolish by the Government creating a public spectacle of its seizure of Vanguard’s banks, and making bold, false claims that seriously negatively affected the bank’s reputation and operations.
6. Consequential Damages (Loss of Enjoyment) – Vanguard’s shareholders and Director have lost the ability to run the Vanguard banks, the very core of their gameplay for years.
7. Punitive Damages (Rights Violation 1) – Violating the Right to a Fair Trial is outrageous and warrants punitive damages.
8. Punitive Damages (Rights Violation 2) – Violating the Right to Life, Liberty, and Security is outrageous and warrants punitive damages.
9. Punitive Damages (Rights Violation 3) – Violating the Right to be Secure Against Unreasonable Seizure is outrageous and warrants punitive damages.
10. Punitive Damages (Defamation) – Defamation from Media Outlets is somewhat expected, albeit illegal, but from the Government, it is outrageous and warrants punitive damages.
11. Compensatory Damages (Seized Assets) – The seized assets are no longer able to accrue value through investment, creating compensatory damages.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. All seized businesses and assets be returned to the Plaintiff.
2. $1,000,000 for the immense reputational harm, likely to result in millions of deposits being withdrawn in a bank run.
3. $1,000,000 in Punitive Damages for violating the Right to a Fair Trial.
4. $1,000,000 in Punitive Damages for violating the Right to Life, Liberty, and Security.
5. $1,000,000 in Punitive Damages for violating the Right Against Unreasonable Seizure.
6. $50,000 in Humiliation Damages for creating a public spectacle of its seizure of Vanguard’s banks, and making bold, false claims that seriously negatively affected the bank’s reputation and operations (for some reason, $50k is the legal cap on this).
7. $50,000 for Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont for removing Vanguard’s shareholders’ and director’s way of life (again, for some reason $50k is the legal cap on this).
8. $1,000,000 in Punitive Damages for violating the No More Defamation Act and creating a public spectacle through its defamation of Vanguard.
9. $7,607,051.27 in Compensatory Damages (the value of the seized assets).
10. A public apology, detailing the illegal actions taken by the Government, clearing Vanguard of alleged wrongdoing, and explaining what steps the Department of Commerce will take to ensure they won’t seize businesses on made-up information in the future.
10. $3,812,115 (30% case value, rounded down to nearest dollar) in Legal Fees, payable to the in-game business JusticeCompass.

In Total:
1. All seized businesses and assets returned to the Plaintiff
2. $12,707,051.27 payable to Vanguard & Co.
3. A detailed public apology
4. $3,812,115 payable to Justice Compass, Ltd.

EVIDENCE
AD_4nXfKGXSgEmzqmbotuZa4ErP1E4vT7GT9gkM1vjjB_CBsMqkrJuN5bYmEHOGK56lNmExJd5m0RW3ZDo6sGxCYbXILgy9sxlogP7yZPwQYrpZbB_tOh_eRRmLPyaVjsi7IxF5qAUdXBA

AD_4nXfHKJfFcSTx04sXDXytx1ck_N7OS0sSOcroSdUzhMZd9TmpDVX3ej21iNo4z8XdxG8NvgiC6n14JGcvDoO7BRxtP-CqJjiiVTqSJZL9cHRFXCx1vq5JKSuHuKBC64mfRyye0YBnJA

AD_4nXesaP414vqCb_wcbvOQ6qMTUrYvfXSdFh05AP5q89YyteClo4IIfXrpjupJ2YJBlt1pyOup9lx3NsJ0NNE7D0x7ec7Erlg4ioNDb6unkWEH5XVBfNMkUjkE5Vte_QnWvs2LPLtlZQ

AD_4nXfCKcfE8-PXFGbx_FqkzVzdulh2OZhy_NZveT5fbyud-ja8ILauhxY3ZXEl--ioheJYXBFE_NtJhD8VUhghVouQg_IxcyBabgKzSq9xErFuvgEV768PG7gHbHDUmvCrUWOoDSd2BQ

AD_4nXfl6BR5Znh-Z7mJ41DOCYAtxdLbAKembcr2kjZaOP6p_fhOXOHC0TC1d--cHyR5oIUF_DOx97DN4psWmj6W4ew0uJnToF0wv9FaaXEcdI-TR9nDjfJEXUpOptNl4gz-2J_foZyQrw

AD_4nXdz16W4HCkshLbGhHdW4mAUUj55t1vlMzsIX3bqobv8PU_GRjp9eIpkbbBskqDXbN1TUIzls-48iAE0USuKAH-9Yx7WcjRq8nhugfRnt9p91jkPGO9mgI35DdENvKFSLWZQHyQbsA

AD_4nXfyD5_3Vi8FuXbYgkya8JSKjPo_W5iqNCW3FFUePRgi0J6FmFCpFg9hKjiASVWXmLYjyZfRV6haV_ZgpkjigFYzbR1byLM5tecR4OJULon51E6RBk0pCA5OPs9O_-PmGauWpQF17A

AD_4nXfGIL1ZqpzRjyoPbkWbOqk7uaEl3qcCVpFay-SMJ8QkKihNYb9uhXOXPKEhdtYx6QtOTIFIrT8OcV9FwjhddZyaus4qW3igSsVSzu7BnweGZFV1sQ5zT6VfOetsnH-J43WiLcofHg

AD_4nXePEhV32JFFNnuouRdUmcsNNEE9RYToqSjZ6gllUJB2V8n2QwRHWuJoPDEzhnKtRBWII160BzKT2GbtBNJ78H55aJSaDWTi7msDRmdStWHw0LhNfIb-YE93qy35v2wvwCNcW1kCgw

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 17th day of May 2025

 
Consent to Represent:
1747500552237.png


(Justice Compass is representing Vanguard. This includes Dartanboy, Ibney0, Ethamn, and Ameslap)
 
A Modified Emergency Injunction will be Granted

1. All seized assets of Vangard Co. remain frozen
2. All seized businesses remain intact and non-dissolved
3. All day to day business operations will be halted.

In essense, Vangaurd Co. will be completely frozen for the duration of this case in which both the government or Vangaurd itself cannot interact with any of the seized assests.
 

Writ of Summons


@juniperfig is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Vangaurd Co. v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 49

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.

 
The Commonwealth is present, your honour.
 

Answer to Complaint


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

Vanguard & Co.
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM DoC announced a Bank Holiday, DENY it prevented all banking activity.
2. AFFIRM DoC seized Vanguard National Bank and Discover Bank, AFFIRM DoC made claims of “grave liquidity concerns” and “misrepresentation of financial statements”, but DENY their falsehood.
3. AFFIRM Vanguard was not served a warrant or bankruptcy proceedings, but DENY refusing to discuss the topic.
4. AFFIRM evidence was provided later, DENY its insufficiency, NEITHER CONFIRM NOR DENY source of evidence
5. AFFIRM that this right is afforded to citizens
6. AFFIRM that this right is afforded to citizens
7. AFFIRM that this right is afforded to citizens.
8. AFFIRM content of the No More Defamation Act.
9. AFFIRM the public reacted to the DoC announcement, but DENY it caused significant harm to Vanguard reputation.
10. AFFIRM the DoC seized Vanguard National Bank’s & Discover Bank’s in-game cash assets, as well as Vanguard’s assets on The Exchange.


II. DEFENCES
1. Taxation Act gives broad power to the DOC to Commandeer, Seize, and Sell.
2. Judicial Standards Act Section 17- ‘The court may issue warrants - court orders that allow actions that would otherwise be unlawful’, It’s clear that a warrant was not required here because the action being taken was indeed lawful.
3. The executive does NOT require a warrant for tasks that are in line with their lawful duties and responsibilities.
4. Vanguard & Co is not a citizen and as such is not afforded rights that are granted to citizens - Constitution Part IV - Sections 9, 14, & 15
5. The Department of Commerce acted legally and within their authority to announce and make public circumstances that affect the population and more narrowly- depositors, about changes being enacted.
6. The statements made by the DOC were facts as they understand the situation.
7. It was not necessary to file bankruptcy proceedings in this instance, as the powers used here were outlined in the Taxation Act Section 8.1 for the purpose of protecting depositors of deposit-taking institutions.


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 19th day of May 2025

 
Dartanboy said:
EVIDENCE

AD_4nXesaP414vqCb_wcbvOQ6qMTUrYvfXSdFh05AP5q89YyteClo4IIfXrpjupJ2YJBlt1pyOup9lx3NsJ0NNE7D0x7ec7Erlg4ioNDb6unkWEH5XVBfNMkUjkE5Vte_QnWvs2LPLtlZQ

AD_4nXfCKcfE8-PXFGbx_FqkzVzdulh2OZhy_NZveT5fbyud-ja8ILauhxY3ZXEl--ioheJYXBFE_NtJhD8VUhghVouQg_IxcyBabgKzSq9xErFuvgEV768PG7gHbHDUmvCrUWOoDSd2BQ

AD_4nXfl6BR5Znh-Z7mJ41DOCYAtxdLbAKembcr2kjZaOP6p_fhOXOHC0TC1d--cHyR5oIUF_DOx97DN4psWmj6W4ew0uJnToF0wv9FaaXEcdI-TR9nDjfJEXUpOptNl4gz-2J_foZyQrw
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

P-005 was improperly filed. It includes multiple statements from multiple sources and lacks the surrounding context for many of those statements. Should the plaintiff wish to include these statements, they should be broken up and submitted individually to allow them to be addressed individually.

Under Court Rules and Procedures Rule 4.1 all material is intended to enable fairness and allow parties to view information so we may properly formulate legal arguments, this type of ‘image doctoring’ is not conducive to fairness.



Objection


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

P-003 only includes statements from the Plaintiff’s counsel and does not prove the point they’re intending to argue in their complaint. The screenshot only goes to show that the plaintiff said the word a few times, it doesn’t even make clear that the DOC had even seen these messages or responded in the ticket.



Objection


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

P-004 is a conversation between “Juniperfig” and the Plaintiff’s counsel- they cite this evidence as ‘The Department of Commerce’, but Juniperfig is not under the employ of the DoC.
It is unclear what this piece of evidence is intended to show.

