Lawsuit: Dismissed Gnomewhisperer and GnomeCorp v Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 47

Motion

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

The Plaintiff doesn't quite understand the Court's method for coming to the conclusion that the two would give similar testimony. Dearev is presently leading the RBI, while Stoppers is on the FRB; the two could provide different perspectives depending on their own executive agencies' contributions to this decision-making process.

Motion

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

The Plaintiff seeks to amend Interrogatories 3-5 to read as follows:

• 3. Yes or no:
  • Is the Department of Commerce, under the laws of the Commonwealth of Redmont and the Constitution thereof, explicitly granted the power to mandate bank holidays?
• 4. Yes or no:
  • When evaluating whether or not to deny that Gnomewhisperer and Gnomecorp each held accounts at financial institution Volt during the so-called ‘bank holiday’, did the Commonwealth, Attorney General, or any DOJ employee acting on behalf of the Commonwealth or Attorney, obtain information regarding the existence of GnomeWhisperer's account there?
• 5. Yes or no:
  • Has, at any time following the initial public announcement of the so-called "bank holiday", the Commonwealth accessed private information about GnomeWhisperer's finances without the use of a valid subpoena, court order, nor warrant?

Motion

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

The defense objects to the calling of xEndeavour (the author of the Taxation Act) as a witness to testify to the supposed intent behind the legislation. The Redmont Constitution is clear: it is the role of the judiciary to “interpret the law as written by the legislature and administered by the Executive.” The subjective intent of a legislator is legally irrelevant. Judicial interpretation must rest on the plain meaning of the enacted text, not the personal views or after-the-fact explanations of its drafters. To admit such testimony would undermine the separation of powers and invite speculation in place of legal analysis. It should also be noted that the Taxation Act was not exclusively xEndeavour's work, like many Acts of Congress they are collaborative efforts with different intents. Should the drafters have wished for their intent to be known, then the bill itself should include a section that could be used to communicate intent. In the reasons section of the Taxation act, which is used to clarify intent, clarification over the powers of the DOC is not present.

Motion

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

I misread question 5. I'd like to amend my answer from "No" to "Yes".

Motion

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

It appears that Plura's post has been summarily deleted after this motion was filed, instead of being marked as stricken. So that I don't look crazy, for posterity's sake, I move to withdraw the aforementioned motion by striking.

Motion

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

Consistent with Rule 3.3 (Amendment to Complaint), which states:

At anytime during the course of discovery, the plaintiff (or prosecution) may amend their Complaint to change the following:

1. Parties
2. Facts
3. Claims for Relief
4. Prayer for Relief

Click to expand...