 

Motion


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

The defence moves that this case should be dismissed under Rule 5.12, lack of personal jurisdiction, and Rule 5.5, lack of claim, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

Rule 5.12 of our Court Rules and Procedures establishes that in order to have personal jurisdiction, a case must have standing. Rule 2.1 establishes that in order to have standing, a plaintiff must show to the Court that “[t]he cause of injury was against the law.” Rule 5.5 establishes that the plaintiff must state a proper claim for relief, akin to a cause of action that creates controversy that merits hearing before the Court. No crime under our Commonwealth’s laws has been alleged by the plaintiff, and no genuine claim has been brought forward within this case.

I. Plaintiff’s main stated claims for relief are allegations of constitutional rights violations. To be clear, rights under our Constitution are provided explicitly to citizens of the Commonwealth, not to any legal entity:

“Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial… and to be confronted with the evidence against them…”
“Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person…”
“Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.”

In Bank and Trust of Redmont v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 8, the Supreme Court ruled that “a company does not have personhood and therefore does not have a constitutional right to protect themselves from unreasonable search or seizure.” It further established that “organizations such as banks are not considered citizens under the law.” While the Business Structuring Act provides that “[t]he firm is treated as a separate legal entity from its owners and managers,” this does not mean that businesses are somehow persons, much less citizens that are afforded constitutional rights.

As the plaintiff is a business, and therefore is not a citizen, claims of any supposed violation of its constitutional rights are invalid, as it has none.

II. Even surviving that, no claim for relief is generated by the government conducting its duties as directly prescribed by law. The Court is reminded that constitutional rights are “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law.” Each of the plaintiff’s claims for relief revolve around the seizure of Vanguard Private Bank and Discover Bank by the Department of Commerce. The DOC is expressly granted the ability to do this by § 8.(3).(c) of the Taxation Act:

“In extraordinary situations, the Department of Commerce has the power to commandeer and take temporary control of a financial institution. This authority is reserved for exceptional circumstances, such as insolvency, near insolvency, financial crises, or situations where the institution's continued operation poses a systemic risk to the financial system or depositors.”

Further, in the following subpart:

“The Department of Commerce may consider commercial remedies such as selling a collapsed bank (or parts of a collapsed bank) to other interested financial institutions/parties. This may only take place when it is in the best interests of the depositors. Additionally, the Department may seize the assets of Directors/Owners of the Financial Institutions (with the least required disturbance to their estate) to recover debts.”

This is not a power that calls for bankruptcy proceedings, or a court case. This is simply a regulatory power that the Department of Commerce is granted the ability to pursue. Further, the Department legally cannot provide information to justify the reasoning behind the seizure, because according to § 10.(3) of the Commercial Standards Act, “[t]he Department of Commerce must treat the data of Financial Institutions as commercial-in-confidence.” Congress is currently urgently considering a bill to change this law, but as it stood when the action was taken, financial data could not be publicly shared to justify the seizure of the bank.

If the plaintiff finds any of these laws to be unjust, they should work through their democratically elected representatives to have them amended or repealed. If the plaintiff insists that these powers granted to the Department of Commerce are unconstitutional, or that they are not “justified in a free and democratic society,” they should challenge the laws themselves in court to have them struck.

III. The plaintiff’s claim of defamation cannot be valid, because the only public statements made by the Department of Commerce were those strictly necessary in informing the public of the actions it has taken. Even if those actions were illegal, which they were not, the Department is required by its duty of care to inform the public of regulatory actions it has taken that affect the economy so broadly.

IV. The remainder of the plaintiff’s “claims for relief” are justifications for damages that create no claim on their own without a valid cause for action.

In order to have standing, a case must allege an illegal action. No illegal action has been alleged, because the Department of Commerce’s actions are directly made legal by the Taxation Act, and the plaintiff has no constitutional rights that they could allege to have been broken. No law has been cited that states that the Department cannot do what it has done, and the laws explicitly stating that the Department can do what it has done were omitted from the complaint.

Therefore, the defence respectfully requests that this case be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. Surviving that, the defence asks that those individual claims for relief which the court may find invalid be struck.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
asexualdinosaur said:

Objection​


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

P-005 was improperly filed. It includes multiple statements from multiple sources and lacks the surrounding context for many of those statements. Should the plaintiff wish to include these statements, they should be broken up and submitted individually to allow them to be addressed individually.

Under Court Rules and Procedures Rule 4.1 all material is intended to enable fairness and allow parties to view information so we may properly formulate legal arguments, this type of ‘image doctoring’ is not conducive to fairness.
Click to expand...
The images are not doctored. It is a collage of multiple images.
 
asexualdinosaur said:

Objection​


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

P-003 only includes statements from the Plaintiff’s counsel and does not prove the point they’re intending to argue in their complaint. The screenshot only goes to show that the plaintiff said the word a few times, it doesn’t even make clear that the DOC had even seen these messages or responded in the ticket.
Click to expand...
We are happy to provide additional evidence. Lack of additional evidence doesn't make this irrelevant.
 
asexualdinosaur said:

Objection​


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

P-004 is a conversation between “Juniperfig” and the Plaintiff’s counsel- they cite this evidence as ‘The Department of Commerce’, but Juniperfig is not under the employ of the DoC.
It is unclear what this piece of evidence is intended to show.
Click to expand...
Juniperfig is the Attorney General, and represents the Commonwealth, including the DoC, in all legal matters.

Is the DoJ actually arguing that the Attorney General was not acting on her official capacity in Vanguard's conversations in a DoC ticket?
 
Kaiserin_ said:

Motion


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

The defence moves that this case should be dismissed under Rule 5.12, lack of personal jurisdiction, and Rule 5.5, lack of claim, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

Rule 5.12 of our Court Rules and Procedures establishes that in order to have personal jurisdiction, a case must have standing. Rule 2.1 establishes that in order to have standing, a plaintiff must show to the Court that “[t]he cause of injury was against the law.” Rule 5.5 establishes that the plaintiff must state a proper claim for relief, akin to a cause of action that creates controversy that merits hearing before the Court. No crime under our Commonwealth’s laws has been alleged by the plaintiff, and no genuine claim has been brought forward within this case.

I. Plaintiff’s main stated claims for relief are allegations of constitutional rights violations. To be clear, rights under our Constitution are provided explicitly to citizens of the Commonwealth, not to any legal entity:

“Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial… and to be confronted with the evidence against them…”
“Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person…”
“Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.”

In Bank and Trust of Redmont v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 8, the Supreme Court ruled that “a company does not have personhood and therefore does not have a constitutional right to protect themselves from unreasonable search or seizure.” It further established that “organizations such as banks are not considered citizens under the law.” While the Business Structuring Act provides that “[t]he firm is treated as a separate legal entity from its owners and managers,” this does not mean that businesses are somehow persons, much less citizens that are afforded constitutional rights.

As the plaintiff is a business, and therefore is not a citizen, claims of any supposed violation of its constitutional rights are invalid, as it has none.

II. Even surviving that, no claim for relief is generated by the government conducting its duties as directly prescribed by law. The Court is reminded that constitutional rights are “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law.” Each of the plaintiff’s claims for relief revolve around the seizure of Vanguard Private Bank and Discover Bank by the Department of Commerce. The DOC is expressly granted the ability to do this by § 8.(3).(c) of the Taxation Act:

“In extraordinary situations, the Department of Commerce has the power to commandeer and take temporary control of a financial institution. This authority is reserved for exceptional circumstances, such as insolvency, near insolvency, financial crises, or situations where the institution's continued operation poses a systemic risk to the financial system or depositors.”

Further, in the following subpart:

“The Department of Commerce may consider commercial remedies such as selling a collapsed bank (or parts of a collapsed bank) to other interested financial institutions/parties. This may only take place when it is in the best interests of the depositors. Additionally, the Department may seize the assets of Directors/Owners of the Financial Institutions (with the least required disturbance to their estate) to recover debts.”

This is not a power that calls for bankruptcy proceedings, or a court case. This is simply a regulatory power that the Department of Commerce is granted the ability to pursue. Further, the Department legally cannot provide information to justify the reasoning behind the seizure, because according to § 10.(3) of the Commercial Standards Act, “[t]he Department of Commerce must treat the data of Financial Institutions as commercial-in-confidence.” Congress is currently urgently considering a bill to change this law, but as it stood when the action was taken, financial data could not be publicly shared to justify the seizure of the bank.

If the plaintiff finds any of these laws to be unjust, they should work through their democratically elected representatives to have them amended or repealed. If the plaintiff insists that these powers granted to the Department of Commerce are unconstitutional, or that they are not “justified in a free and democratic society,” they should challenge the laws themselves in court to have them struck.

III. The plaintiff’s claim of defamation cannot be valid, because the only public statements made by the Department of Commerce were those strictly necessary in informing the public of the actions it has taken. Even if those actions were illegal, which they were not, the Department is required by its duty of care to inform the public of regulatory actions it has taken that affect the economy so broadly.

IV. The remainder of the plaintiff’s “claims for relief” are justifications for damages that create no claim on their own without a valid cause for action.

In order to have standing, a case must allege an illegal action. No illegal action has been alleged, because the Department of Commerce’s actions are directly made legal by the Taxation Act, and the plaintiff has no constitutional rights that they could allege to have been broken. No law has been cited that states that the Department cannot do what it has done, and the laws explicitly stating that the Department can do what it has done were omitted from the complaint.

Therefore, the defence respectfully requests that this case be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. Surviving that, the defence asks that those individual claims for relief which the court may find invalid be struck.

Click to expand...
May we respond to the Motion to Dismiss, your Honor?
 
asexualdinosaur said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

P-005 was improperly filed. It includes multiple statements from multiple sources and lacks the surrounding context for many of those statements. Should the plaintiff wish to include these statements, they should be broken up and submitted individually to allow them to be addressed individually.

Under Court Rules and Procedures Rule 4.1 all material is intended to enable fairness and allow parties to view information so we may properly formulate legal arguments, this type of ‘image doctoring’ is not conducive to fairness.



Objection


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

P-003 only includes statements from the Plaintiff’s counsel and does not prove the point they’re intending to argue in their complaint. The screenshot only goes to show that the plaintiff said the word a few times, it doesn’t even make clear that the DOC had even seen these messages or responded in the ticket.



Objection


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

P-004 is a conversation between “Juniperfig” and the Plaintiff’s counsel- they cite this evidence as ‘The Department of Commerce’, but Juniperfig is not under the employ of the DoC.
It is unclear what this piece of evidence is intended to show.

Click to expand...
Objection #1 Improper Evidence
Sustained, please split up the collage so each component can be address individually throughout this case.

Objection #2 Relevance
Sustained, Please provide both sides of the conversation.

Objection #3 Relevence,
Overruled, Juniperfig was clearly representing the DOC and the commonwealth when communicating in a DOC ticket.
 

Response


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

ON THE FIRST POINT
The Defense's counsel appears to be deliberately misrepresenting both the arguments made by the Plaintiff as well as the precedent they have cited.

The Defense first alleges Lack of Standing, citing that Vanguard & Co is a business, not a citizen. The Plaintiff concurs that businesses are not citizen, however holds that businesses are run by citizens, are owned by citizens, employ citizens, and provide goods and/or services to citizens, and these citizens are all affected by the actions taken against Vanguard & Co in this case and thus, their rights were actually violated.

This is, actually, the stance the court took in [2021] SCR 8, as cited by the Plaintiff, and they simply cut off their quote. Here is a quote from the Plaintiff's Motion:

It further established that “organizations such as banks are not considered citizens under the law.”
Click to expand...
You'll notice they even ended this with a period, presumably to make it appear as a complete thought from the court, however, the quote, including additional context, is here:
organizations such as banks are not considered citizens under the law, however, seeing as organizations are run by people, citizens are still indirectly impacted by the regulations. Therefore organizations should be protected under the law
Click to expand...

As you can see, organizations are still protected under the rights which protect citizens, where violating them would also violate a citizen's rights.

ON THE SECOND POINT
The Defendant claims:
II. Even surviving that, no claim for relief is generated by the government conducting its duties as directly prescribed by law. The Court is reminded that constitutional rights are “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law.” Each of the plaintiff’s claims for relief revolve around the seizure of Vanguard Private Bank and Discover Bank by the Department of Commerce. The DOC is expressly granted the ability to do this by § 8.(3).(c) of the Taxation Act:

“In extraordinary situations, the Department of Commerce has the power to commandeer and take temporary control of a financial institution. This authority is reserved for exceptional circumstances, such as insolvency, near insolvency, financial crises, or situations where the institution's continued operation poses a systemic risk to the financial system or depositors.”

Further, in the following subpart:

“The Department of Commerce may consider commercial remedies such as selling a collapsed bank (or parts of a collapsed bank) to other interested financial institutions/parties. This may only take place when it is in the best interests of the depositors. Additionally, the Department may seize the assets of Directors/Owners of the Financial Institutions (with the least required disturbance to their estate) to recover debts.”

This is not a power that calls for bankruptcy proceedings, or a court case. This is simply a regulatory power that the Department of Commerce is granted the ability to pursue. Further, the Department legally cannot provide information to justify the reasoning behind the seizure, because according to § 10.(3) of the Commercial Standards Act, “[t]he Department of Commerce must treat the data of Financial Institutions as commercial-in-confidence.” Congress is currently urgently considering a bill to change this law, but as it stood when the action was taken, financial data could not be publicly shared to justify the seizure of the bank.

If the plaintiff finds any of these laws to be unjust, they should work through their democratically elected representatives to have them amended or repealed. If the plaintiff insists that these powers granted to the Department of Commerce are unconstitutional, or that they are not “justified in a free and democratic society,” they should challenge the laws themselves in court to have them struck.
Click to expand...

So first of all, the Defendant is making a defense, not a reason for dismissal. Their argument is that the seizure was legal. Ours is that it was not legal. Dismissing this case simply because the Defendant's interpretation of the law is different than ours would be a miscarriage of justice.

Regardless, even though the Taxation Act gives the Department of Commerce the power to "[commandeer] and take temporary control of a financial institution" with the stipulation that "This authority is reserved for exceptional circumstances, such as insolvency, near insolvency, financial crises, or situations where the institution's continued operation poses a systemic risk to the financial system or depositors," the Plaintiff would like to remind the court that the Commonwealth failed to provide any evidence that this was an "exceptional circumstance" and merely claimed that it was one.

Furthermore, this power is not unlimited, and must be tempered by the rights of the Constitution. Similarly, the Departments of Justice cannot simply look through the voting records or check animal kill logs without a warrant, even though they're tasked with "Investigating ... on behalf of the Federal Government." To suggest that a seizure of two entire businesses, and millions of dollars of assets is reasonable without any warrant or court order is reasonable is, frankly, absurd. Not to mention that on top of that, they didn't seem to even have any evidence except for a single, inaccurate spreadsheet, so even if a warrant wasn't required (which it is), this would certainly have been an unreasonable seizure as there was no evidence that it was a necessary action.

Following into this subpart:
The Department of Commerce may consider commercial remedies such as selling a collapsed bank (or parts of a collapsed bank) to other interested financial institutions/parties. This may only take place when it is in the best interests of the depositors. Additionally, the Department may seize the assets of Directors/Owners of the Financial Institutions (with the least required disturbance to their estate) to recover debts.
Click to expand...
the same concept applies - this power is not without limits, and must be reigned in by the Constitution.

We do not believe the laws themselves are unconstitutional, we believe that the Commonwealth has misinterpreted these laws as giving them unlimited, tyrannical power to seize banks.

ON THE THIRD POINT
The Defendant claims:
The plaintiff’s claim of defamation cannot be valid, because the only public statements made by the Department of Commerce were those strictly necessary in informing the public of the actions it has taken. Even if those actions were illegal, which they were not, the Department is required by its duty of care to inform the public of regulatory actions it has taken that affect the economy so broadly.
Click to expand...

Once again, this is a defense, not a reason for dismissal.

Secondly, as already established, the seizure itself was unconstitutional, and furthermore it was unfounded, and lacking evidence. The claims made were false and caused immense reputational harm. This is the very definition of defamation.

ON THE FOURTH POINT
The Defense claims:
The remainder of the plaintiff’s “claims for relief” are justifications for damages that create no claim on their own without a valid cause for action.

In order to have standing, a case must allege an illegal action. No illegal action has been alleged, because the Department of Commerce’s actions are directly made legal by the Taxation Act, and the plaintiff has no constitutional rights that they could allege to have been broken. No law has been cited that states that the Department cannot do what it has done, and the laws explicitly stating that the Department can do what it has done were omitted from the complaint.
Click to expand...

As established through the previous three points, we do have standing, and the actions taken by the Commonwealth were certainly illegal, and even egregious constitutional violations.

 
Kaiserin_ said:

Motion


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

The defence moves that this case should be dismissed under Rule 5.12, lack of personal jurisdiction, and Rule 5.5, lack of claim, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

Rule 5.12 of our Court Rules and Procedures establishes that in order to have personal jurisdiction, a case must have standing. Rule 2.1 establishes that in order to have standing, a plaintiff must show to the Court that “[t]he cause of injury was against the law.” Rule 5.5 establishes that the plaintiff must state a proper claim for relief, akin to a cause of action that creates controversy that merits hearing before the Court. No crime under our Commonwealth’s laws has been alleged by the plaintiff, and no genuine claim has been brought forward within this case.

I. Plaintiff’s main stated claims for relief are allegations of constitutional rights violations. To be clear, rights under our Constitution are provided explicitly to citizens of the Commonwealth, not to any legal entity:

“Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial… and to be confronted with the evidence against them…”
“Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person…”
“Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.”

In Bank and Trust of Redmont v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 8, the Supreme Court ruled that “a company does not have personhood and therefore does not have a constitutional right to protect themselves from unreasonable search or seizure.” It further established that “organizations such as banks are not considered citizens under the law.” While the Business Structuring Act provides that “[t]he firm is treated as a separate legal entity from its owners and managers,” this does not mean that businesses are somehow persons, much less citizens that are afforded constitutional rights.

As the plaintiff is a business, and therefore is not a citizen, claims of any supposed violation of its constitutional rights are invalid, as it has none.

II. Even surviving that, no claim for relief is generated by the government conducting its duties as directly prescribed by law. The Court is reminded that constitutional rights are “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law.” Each of the plaintiff’s claims for relief revolve around the seizure of Vanguard Private Bank and Discover Bank by the Department of Commerce. The DOC is expressly granted the ability to do this by § 8.(3).(c) of the Taxation Act:

“In extraordinary situations, the Department of Commerce has the power to commandeer and take temporary control of a financial institution. This authority is reserved for exceptional circumstances, such as insolvency, near insolvency, financial crises, or situations where the institution's continued operation poses a systemic risk to the financial system or depositors.”

Further, in the following subpart:

“The Department of Commerce may consider commercial remedies such as selling a collapsed bank (or parts of a collapsed bank) to other interested financial institutions/parties. This may only take place when it is in the best interests of the depositors. Additionally, the Department may seize the assets of Directors/Owners of the Financial Institutions (with the least required disturbance to their estate) to recover debts.”

This is not a power that calls for bankruptcy proceedings, or a court case. This is simply a regulatory power that the Department of Commerce is granted the ability to pursue. Further, the Department legally cannot provide information to justify the reasoning behind the seizure, because according to § 10.(3) of the Commercial Standards Act, “[t]he Department of Commerce must treat the data of Financial Institutions as commercial-in-confidence.” Congress is currently urgently considering a bill to change this law, but as it stood when the action was taken, financial data could not be publicly shared to justify the seizure of the bank.

If the plaintiff finds any of these laws to be unjust, they should work through their democratically elected representatives to have them amended or repealed. If the plaintiff insists that these powers granted to the Department of Commerce are unconstitutional, or that they are not “justified in a free and democratic society,” they should challenge the laws themselves in court to have them struck.