• Vernicia

Spoiler: Proof of agreement to represent Vernicia

• 23. The threats of fines and sanctions deprived the Plaintiff of certain liberties – including the liberty to receive funds – under purported penalty of law.
• 24. The threat of fines and sanctions placed an undue burden on the liberty and security of the Plaintiffs without due process of law.
• 25. On the UTC morning of 28 May 2025, Your Honor ruled that Attorney General would be charged with perjury for actions that occurred in closed court during this case’s discovery period.
• 26. Prior to the issuance of a summons in this case, the Attorney General had obtained the account balances of Plaintiffs’ Volt accounts.
• 27. No warrant, subpoena, or court order was issued to obtain these account balances.
• 28. As such, the Attorney General and/or designated attorneys of the Commonwealth made numerous filings in this case with knowledge of the Plaintiff’s balances, which were obtained by the Commonwealth without a warrant, without a subpoena, and without a court order.
• 29. The defendant has a fundamental right to privacy under the Constitution and this court’s precedents.
• 30. Under this Court’s precedents, and Your Honor’s open court rulings in this case, a reasonable expectation of privacy exists with respect to bank account balances.
• 31. Instead of seeking any of a warrant, subpoena, or court order, the Attorney General sent messages to a group containing at least one other Commonwealth employee and at least two Volt Employees – Government Employee 1 and Volt Employee 2 (see: Evidence P-011, and generally Plaintiff’s filings in closed court).
• 32. Government Employee 1 is a member of the Federal Reserve Bank, which has substantial supervisory authority over banks.
• 33. Government Employee 1 is also an Employee of Volt, where Government Employee 1 exhibits significant decision-making power.
• 34. Volt Employee 2 is an employee of Volt who does not hold a position in the executive branch of government.
• 35. The true identities of Government Employee 1 and Volt Employee 2 are known to the Commonwealth.
• 36. To obtain the account balances of Plaintiffs, the Attorney General told Government Employee 1 and Volt Employee 2 that it was necessary for the government to obtain the account balances.
• 37. Government Employee 1, after seeing this message, pinged Volt Employee 2.
• 38. Volt Employee 2 replied to Government Employee 1’s ping with a saluting emoji.
• 39. Then, Volt Employee 2 replied to the Attorney General’s request, providing Commonwealth with Plaintiff’s account balance information.
• 40. In this process, the Attorney General and Government Employee 1 did indeed cause Volt Employee 2 to provide private information – the account balance of Plaintiffs – to the Commonwealth, without a Warrant.
• 41. This exchange between the government and Volt amounts to a search of the Plaintiffs’ accounts on behalf of the Commonwealth without a warrant, without a subpoena, without a court order, and without consent.
• 42. Volt itself promises that “Volt Bank will only provide client information to law enforcement or other government entities upon receipt of a valid warrant, subpoena, or court order. We will notify the client, if legally permitted, before releasing any information” (see: Evidence P-012).
• 43. The Attorney General did not willingly provide any information regarding these messages to the Court before the Plaintiffs did.
• 44. Volt did not provide the Plaintiffs with any information regarding the existence of this search by the Commonwealth.
• 45. The Plaintiffs did not consent to this search by the Commonwealth.
• 46. Because the Commonwealth obtained private information regarding the account balance that Volt did not have legal authority to disclose, and through leveraging a Federal Reserve Bank member who also holds decision-making powers at Volt (Government Employee 1), the Commonwealth conducted an unreasonable search of the Plaintiffs’ accounts.
• 47. The Federal Reserve Act grants the Federal Reserve Bank (“FRB”) the power to “guide banks and other financial institutions.”
• 48. By pinging Volt Employee 2, FRB member Government Employee 1 guided that Volt employee to disclose to the Commonwealth private client information in the form of account balances.
• 49. In doing so, the FRB member Government Employee 1 essentially guided Volt to breach its contractual obligations to Plaintiffs.
• 50. Volt did not disclose private client information to the Commonwealth until Government Employee 1 guided Volt Employee 1 as above.
• 51. 52. The Commonwealth’s search of the Plaintiffs’ Volt accounts without a subpoena, without a court order, without a warrant, without Plaintiffs’ consent, and without Volt’s ability to lawfully provide such documentation to the Commonwealth without breaching contracts with Plaintiffs, was plainly unreasonable.
• The Privacy Act (P-013) states:
  
  9 - Disclosure
  (1) An organisation or agency can’t use or disclose personal information unless an exception applies. Exceptions include:
  (a) the subject consented to an organisation or agency using or disclosing their personal information
  (b) the disclosure is permitted by law or court order
  (c) Any information shared as part of official Congressional or Court proceedings; or that is general in nature, is exempt from breach of confidence
  (d) Criminal Records of citizens will be exempt from the Privacy Act and can be requested from or released by the Department of Justice.
  