III. The plaintiff’s claim of defamation cannot be valid, because the only public statements made by the Department of Commerce were those strictly necessary in informing the public of the actions it has taken. Even if those actions were illegal, which they were not, the Department is required by its duty of care to inform the public of regulatory actions it has taken that affect the economy so broadly.

IV. The remainder of the plaintiff’s “claims for relief” are justifications for damages that create no claim on their own without a valid cause for action.

In order to have standing, a case must allege an illegal action. No illegal action has been alleged, because the Department of Commerce’s actions are directly made legal by the Taxation Act, and the plaintiff has no constitutional rights that they could allege to have been broken. No law has been cited that states that the Department cannot do what it has done, and the laws explicitly stating that the Department can do what it has done were omitted from the complaint.

Therefore, the defence respectfully requests that this case be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. Surviving that, the defence asks that those individual claims for relief which the court may find invalid be struck.

Click to expand...
Motion to dismiss denied

The Supreme Court in the very case you quoted gave protections to organizations as they are ran by citizens and any actions against them affects citizens. As for your other points, they are defenses for the legality of the DOC's actions which is the major fact being contested in this case, whether the DOC acted legally. It is not a valid reason to dismiss a case because one side contests that they acted legally.
 
Dartanboy said:

Objection


PERJURY

This quote is literally not found in that lawsuit. In fact, the words "person" and "personhood" are nowhere to be seen in it.

View attachment 55185

Click to expand...
Apologies for the misquote, your honour, it was the result of some miscommunication within Department of Justice internal chats. What I had thought was a direct quote was, in fact, a paraphrase. That is admittedly an embarrassing mistake, but does not constitute perjury, as it was not intended as a lie.
 
ko531 said:
3. All day to day business operations will be halted.

In essense, Vangaurd Co. will be completely frozen for the duration of this case in which both the government or Vangaurd itself cannot interact with any of the seized assests.
Click to expand...

Motion


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

Vanguard requests a slight modification to this ruling, which we believe further prevents harm.

Vanguard seeks permission to, of its own power and accord, liquidate some of its assets in preparation for the nearly inevitable bank run that will likely result from the Defendant's actions of defamation.

 
Dartanboy said:

Motion


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

Vanguard requests a slight modification to this ruling, which we believe further prevents harm.

Vanguard seeks permission to, of its own power and accord, liquidate some of its assets in preparation for the nearly inevitable bank run that will likely result from the Defendant's actions of defamation.

Click to expand...
Your honour, I request a response to this motion.
 
Dartanboy said:

Objection


PERJURY

This quote is literally not found in that lawsuit. In fact, the words "person" and "personhood" are nowhere to be seen in it.

View attachment 55185

Click to expand...
Objection granted

The statement will be struck for being factually incorrect but as there seems to be no intent to purposely deceive the court, no one will be charged with perjury.
 
ko531 said:
You may, you have 24 hours to do so.
Click to expand...

Motion


The Commonwealth respectfully opposes Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider the Emergency Injunction on the following grounds:

1) The Plaintiff lacks standing to request liquidation of assets currently under lawful seizure by the Department of Commerce pursuant to § 8.(3).(c) of the Taxation Act. The Emergency Injunction properly maintains the status quo by preserving the seized assets, pending judicial review.

2) The Plaintiff's request constitutes an improper attempt to circumvent the legislated seizure process. Granting this motion would effectively reverse the seizure prior to adjudication of its merits.

3) It’s important to note that the role of an emergency injunction is to prevent serious, unavoidable harm, as noted in the court orders thread, as well as being held by many judicial officers in the past.
Court Orders Guide
- `The goal of an emergency injunction is to prevent harm.`

Bank of Reveille v. Federal Reserve Bank 2025 [FCR 22]
In this case we see that the Judge makes extra note of the intent and use of an Emergency Injunction and considerations to be made.
`The movant has failed to demonstrate that that remedies sought by the preliminary injunction will prevent irreparable damage which can not later be remedied by a permanent injunction or a court order`

Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King 2023 [SCR 23]
‘When examining the issue of the emergency injunction, I am brought back to its basic premise, “The goal of an emergency injunction is to prevent harm” (see Guide - Court Orders Guide).’

In this particular case, the questions of harm reduction, what it means to prevent harm, and the balance of harm caused all come up.
`As a Justice, when reviewing an emergency injunction, we should do so on a prevention of harm basis of review only. There should be no indication of whether or not a defendant or party on the receiving end of an emergency injunction is actually guilty of the charges put forth.`

The Commonwealth has already affirmed the seizure in our answer - at this point the assets are the Government’s, not the Plaintiff’s. We urge the court to see how this would hurt the interests of depositors if Vanguard were able to liquidate assets under government control, and how it would harm the government’s interest of protecting depositors funds, which was partially the goal of the seizure in the first place.

The freezing of assets enables the court to properly review the situation, and allowing the assets to be liquidated at this time would harm depositors as well as the Commonwealth, and there would potentially be no remedy to liquidations after the fact.

 
Dartanboy said:

Motion


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

Vanguard requests a slight modification to this ruling, which we believe further prevents harm.

Vanguard seeks permission to, of its own power and accord, liquidate some of its assets in preparation for the nearly inevitable bank run that will likely result from the Defendant's actions of defamation.

Click to expand...
Motion to Reconsider denied

The Emergency Injunction is in place to protect both sides from furthering the other harm in their process to protect depositors in case they are found to be the winning party. If the Commonwealth is found to be correct in their stance, The assets requested to be liquidated aren't Vangaurds to liquidate. This case must be fully heard before any manipulation of assets can happen.
 
Your honor,

Apologies for speaking out of turn, but we'd like to request this case move forward to discovery or to clarify what's currently pending.

Thank you.
 
Sorry for the wait. We will now be entering discovery, discovery will last 5 days starting now
 
INTERROGATORY
The following interrogatory is submitted for the Commonwealth to respond to:
1. What evidence did the Commonwealth have that there was a financial crisis or other major problem that necessitated the seizure of Vanguard's banks?
2. Why didn't the Commonwealth serve Vanguard a warrant for this seizure?
3. Did the Commonwealth attempt to resolve the alleged issue through a course of action other than seizure of Vanguard's banks?
 
The Commonwealth would like to call the following witnesses:

xSyncx
Avaneesh2008
DonTrillions
supersuperking
 

Motion


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

The Court Rules clearly dictate:

Answers to Interrogatories must be made within 48 hours of being asked.
Click to expand...
(Rule 4.8)
and
A Motion to Dismiss may be submitted if a request made within the Discovery Rules (Rule 4 and all subsections) was not complied with.
Click to expand...
(Rule 5.13)

The equivalent to a Dismissal on the Plaintiff's side is a Default Judgement. As it has been More than 80 hours since interrogatories were asked, it is clear that the Defendant is not taking this case seriously, and should receive a Default Judgement.

 
Your Honor, the Defense respectfully requests 24 more hours to answer the Interrogatories asked by the Plaintiff and apologizes for the delay in doing so.
 
Dartanboy said:

Motion


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

The Court Rules clearly dictate:

(Rule 4.8)
and

(Rule 5.13)

The equivalent to a Dismissal on the Plaintiff's side is a Default Judgement. As it has been More than 80 hours since interrogatories were asked, it is clear that the Defendant is not taking this case seriously, and should receive a Default Judgement.

Click to expand...
Motion for Default Judgement denied.

This large of a case is not going to default judgement because of this little discovery infraction. The Commonwealth's request for an additional 24 hours to respond is granted
 
ko531 said:
Motion for Default Judgement denied.

This large of a case is not going to default judgement because of this little discovery infraction. The Commonwealth's request for an additional 24 hours to respond is granted
Click to expand...

Motion


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

Your honor, clearly this case is not a big deal to the Commonwealth, or they wouldn't be on day 4 out of 2 to respond to 3 questions.

Furthermore, the Court rules are clear, stating that answers  must be given in time (not should, MUST)

Surely, asking for an extension 32 hours after the deadline is not reasonable.

 
juniperfig said:
The Commonwealth would like to call the following witnesses:

xSyncx
Avaneesh2008
DonTrillions
supersuperking
Click to expand...

Objection


RELEVANCE

supersuperking is neither a DoC employee (based on the DC Discord) nor an employee of Vanguard.

We don't see the witness' relevance.

 
The defence introduces the following pieces of evidence in relation to Vanguard and Discover's financial situation at the time of seizure, as well as compliance with the DOC:
1000007488.png
1000007489.png
1000007490.png
1000007493.png
1000007495.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 1000007493.png
    1000007493.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 45
  • 1000007492.png
    1000007492.png
    98 KB · Views: 40
  • 1000007491.png
    1000007491.png
    113.3 KB · Views: 43
Dartanboy said:
INTERROGATORY
The following interrogatory is submitted for the Commonwealth to respond to:
1. What evidence did the Commonwealth have that there was a financial crisis or other major problem that necessitated the seizure of Vanguard's banks?
2. Why didn't the Commonwealth serve Vanguard a warrant for this seizure?
3. Did the Commonwealth attempt to resolve the alleged issue through a course of action other than seizure of Vanguard's banks?
Click to expand...
1. A plethora of evidence was available as to the insolvency of Vanguard's banks. Some has been introduced, and more is pending.
2. It was not necessary, as per the Taxation Act.
3. Yes.
 
Dartanboy said:

Objection


RELEVANCE

supersuperking is neither a DoC employee (based on the DC Discord) nor an employee of Vanguard.

We don't see the witness' relevance.

Click to expand...
Your honour, supersuperking was involved in the merger that was planned between Vanguard and Volt, which was later stopped by the DOJ. Souper can testify as to Vanguard and Discover's situation in the leadup to the seizure, as he very briefly owned them in that time period.
 
Dartanboy said:

Motion


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

Your honor, clearly this case is not a big deal to the Commonwealth, or they wouldn't be on day 4 out of 2 to respond to 3 questions.

Furthermore, the Court rules are clear, stating that answers  must be given in time (not should, MUST)

Surely, asking for an extension 32 hours after the deadline is not reasonable.

Click to expand...
Motion to Reconsider denied

The court rules are up to the discretion of the presiding officer. Additionally, the interrogation questions have now been answered. Allowing a case seeking 15 million dollars to go to default judgement because of the slightest violation of discovery rules (which has now been corrected to the best of the defenses abiliity) would be a major miscarry of justice for both sides.
 
Dartanboy said:

Objection


RELEVANCE

supersuperking is neither a DoC employee (based on the DC Discord) nor an employee of Vanguard.

We don't see the witness' relevance.

Click to expand...
Objection overruled

supersuperking seems to have valuable testimony to give for this case as he did (even though briefly) owned Vanguard.
 
Kaiserin_ said:
1. A plethora of evidence was available as to the insolvency of Vanguard's banks. Some has been introduced, and more is pending.
2. It was not necessary, as per the Taxation Act.
3. Yes.
Click to expand...
INTERROGATORY
4. What steps did the Commonwealth take to attempt to resolve the alleged issue through a course of action other than seizure of Vanguard's banks?
 
The Defense submits Exhibit P-010:
1748459486205.png
 
The Defense seeks to submit the balances of all users of Discover Bank and Vanguard National Bank, but recognizes this information is protected by the Privacy Act. We seek Closed Court to submit it.
 
Dartanboy said:
The Defense seeks to submit the balances of all users of Discover Bank and Vanguard National Bank, but recognizes this information is protected by the Privacy Act. We seek Closed Court to submit it.
Click to expand...
Close Court session is granted.
 
The Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint, adding:

Fact 11. The Commonwealth finally provided evidence (although the Plaintiff finds it incomplete and noncompelling) however they have done so long after the seizure and only after it was contested in court (see D-006).
 
Dartanboy said:
The Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint, adding:

Fact 11. The Commonwealth finally provided evidence (although the Plaintiff finds it incomplete and noncompelling) however they have done so long after the seizure and only after it was contested in court (see D-006).
Click to expand...
granted
 
Dartanboy said:
INTERROGATORY
4. What steps did the Commonwealth take to attempt to resolve the alleged issue through a course of action other than seizure of Vanguard's banks?
Click to expand...
The commonwealth regularly takes reports from financial institutions to keep track of tax reporting.
In part of these regular reports, the DOC has asked for clarification or clarified reports from Vanguard that had not been provided.
When Vanguard lost tax exemption status- there was an agreement for an audit of Vanguard that was not followed through prior to the seizure.
 
As discovery is now over, the plaintiff has 72 hours to provide their opening statements
 
ko531 said:
As discovery is now over, the plaintiff has 72 hours to provide their opening statements
Click to expand...
May we have an 36 hour extension due to IRL circumstances
 
ko531 said:
Objection #1 Improper Evidence
Sustained, please split up the collage so each component can be address individually throughout this case.

Objection #2 Relevance
Sustained, Please provide both sides of the conversation.
Click to expand...

My apologies for not adding these sooner. It is my mistake. But as the court ordered them to be entered, I must enter them:

11:
AD_4nXcK0NCWpe8jYsCuRiami9SXWoLsuZA4Rv23kOoNbi03O0H95rpAGK3a41YmLAW7GoWsbwKdkjT4cyYMWsiGLKAEY0-IlY-3CP7M1bMnQTDnyggWLp-JtchSn651hlVg5NUmd5XH2w

12:
AD_4nXcKkCWhM3nl1Qu_pf0maOI4IRp9s6oa8Tk4SQVbinQcNqw-Nii3BWpifryKSTQESDhxh6MLtLdj5M3RXV_uZWj3Y3n3sc81HSPLITu1nmbD_i0eScKE0hRjJTJouM3iflKiTkTbvQ

13:
AD_4nXdK5-ZQXD_HlRL4HaKMpZ3dGvqfU4SaUXyI1xl5Npb6I9_j1Yt3nMoFF8h0U5f2fcIUrhD5PMsNHS1QkuCINCQiJHmP9yPDJHnffcEvaZBQjPZ7w6lV_13LKyQx-aY4DIN7X34Onw

14:
AD_4nXeviuA72uuEkcvcMipw54Ze-STjEz98zoa1jDMjJ1wRj4tiWII1zEJz-cDtfqRmkfuIBapxRcUtSqUoPFKrryV1Omlc23NMs9s4jhswtMy037F5D3IF29wyDbkFwyraD-NJA_yrvA

15:
AD_4nXdOqOa_XpYqUl1JrdIPL8KEjix4-nYVJshaU4ClL6TNroXO6fmDBOCLGVQskS7qwU8e4KsKzSv3PGAOIAAppKfPYklFzqMg-OWqnQwq0g3TLIOju82XvvXyuHG0XSdKbTagGC4A

16:
AD_4nXeDIZeRxR-zXbfh6P5ANzHxe_eCUZNJrep87oAR_6tBNWc_EK9HBjysn_h-YYSHyg53bNsSiT2RWlKsjJ8pV5Pjo6CRuFurbk8zkRa58PWzt0MtOU6_VlMEHmeh60JBaoyuy2Vfrg

17:
AD_4nXdVyXC4Hy4f8cqlVenRS9EsQpj6S3vFbWcshSKYO5lZ3VPaG4JzcBQ8AP-Z2cShlinpJujL62pZWId7LTRaU6zimNms4L1_BQS9mbWmepJkeTfYSykGmAwvRSioaoCcq_IqYsZ_CA

18:
AD_4nXfygZmS6oBaAJYGiCRdD9hDpV03Eagp9ly9UVM4l6Qy4lw7tDcZiiCBElf1vq1rHByNRThd0ASjlYREvPSG6rpevCU68wZgE-krekeWyLbBPv2D4AzgCkIjZuMvNjWRyRPK0GUwQg

Tickets Dashboard

dashboard.tickets.bot dashboard.tickets.bot
 

Opening Statement


Introduction
Your honor,

I have no doubt the Commonwealth will provide lengthy arguments attempting to show how, through some misinterpretation of the Taxation Act, this seizure was somehow justified, but in reality this case is simple: The Commonwealth has frozen a business and seized millions of dollars worth of assets without cause, and without the authority to do so.

On The Facts
Most of the Facts in this case were agreed to by the Commonwealth, except for the following:

  • (Denied) The Bank Holiday prevented all banking activity
    • Without noting why they deny this fact, we assume it is because they allowed in-game ATMs to operate during the holiday. This is technically true but all other banking activity was prevented. This is a minor error in the wording of the complaint.
  • (Denied) The DoC’s claims of “grave liquidity concerns” and “misrepresentation of financial statements” were false
    • They provided no evidence to show that these statements were misrepresented, however, it is possible the DoC misunderstood them.
  • (Denied) The DoC refused to discuss the lack of warrant or bankruptcy proceedings.
    • As shown in Exhibit P-019, they frequently beat around the bush and pointed to the Taxation Act as if it somehow gave them the power to perform unreasonable seizures.
  • (Neither Confirmed Nor Denied) The source of the incomplete spreadsheet(s) they had.
    • It didn’t come from us, so it must have been a third party.
  • (Denied) the announcement caused significant harm to Vanguard’s reputation.
    • This is disproven by Exhibits P-011 through P-018 (originally P-005).

On The Constitution
The Constitution grants the following rights to Nexalin & Vanguard’s shareholders, and by extension to Vanguard itself (see [2021] SCR 8):
  • Right to a Fair Trial
  • Right to be Confronted with Evidence Against Them
  • Right to Understand the Cause and Nature of the Accusation
  • Right to Life, Liberty, and Security
  • Right to be Secure Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure

By seizing two entire banks and millions of dollars worth of assets, without providing evidence until after-the-fact (and insufficient evidence), and without taking us to court before doing so, the Commonwealth violated all of the above-listed rights.

On The Taxation Act
The Taxation Act does make the Department of Commerce the enforcer of financial laws, however they are not the interpreter. They lack the Constitutional Authority to decide when and where a financial institution has broken the law. This was clarified by the Learned and Honorable Former Justice BananaNova in [2022] FCR 97, where the court ruled:
It is written in the Constitution that the Executive branch “administers and enforces the law respectively, as written by the legislature and interpreted by the judiciary”
…
These two statements are written clearly for the intent to outline exactly what each branch may and may not do.
…
Thus, it is the opinion of the court that anything to the contrary of these two statements must pass by a Constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...

As we can see, for the Department of Commerce, part of the Executive Branch, to unilaterally decide that Vanguard had broken the law and seize their assets without serving a warrant, it is clear that they acted not only as the executor of the law, but as the interpreter of the law as well.

On The Commonwealth’s Evidence
While the Commonwealth has failed to show Vanguard’s assets as insufficient to pay depositors, even if they had this evidence (which they don’t, because it doesn’t exist) they still broke the law by becoming themselves the interpreter of the law, entirely side-stepping the courts and seizing millions of dollars in assets without a warrant.

Now, let’s look at their evidence. Exhibits D-001 and D-002 are financial statements of Vanguard National Bank and Discover Bank some time ago, not accurate to the time of seizure (Even in Exhibit D-006, they claim this data is at least “a few weeks” old). We would also note that due to a miscommunication, these sheets included both assets and liabilities in foreign nations as well as Redmont.

We would also like to note that “Cash Equivalents” would not show up as in-game cash and that roughly $10,000,000 of Vanguard’s cash was fraudulently stolen by Naezaratheus, and we are awaiting the return of that cash as we await a verdict in [2025] FCR 32.

On Defamation
As shown in Exhibit P-011 through P-018, it is clear the announcement made by Defendant damages Vanguard’s reputation. It is also clear through Exhibit P-10 that Vanguard is neither insolvent nor illiquid (noting there are no legislated or regulated reserve requirements, even a 1% reserve rate would be considered liquid enough in Redmont).

This shows all the necessary components of Defamation (falsehood, publicly stated, and damaging to reputation).

In Conclusion
The Commonwealth has no legs to stand on. They have decided that an action of enforcement granted to them by the Taxation Act has somehow also given them Judicial power. They have decided that a spreadsheet provided by a third party is somehow sufficient evidence to prove the insolvency and/or illiquidity of a business. They have violated the rights of Vanguard’s shareholders and customers.

This injustice cannot be permitted.

 
The defense has 72 hours to provide their opening statement
 
ko531 said:
The defense has 72 hours to provide their opening statement
Click to expand...
Your honor,

We're requesting a 12 hour extension for our opening, many apologies to the court for this delay.

Thank you.
 

Opening Statement



Good evening your honour, opposing counsel, and onlookers.

May it please the court,
If there is one thing that could be said of the plaintiff’s argument, it is that it is misguided. The plaintiff argues that the government exercising authority very clearly granted to the Department of Commerce is a breach of their constitutional rights. There is no misinterpretation here on the part of the Commonwealth - it is a simple, textual, and obvious reading of the law that grants the DOC broad authority to carry out actions such as the seizure of Vanguard’s banks.

The Authority to Seize
The Defence is quite honestly perplexed by the Plaintiff’s argument contained in the section “On the Taxation Act”, as it seems to be incomplete. Allow us to provide some illumination on a very crucial element that the Plaintiff has seemingly missed. § 8.(3).(c) and (d) of the Taxation Act reads as follows:

“(c) Commandeer: In extraordinary situations, the Department of Commerce has the power to commandeer and take temporary control of a financial institution. This authority is reserved for exceptional circumstances, such as insolvency, near insolvency, financial crises, or situations where the institution's continued operation poses a systemic risk to the financial system or depositors.
(d) Seizure and Sale. The Department of Commerce may consider commercial remedies such as selling a collapsed bank (or parts of a collapsed bank) to other interested financial institutions/parties. This may only take place when it is in the best interests of the depositors. Additionally, the Department may seize the assets of Directors/Owners of the Financial Institutions (with the least required disturbance to their estate) to recover debts.”
Click to expand...

There it is. The Department of Commerce has the power to commandeer and take temporary control of a financial institution. This takes place in cases of insolvency, near insolvency, or financial crises. The DOC may sell or seize the assets of collapsed banks if it is in the best interests of depositors, including the assets of directors and owners.

Thus, we have established that the seizure of Vanguard’s bank was very clearly lawful. These powers are broad and discretionary by nature, and that is no accident. Not only that, but they are “non-exhaustive”. The authors of the Taxation Act tell us precisely why such vast power is granted to the Department:

“(1) Historical events have proven that strong regulatory powers are necessary for the adequate protection of the depositors of deposit-taking institutions.”
Click to expand...

The Plaintiff may disagree politically with these broad, discretionary powers granted to the DOC, and that is their Tech-given right. The Commonwealth wholeheartedly encourages the Plaintiff to take this issue up with their representatives in the Congress. The Plaintiff may even contend that these provisions are unconstitutional in a way that is unjustified in a free and democratic society. If that is the case, the Plaintiff should challenge the Taxation Act itself in court. But the truth is that there is simply no room for this argument in this particular case - the seizure was lawful in accordance with the Taxation Act, and that is clear beyond doubt. If there is any restriction of constitutional rights, then it is prescribed by law, not created by the DOC’s actions.

The Power to Interpret
The precedent cited by the Plaintiff, that of [2022] FCR 97, is entirely inapplicable to the scenario at hand. The Plaintiff in that case alleges the unconstitutionality of a law itself, not of an action taken by a Department which enacts that law. Perhaps the Plaintiff in this case could allege that the laws on the books currently grant powers which breach the separation of powers - and perhaps that argument could be given some heed - but they simply have not alleged that. The content of this case is the allegation that the seizure of Vanguard’s banks, not the passing of the provisions of the current Taxation Act many moons ago, was unconstitutional. Unless the Plaintiff wishes to challenge the law in a different lawsuit, this precedent holds no relevance.

It is true that the Executive’s job is not to interpret the law - that is an authority granted to the Courts and the Courts alone. But how could a government possibly function without some discretion being applied to the law? The Executive departments must necessarily be able to read the law and undertake their duties without the consultation of the Courts at every given step. Must the Department of Justice consult the Courts before even opening an investigation on an individual when it is clear that there is potential injustice? Must the Department of Homeland Security consult the Courts before arresting someone for a summary charge of Murder? Must the Department of Construction and Transportation receive a warrant every time they evict a property? No - if any of these arguments were presented in Court, the alleger would be laughed out of the room. Why then must the Department of Commerce suddenly be required to consult the Courts in order to exercise the authority granted to it by the Taxation Act? A ruling in line with the thought presented by the Plaintiff would be entirely unreasonable, and would thoroughly cripple the ability of the government to do its job. The precedent would be earth-shattering not only for the Departments, but also for the Courts who would suddenly be required to weigh in on every single Departmental decision requiring even an ounce of interpretation of the law. It would be simply untenable.

Further, the Plaintiff mischaracterises the situation regarding the Vanguard seizure. The Plaintiff stated that “[the DOC lacks] the Constitutional Authority to decide when and where a financial institution has broken the law.” While this may be true - the DOC could not rule of its own accord that a financial institution had committed a crime - this is simply not what has occurred. Being insolvent is not a crime. It is simply a state of being that requires intervention on the part of the DOC in accordance with its lawful duties.

On the Evidence
We now turn to the justification for the DOC’s actions, but it is important to note that the discretion of whether or not a bank must be seized is placed almost entirely in the hands of the DOC. We touch on it to shatter the narrative that Vanguard’s seizure was somehow random, unreasonable, or without justifying evidence.

The Taxation Act is clear that the DOC’s extraordinary powers must come in cases of ”insolvency, near insolvency, financial crises, or situations where the institution's continued operation poses a systemic risk to the financial system or depositors”. Vanguard was insolvent or near-insolvent at the very least, and its continued operation posed a systemic risk to depositors.

The Plaintiff has repeatedly stated that the DOC failed to provide evidence of insolvency to the public to justify its actions as they occurred. I cannot state enough that it would have been unlawful for the Department to release any of this evidence prior to the passage of the Commercial Confidence Amendment Act. The Taxation Act dictated prior to that amendment that the information of financial institutions was to be treated as commercial-in-confidence, with no exceptions. The amendment was proposed to Congress by the Commerce Secretary as soon as the Vanguard situation became clear to the DOC, and it was passed by the Congress as quickly as possible, being placed under urgent consideration. As soon as it was passed, the DOC released a lengthy document outlining the insolvency, non-compliance, and systemic risks associated with Vanguard’s banks [D-006]. This included ineptitude in managing and accounting funds, unwillingness to cooperate with the DOC, incredibly low liquidity rates and very high numbers of deposits, and most concerningly, the use of foreign cash to support domestic deposits. We cannot stress enough that foreign nations are not recognised by Redmont, and cannot be, by staff decree. Money in CityRP, Stratham, or any other server might as well be monopoly money to the Redmont authorities, and cannot be included in estimates of liquidity.

The report created and published by the DOC is thirteen pages long, and contains more than enough details to justify the Department’s actions. We will not overstep the report by rehashing all of its contents, and we instead implore your honour to read it in its entirety, alongside pondering the other evidence provided by the Plaintiff. This should be more than sufficient in showing that Vanguard was insolvent or near-insolvent, and that its continued operation posed a systemic risk to depositors.

On Defamation
The claim of defamation baffles the defence. The actions taken by the DOC were legal, the information it stated was demonstrably true, and it divulged as much information as it could at every step of the way. Even if the actions were illegal, and even if the justification for them was untrue, the DOC still had a duty to inform the public of the actions they took and the reasoning used behind them. To claim that doing so was somehow a defamation on Vanguard’s reputation rather than a simple carrying out of a necessary duty is laughable.


On Damages
The damages alleged by the Plaintiff are likewise ridiculous. Sixteen million dollars is an amount so unfathomable for a court case that it shocks the conscience to even imagine requesting it. The primary account of the Redmont government currently holds $11.76 million, as of the writing of this statement. It should be excessively clear that no amount even approaching the requested figure could possibly be justified as compensation for any action. A full granting of these damages would put Redmont’s government into a massive deficit of over four million dollars, single handedly putting our nation in debt for the first time in living memory. The Plaintiff alleges one million dollars in damages for the violation of three separate constitutional rights, none of which occurred. The plaintiff alleges another million for “reputational harm”, which is not even a valid form of damages, and yet another million for the alleged violation of the No More Defamation Act, which would far exceed the damages of any prior defamation case. These numbers are seemingly pulled from the aether, and no attempt is made in either the initial complaint or the Plaintiff’s opening statement to justify them. It could be no clearer through this prayer for relief that this case is motivated by pure greed, not by a desire for justice.

In Conclusion,
This case is nothing more than a disagreement-turned-cash-grab. The Plaintiff has seemingly failed to read the relevant law, makes repeated allegations with no backing, and targets the government for doing nothing except that which it is lawfully and constitutionally required to do. This case is a ridiculous attempt at not only limiting the government’s power through misapplied principles, but also at engorging the Plaintiff to pull itself out of the financial vortex that it has placed itself in - that very financial vortex which necessitated the government’s actions.

As this trial continues, we will hear witness testimony which will speak to the necessity and legality of the DOC’s seizure of Vanguard’s banks. This will serve to even further disprove the ridiculous allegations brought against the government today.

Thank you for your time, and good night.

 
Kaiserin_ said:

Opening Statement



Good evening your honour, opposing counsel, and onlookers.

May it please the court,
If there is one thing that could be said of the plaintiff’s argument, it is that it is misguided. The plaintiff argues that the government exercising authority very clearly granted to the Department of Commerce is a breach of their constitutional rights. There is no misinterpretation here on the part of the Commonwealth - it is a simple, textual, and obvious reading of the law that grants the DOC broad authority to carry out actions such as the seizure of Vanguard’s banks.

The Authority to Seize
The Defence is quite honestly perplexed by the Plaintiff’s argument contained in the section “On the Taxation Act”, as it seems to be incomplete. Allow us to provide some illumination on a very crucial element that the Plaintiff has seemingly missed. § 8.(3).(c) and (d) of the Taxation Act reads as follows:



There it is. The Department of Commerce has the power to commandeer and take temporary control of a financial institution. This takes place in cases of insolvency, near insolvency, or financial crises. The DOC may sell or seize the assets of collapsed banks if it is in the best interests of depositors, including the assets of directors and owners.

Thus, we have established that the seizure of Vanguard’s bank was very clearly lawful. These powers are broad and discretionary by nature, and that is no accident. Not only that, but they are “non-exhaustive”. The authors of the Taxation Act tell us precisely why such vast power is granted to the Department:



The Plaintiff may disagree politically with these broad, discretionary powers granted to the DOC, and that is their Tech-given right. The Commonwealth wholeheartedly encourages the Plaintiff to take this issue up with their representatives in the Congress. The Plaintiff may even contend that these provisions are unconstitutional in a way that is unjustified in a free and democratic society. If that is the case, the Plaintiff should challenge the Taxation Act itself in court. But the truth is that there is simply no room for this argument in this particular case - the seizure was lawful in accordance with the Taxation Act, and that is clear beyond doubt. If there is any restriction of constitutional rights, then it is prescribed by law, not created by the DOC’s actions.

The Power to Interpret
The precedent cited by the Plaintiff, that of [2022] FCR 97, is entirely inapplicable to the scenario at hand. The Plaintiff in that case alleges the unconstitutionality of a law itself, not of an action taken by a Department which enacts that law. Perhaps the Plaintiff in this case could allege that the laws on the books currently grant powers which breach the separation of powers - and perhaps that argument could be given some heed - but they simply have not alleged that. The content of this case is the allegation that the seizure of Vanguard’s banks, not the passing of the provisions of the current Taxation Act many moons ago, was unconstitutional. Unless the Plaintiff wishes to challenge the law in a different lawsuit, this precedent holds no relevance.

It is true that the Executive’s job is not to interpret the law - that is an authority granted to the Courts and the Courts alone. But how could a government possibly function without some discretion being applied to the law? The Executive departments must necessarily be able to read the law and undertake their duties without the consultation of the Courts at every given step. Must the Department of Justice consult the Courts before even opening an investigation on an individual when it is clear that there is potential injustice? Must the Department of Homeland Security consult the Courts before arresting someone for a summary charge of Murder? Must the Department of Construction and Transportation receive a warrant every time they evict a property? No - if any of these arguments were presented in Court, the alleger would be laughed out of the room. Why then must the Department of Commerce suddenly be required to consult the Courts in order to exercise the authority granted to it by the Taxation Act? A ruling in line with the thought presented by the Plaintiff would be entirely unreasonable, and would thoroughly cripple the ability of the government to do its job. The precedent would be earth-shattering not only for the Departments, but also for the Courts who would suddenly be required to weigh in on every single Departmental decision requiring even an ounce of interpretation of the law. It would be simply untenable.

Further, the Plaintiff mischaracterises the situation regarding the Vanguard seizure. The Plaintiff stated that “[the DOC lacks] the Constitutional Authority to decide when and where a financial institution has broken the law.” While this may be true - the DOC could not rule of its own accord that a financial institution had committed a crime - this is simply not what has occurred. Being insolvent is not a crime. It is simply a state of being that requires intervention on the part of the DOC in accordance with its lawful duties.

On the Evidence
We now turn to the justification for the DOC’s actions, but it is important to note that the discretion of whether or not a bank must be seized is placed almost entirely in the hands of the DOC. We touch on it to shatter the narrative that Vanguard’s seizure was somehow random, unreasonable, or without justifying evidence.

The Taxation Act is clear that the DOC’s extraordinary powers must come in cases of ”insolvency, near insolvency, financial crises, or situations where the institution's continued operation poses a systemic risk to the financial system or depositors”. Vanguard was insolvent or near-insolvent at the very least, and its continued operation posed a systemic risk to depositors.

The Plaintiff has repeatedly stated that the DOC failed to provide evidence of insolvency to the public to justify its actions as they occurred. I cannot state enough that it would have been unlawful for the Department to release any of this evidence prior to the passage of the Commercial Confidence Amendment Act. The Taxation Act dictated prior to that amendment that the information of financial institutions was to be treated as commercial-in-confidence, with no exceptions. The amendment was proposed to Congress by the Commerce Secretary as soon as the Vanguard situation became clear to the DOC, and it was passed by the Congress as quickly as possible, being placed under urgent consideration. As soon as it was passed, the DOC released a lengthy document outlining the insolvency, non-compliance, and systemic risks associated with Vanguard’s banks [D-006]. This included ineptitude in managing and accounting funds, unwillingness to cooperate with the DOC, incredibly low liquidity rates and very high numbers of deposits, and most concerningly, the use of foreign cash to support domestic deposits. We cannot stress enough that foreign nations are not recognised by Redmont, and cannot be, by staff decree. Money in CityRP, Stratham, or any other server might as well be monopoly money to the Redmont authorities, and cannot be included in estimates of liquidity.

The report created and published by the DOC is thirteen pages long, and contains more than enough details to justify the Department’s actions. We will not overstep the report by rehashing all of its contents, and we instead implore your honour to read it in its entirety, alongside pondering the other evidence provided by the Plaintiff. This should be more than sufficient in showing that Vanguard was insolvent or near-insolvent, and that its continued operation posed a systemic risk to depositors.

On Defamation
The claim of defamation baffles the defence. The actions taken by the DOC were legal, the information it stated was demonstrably true, and it divulged as much information as it could at every step of the way. Even if the actions were illegal, and even if the justification for them was untrue, the DOC still had a duty to inform the public of the actions they took and the reasoning used behind them. To claim that doing so was somehow a defamation on Vanguard’s reputation rather than a simple carrying out of a necessary duty is laughable.


On Damages
The damages alleged by the Plaintiff are likewise ridiculous. Sixteen million dollars is an amount so unfathomable for a court case that it shocks the conscience to even imagine requesting it. The primary account of the Redmont government currently holds $11.76 million, as of the writing of this statement. It should be excessively clear that no amount even approaching the requested figure could possibly be justified as compensation for any action. A full granting of these damages would put Redmont’s government into a massive deficit of over four million dollars, single handedly putting our nation in debt for the first time in living memory. The Plaintiff alleges one million dollars in damages for the violation of three separate constitutional rights, none of which occurred. The plaintiff alleges another million for “reputational harm”, which is not even a valid form of damages, and yet another million for the alleged violation of the No More Defamation Act, which would far exceed the damages of any prior defamation case. These numbers are seemingly pulled from the aether, and no attempt is made in either the initial complaint or the Plaintiff’s opening statement to justify them. It could be no clearer through this prayer for relief that this case is motivated by pure greed, not by a desire for justice.

In Conclusion,
This case is nothing more than a disagreement-turned-cash-grab. The Plaintiff has seemingly failed to read the relevant law, makes repeated allegations with no backing, and targets the government for doing nothing except that which it is lawfully and constitutionally required to do. This case is a ridiculous attempt at not only limiting the government’s power through misapplied principles, but also at engorging the Plaintiff to pull itself out of the financial vortex that it has placed itself in - that very financial vortex which necessitated the government’s actions.

As this trial continues, we will hear witness testimony which will speak to the necessity and legality of the DOC’s seizure of Vanguard’s banks. This will serve to even further disprove the ridiculous allegations brought against the government today.

Thank you for your time, and good night.

Click to expand...

Objection


BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Commonwealth posted 4 hours after their already-extended deadline.

This is the 2nd time they've showed disregard for standard court procedures in this case.

EDIT: Nope, I'm just really bad at reading the time, I guess. Please overrule.

 
Last edited:
Dartanboy said:

Objection


BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Commonwealth posted 4 hours after their already-extended deadline.

This is the 2nd time they've showed disregard for standard court procedures in this case.

EDIT: Nope, I'm just really bad at reading the time, I guess. Please overrule.

Click to expand...
Overruled.

We will now be moving on to witness questioning. Witnesses will be summoned shortly
 

Writ of Summons


@xSyncx @supersuperking @Avaneesh2008 @DonTrillions are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Vangaurd Co. v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 49

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.

 
Present
 
Present
 
The Defense may question their witnesses. Please ask your questions in the next 24 hours. Wtinesses are expected to answer the questions within 24 hours of being asked.
 
xSyncx
1. Could you elaborate on the state of Vanguard's finances prior to the seizure?
2. How cooperative was Vanguard with the DOC in the leadup to the seizure?
3. Long-term, would you say that the seizure of Vanguard at the time it happened was a positive for the depositors?
4. Why?
5. Long-term, would you say that the seizure of Vanguard at the time it happened was a positive for the finance industry?
6. Why?

Avaneesh2008
1. To what extent were you involved in the Vanguard seizure?
2. In your opinion as DOC Deputy Secretary and the author of much of our financial legislation, do you believe that the DOC can seize banks assets without requiring a warrant or bankrupty proceedings?
3. Was the seizure in response to a crime committed by Vanguard?
4. Do you believe the Vanguard seizure was necessary?
5. Why?

DonTrillions
1. To what extent were you involved in the Vanguard seizure?
2. What initially provoked you to notify the government of Vanguard's situation?
3. Would you qualify Vanguard's situation prior to seizure as an emergency?
4. Why?

Souper
1. Who originally proposed the sale of Vanguard to Uffizi?
2. How quickly was the sale of Vanguard to Uffizi settled upon, once proposed?
3. Were you aware of Vanguard's financial situation prior to purchasing it?
4. Could you describe the state of Vanguard's finances during the brief period in which you owned if?
5. Could you explain what prompted you to plead guilty to monopolisation in Commonwealth v. Uffizi Holdings?
 
Kaiserin_ said:
1. Could you elaborate on the state of Vanguard's finances prior to the seizure?
Click to expand...

Objection


FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE

As the Commonwealth did not have a warrant, if the Secretary has knowledge of this he searched without a warrant.

 
Kaiserin_ said:
3. Long-term, would you say that the seizure of Vanguard at the time it happened was a positive for the depositors?
4. Why?
5. Long-term, would you say that the seizure of Vanguard at the time it happened was a positive for the finance industry?
6. Why?
Click to expand...

Objection


CALLS FOR CONCLUSION

These questions ask for opinions (e.g. whether something was a "positive" or good thing).

 
Kaiserin_ said:
2. What initially provoked you to notify the government of Vanguard's situation?
Click to expand...

Objection


ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Unless I missed something, there is no evidence DonTrillions reported Vanguard for anything.

 
Kaiserin_ said:
3. Would you qualify Vanguard's situation prior to seizure as an emergency?
4. Why?
Click to expand...

Objection


CALLS FOR CONCLUSION

These questions ask the witness for their opinion on whether something constituted an "emergency"

 
Dartanboy said:

Objection


FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE

As the Commonwealth did not have a warrant, if the Secretary has knowledge of this he searched without a warrant.

Click to expand...
The Commonwealth did have a warrant for the investigation of Vanguard, and did carry out an investigation. The DOC report contains information about both the process of how this investigation went, as well as information about the financial situation of Vanguard. We are simply asking for more targeted information. The Plaintiff's confusion arises from the fact that the DOC did not receive (or require) a warrant for the seizure itself.

Dartanboy said:

Objection


CALLS FOR CONCLUSION

These questions ask for opinions (e.g. whether something was a "positive" or good thing).

Click to expand...
Dartanboy said:

Objection


CALLS FOR CONCLUSION

These questions ask the witness for their opinion on whether something constituted an "emergency"

Click to expand...
These are expert witnesses who were also directly involved with the situation. Their insights are not unsubstantiated conclusions, but rather insights that carry real weight. Their perspective is invaluable to the Court.

Dartanboy said:

Objection


ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Unless I missed something, there is no evidence DonTrillions reported Vanguard for anything.

Click to expand...
The FRB Governor's response to the first question should clarify this. I ask both questions simultaneously to save time for the Court, but if your honour would find it more appropriate, I can wait to ask this question until we receive DonTrillions's response to the first question.
 
Dartanboy said:

Objection


FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE

As the Commonwealth did not have a warrant, if the Secretary has knowledge of this he searched without a warrant.

Click to expand...
Objection Overruled.

Section 4(2) of the Commercial Standards Act gives the DOC access to financial institutions accounts on request and Section 8(3)(a) of the Taxation Act gives the DOC Audit and Inspection Authority. As both do not require a warrant, the information would not have been aquired illegally. Besides there was a warrant for such information.
Dartanboy said:

Objection


CALLS FOR CONCLUSION

These questions ask for opinions (e.g. whether something was a "positive" or good thing).

Click to expand...
Objection Overruled.

Section 8(4)(d) (mislabled as 3 and not 4) Section of the Taxation Act clearly states that serizure and sale may only take place when it is "in the best interests of the depositors." This testimony speaks to whether or not this part of the law was being followed even though it is more opinion based.

Dartanboy said:

Objection


ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Unless I missed something, there is no evidence DonTrillions reported Vanguard for anything.

Click to expand...
Objection Overruled.

Im going to allow this question for now pending the answer to the first question asked to DonTrillions. Depending on the answer to that first question this objection can be refiled.
Dartanboy said:

Objection


CALLS FOR CONCLUSION

These questions ask the witness for their opinion on whether something constituted an "emergency"

Click to expand...
Objection Overruled

This goes to speak to the motivation of their actions and possibly the motivation of others actions depending on their involvement.
 
Your honor, Justice Compass will no longer be representing Vanguard as their retainer has expired.

I believe they still want to continue this case. I hope you will allow Vanguard time to find new counsel.
 
1. I was involved from the beginning in the seizure of Vanguard. I was one of the main people working on the investigation of Vanguard and its audit along with xSyncx and Truedarklander. I was also the main communication with courts and congress for the passing of the Warrant Fix Act and getting warrants for Vanguard.

2. Yes, I believe the DOC can seize banks assets without requiring a warrant or bankruptcy proceedings. The taxation act allows the DOC to commandeer, seize, and / or sell the bank if its in the best interest of depositors and if the bank is insolvent, near insolvent, in a financial crises, or in situations where the institution's continued operation poses a systemic risk to the financial system or depositors. These clauses dont require a warrant nor bankruptcy to seize the bank nor mention one needed at any point of the act. In addition, asset seizure warrants are only requested to seize assets "if an individual does not have sufficient monetary funds to pay an court order or unsettled fines" or "a government agency requires an asset to be transferred to itself within its lawful actions". While the latter applies to this case, this part of the act states that they "may request for a warrant or ask the DHS to do so on their behalf". This crucially states that it is the government agencies job to decide if a warrant is needed to do their lawful actions and as long as the action is lawful, it is not required to obtain a warrant.

3. No. (If this was supposed to have more to it, here it is) The seizure was partly in response to a crime committed by Vanguard. The main deciding factor was the concerning finances presented to us by Volt Bank after they backed out of the acquision of Vanguard. While its not a "crime" persay to be insolvent, it does allow for grounds for compliance action by the Department of Commerce per the Taxation Act. There was no crime committed by the plaintiff in regarding Vanguard to our knowledge.

4. Yes

5. Our number 1 concern regarding Vanguard's seizure was the possibility of Vanguard going insolvent, having a bank run and losing depositors money. Looking at the finances, around $14,055,008.28 of liquid and somewhat liquid assets, around ~$11.5 million in illiquid loans, and a handful of properties is far outnumbered by the $49,501,965 + additional Certificates of Deposits and banknotes in deposits as well as a possible claim by Blackbird Securities of ~$20,000,000. To put into perspective, the business structuring act defines one of the ways an institutions can be insolvent is if it has debts that is equal to or greater than 125% of assets. Even if we take it in Vanguard's favor (Illiquid assets count and blackbird's securities debt is disregarded), debts are still around 190% of assets. This is far above the limit defined in the bankruptcy act clearly showing this was an insolvent bank.
 
  1. Could you elaborate on the state of Vanguard's finances prior to the seizure?,
We found Vanguards finances to be concerning at the least. This much was clear since our initial discussions with Nex in March, particularly over the apparent disappearance of 14mil in equity that went reasonably unexplained by Nex (this was the thing he tried explaining away as a change in deposits).
  1. How cooperative was Vanguard with the DOC in the leadup to the seizure?,
Very poor. Nex agreed to co-operate as a condition of having his tax exemption initally returned after not reporting his finances to the DOC within the deadline. It was made clear that non-compliance would have the exemption taken away and the bank seized - Nex noted this. He remained surprised when served warrants for Vanguard information as part of the supporting audit.
  1. Long-term, would you say that the seizure of Vanguard at the time it happened was a positive for the depositors?,
Yes.
  1. Why?,
Vanguard was not only at risk of short-term failure, with only ~2-3million ingame supporting 60mil+ of deposits, but also long-term. Sourcing tens of millions of ingame cash to support existing and new deposits would be a miracle. If left by the DOC, the more unstable Vanguard would become, and the more the economy would be tied to them. Vanguards risk would only continue to expand.
  1. Long-term, would you say that the seizure of Vanguard at the time it happened was a positive for the finance industry?,
Yes.
  1. Why?,
Vanguard was the bank of choice for many people and organisations up until the seizure, namely the Exchange. Many other major banks also have significant exposure to Vanguard & Discover combined. The failure of the bank would be catastrophic to the finance industry. The best time to take action is as soon as possible, before more people are caught in the implosion.
 
Dartanboy said:
Your honor, Justice Compass will no longer be representing Vanguard as their retainer has expired.

I believe they still want to continue this case. I hope you will allow Vanguard time to find new counsel.
Click to expand...
Im giving Vangaurd Co 48 hours to find new representation or to inform the court of their progress.
 

Motion


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

The Defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed.

GROUNDS

On Friday 13th June, 7:39 PM (UTC+1), the Court was informed: "Justice Compass will no longer be representing Vanguard as their retainer has expired."

On Sunday 15th June, 5:33 PM (UTC+1), this Court ordered: "I'm giving Vanguard Co 48 hours to find new representation or to inform the court of their progress."

The 48-hour deadline expired on Tuesday 17th June, at 5:33 PM (UTC+1).

As of Tuesday, 7:00 PM (UTC+1), the Plaintiff has:

  1. Failed to obtain new counsel
  2. Failed to inform the Court of any progress
  3. Failed to communicate with the Court regarding compliance with the Court's order
The Plaintiff had 5 days to find new representation, and has failed to do so.

The Plaintiff has exceeded the 48 hours granted to obtain new counsel and has failed to inform the Court as ordered.

It is clear that the Plaintiff does not want to proceed with this case.


 
Last edited:
ToadKing said:

Motion


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

The Defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed.

GROUNDS

On Friday 13th June, 7:39 PM (UTC+1), the Court was informed: "Justice Compass will no longer be representing Vanguard as their retainer has expired."

On Sunday 15th June, 5:33 PM (UTC+1), this Court ordered: "I'm giving Vanguard Co 48 hours to find new representation or to inform the court of their progress."

The 48-hour deadline expired on Tuesday 17th June, at 5:33 PM (UTC+1).

As of Tuesday, 7:00 PM (UTC+1), the Plaintiff has:

  1. Failed to obtain new counsel
  2. Failed to inform the Court of any progress
  3. Failed to communicate with the Court regarding compliance with the Court's order
The Plaintiff had 5 days to find new representation, and has failed to do so.

The Plaintiff has exceeded the 48 hours granted to obtain new counsel and has failed to inform the Court as ordered.

It is clear that the Plaintiff does not want to proceed with this case.


Click to expand...
Motion to Dismiss granted.

As the Plaintiff lost their counsel and seems to be unresponsive towards the court, the court must infer that the plaintiff does not want to continue this case by their lack of participation. All freezes on Vanguard Co and their assets placed during this case are hereby lifted.

This case is dismissed without prejudice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top