  
• 53. During discovery, the Attorney General knew that account balance information was entitled a reasonable expectation of privacy, and knew that this action violated Volt’s obligations to Plaintiffs.
• 54. The Department of Justices did use private, personal information – namely bank account information obtained without a warrant, without consent, without a subpoena, and without a court order – throughout this case.
• 55. No applicable exemption in the privacy act exists for the Commonwealth’s use of Plaintiff’s private, personal information in its use from the time of 15 May 2025 through and including 27 May 2025 (UTC).
• 56. At least one Commonwealth agency, such as the Department of Justice, violated the Plaintiff Gnomewhisperer's rights under the Privacy Act by using personal, private information without an applicable statutory exemption.
• 57. Like the Gnome Plaintiffs (GnomeWhisperer and GnomeCorp), Plaintiff Vernicia held an account in Volt at the time of the initial announcement of the so-called "Bank Holiday".
• 58. Vernicia's account in Volt is funded (see: Evidence P-014).
• 59. Volt was prohibited from allowing Vernicia to withdraw or deposit funds in her corresponding Volt bank account during the so-called "bank holiday".
• 60. The so-called "bank holiday" resulted in the unreasonable seizure of Vernicia's funds in Volt, as well as several other features (such as the ability to make and receive transfers of funds) associated with her Volt account, for the duration of the Holiday.

1. Violations of Constitutional Rights:
   1. Unreasonable seizure:
      • The Constitution of Redmont §33(15) states that “Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure”. In prohibiting citizens from withdrawing their money, the government essentially conducted a temporary seizure of GnomeWhisperer’s Volt accounts as well as those of GnomeCorp and Vernicia. These accounts are tools primarily used by GnomeWhisperer and GnomeCorp to receive large bank transfers and to facilitate trade with other Volt customers; for the Gnome Plaintiffs, it would be akin to seizing one’s Zelle account. For Vernicia, she keeps a balance in Volt.
        
        The Department of Commerce did not immediately provide a statutory basis for these seizures, and the closest that we get to a justification from a pertinent government official comes from the Attorney General’s statement referred to in Facts 8-9, which refers to Taxation Act §8.3.c.
        
        As noted in the Plaintiff’s statement, this does not grant the Department of Commerce carte blanche authority to seize or commandeer the entire financial sector. Rather, “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” (emphasis added).
        
        The law quite clearly speaks to the commandeer a singular financial institution based on extraordinary situations, not haphazardly freezing the entire financial sector in toto (with exceptions for in-game ATMs). The law does not provide an authority to order what amounts to blanket freezing of interest-bearing deposit accounts across the whole sector under pain of sanctions or fines.
        
        Because this seizure was undertaken without legal authority, and posed an undue burden on clients of financial firms including the two Plaintiffs, it was unreasonable under the law.
        
        In smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 103, this Court found that “[e]very department within the executive branch has a duty of care to uphold its constitutional obligations”. The Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the Department of Commerce failed to uphold its constitutional obligations when it violated the Plaintiffs’ rights to be free from unreasonable seizure in its fait accompli freezing of deposits, transfers, and withdrawals within the financial sector.
   2. Violations of liberty and security of the person:
      • The Constitution of Redmont §33(15) states that “Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” In stating that failure to adhere to the Commonwealth’s unlawful freeze of financial services accounts would render liability to “sanctions and fines”, the Commonwealth did threaten the liberty and security of the Plaintiffs without due process of law. This jawboning is a violation of the Department of Commerce’s duty of care, as the Commonwealth and its executive branches have constitutional obligations to respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of its citizens.
   3. Unlawful search and invasion of privacy:
      • In addition to seizing assets, the Commonwealth obtained and accessed Plaintiffs’ private bank information (including GnomeWhisperer’s account balance at Volt) without consent, warrant, subpoena, or court order. Such covert acquisition of personal financial data violated Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectation of privacy in their banking records. The Redmont Supreme Court has recognized that there is a “reasonable expectation of privacy… in regards to the customer’s finances” under Redmont Constitution §33(15). By coordinating with bank staff to retrieve Plaintiffs’ account details in secret – particularly so for staff who were not contractually authorized to share the Plaintiff’s account details with the Commonwealth – the government conducted an unlawful search of Plaintiffs’ private information, contravening Redmont Constitution §33(15)’s guarantee against unreasonable searches. No exception or exigent circumstance justified bypassing legal processes for obtaining this information. This intrusion into financial privacy—executed without oversight or authority—was unconstitutional and egregious in a society that values privacy rights in personal data.
2. Violation of Statutory Privacy Protections:
   1. Violations of the Privacy Act:
      • The Privacy Act strictly limits the disclosure and use of citizens’ personal information. Under Section 9 of the Privacy Act, “an organisation or agency can’t use or disclose personal information unless an exception applies,” such as user consent or a court order. Here, the Commonwealth (through its agents in the Department of Commerce, Department of Justice, and Federal Reserve Bank) induced Volt Bank to divulge Plaintiffs’ confidential account balance without any consent, subpoena, warrant, or court order, and no statutory exception applies. This non-consensual access and sharing of Plaintiffs’ financial data violated the Privacy Act’s core mandate. Furthermore, Volt’s own privacy policy (as a financial institution) promised customers that their personal and financial information would be protected and not released without authorization – yet that promise was breached when Volt’s staff cooperated in revealing Plaintiffs’ private balance to government officials. By obtaining and using Plaintiffs’ financial info in a manner explicitly prohibited by law, the Commonwealth violated Plaintiffs’ statutory privacy rights and are liable for the Privacy Act violations, entitling Plaintiffs to remedies for violations of statutory rights.
   2. Common Law Duty of Care with respect to the Privacy Act:
      • As noted above, Every executive department in Redmont owes a duty of care to uphold its constitutional and statutory obligations. As this Court has ruled in RaiTheGuy v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 29, "all laws set out by Congress can impose a duty on the defendant", referring to a duty of care and a Commonwealth department as a defendant. As such, the obligations on agencies under the Privacy Act create a Duty of Care that the Commonwealth must uphold.
        The Commonwealth breached this duty by mishandling Plaintiffs’ private data under the privacy act, and by a Federal Reserve Bank official having improperly guided Volt to violate its contractual obligations order that the Commonwealth obtain that data. Had Defendants adhered to their duty of care – by acting within legal bounds and respecting privacy rights – Plaintiffs would not have suffered these damages. The government’s overreach thus not only violated abstract rights, but also concretely caused intangible harm to the Plaintiffs, for which the Common Law provides a remedy. Plaintiffs seek to hold Defendants accountable for this breach and the resulting harm, to make Plaintiffs whole and discourage similar misconduct in the future.

• A judgment declaring that the Commonwealth’s actions – including the so-called “bank holiday” order and the warrantless access of Plaintiffs’ bank information – were unlawful and unconstitutional. This declaration should specify that Defendants’ conduct violated Plaintiffs’ rights to due process, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and privacy, as protected by the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth.

• A permanent injunction (via a Writ of Mandamus) prohibiting the Commonwealth (including the Department of Commerce, Department of Justice, Federal Reserve Bank, and all executive agencies) from repeating such actions in the future without proper legal authority. This should bar Defendants from imposing any blanket freezes or “holidays” on financial institutions absent cause specific to a particular institution, and forbid accessing or using private citizens’ financial records without a valid subpoena, warrant, or consent. The injunction will ensure that no other citizen or business suffers similar unauthorized deprivations of rights.

• The Plaintiffs seek $7500 in nominal damages to acknowledge the violation of their constitutional and statutory rights.

• In line with the Legal Damages Act, the Plaintiff seeks 30% of the award as legal fees, with a minimum of $6,000.

At any point and anytime during discovery, either party is allowed to make a material submission of discovery and enter it into the case.

Click to expand...

Spoiler: Exhibit P-011

Spoiler: Exhibit P-012

Spoiler: Exhibit P-013

Spoiler: Exhibit P-014

• Vernicia

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
In light of closed court filings, and above amendments, I do believe that both of these individuals may provide relevant testimony in closed court.

However, if this is not granted, I ask that you consider the following motion: