Lawsuit: Adjourned Bank of Reveille v. Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) [2025] FCR 22

[Nacho]

Emergency Injunction
I request the court to put a stay on the outstanding warrant issued on or around February 17th against the Bank of Reveilles client information. The warrant provided misleading information from the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) to the Department of Justice, which, in turn, was provided to the court improperly. (P-2, p-3, p-4, p-5, p-6)

The Bank of Reveille was not asked to respond to the message from the FRB at the time it was sent (p-6), but the Department of Justice indicated within their warrant application that the bank has failed to comply and or take action, which is fundamentally false. A representative of the Bank of Reveille joined the FRB discord when the request was sent (P-5). The FRB failed to open a channel of communication within the FRB Discord to provide a process for providing the information requested.

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Bank of Reveille
Plaintiff

v.

Federal Reserve Bank (FRB)
Defendant

COMPLAINT
On February 17, 2025, at 3:33 pm Eastern Time, The Bank of Reveille was notified and provided a warrant issued by the Court within the Commonwealth of Redmont. The Bank of Reveille was provided a warrant by a representative of the Department of Justice. The information outlined to the court stipulated that the Bank of Reveille was non-compliant with the law. The DOJ noted that the bank did not respond or take action to comply. This information was fundamentally wrong. The Bank of Reveille sought further information from the Department of Justice regarding the warrant’s scope and nature. Upon being provided the information of the warrant, the Bank of Reveille was informed it was being pulled at the request of the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) for being non-compliant with FRB policy ‘Bank Reserve Requirement Act.’

Within this case, we will want to look into the facts that the FRB is not given the authority to be an investigative authority, and the FRB is attempting to assume powers that are not expressly given to them within the Constitution or the Federal Reserve Act. The FRB is actively working to assume the powers given to that of the Department of Commerce.

The Department of Justice furthermore failed to do their due diligence on their own investigative work. Instead, they have pivoted their authority and taken a non-investigative body’s word for the alleged crimes. As a result, a warrant has been issued based on wrong information.


I. PARTIES
1. Federal Reserve Bank of Redmont (Defendant)
2. Stoppers (Reserve Governor)
3. Department of Justice (Witness)
4. Bank of Reveille (Plaintiff)

II. FACTS
1. On January 26, 2025, at 12:46 AM EST, Reserve Governor Stoppers notified the Bank of Reveille and invited them to the Federal Reserve discord.
2. A Bank of Reveille representative joined the FRB discord on January 26, 2025, at 10:47 pm EST.
3. On the 17th of February, Attorney General Freeze_Line opened a support ticket to issue a search warrant for Bank of Reveille’s balance sheets.
4. On the 17th of February, The Bank of Reveille requested to view the warrant.
5. On the 18th of February, Bank of Reveille representatives notified the Attorney General of the clerical error of the warrants filing that the information presented was improper and that a Bank of Reveille representative did, in fact, join the FRB Discord.
6. On the 18th of February, The Attorney General ignored the indication of the clerical error in the warrants filing and still requested the information.
7. Evidence of the clerical error was provided to the Attorney General.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The FRB has assumed authority expressly given to the Department of Commerce within the Commercial Standards Act.
2. The FRB has attempted to expand the authority expressed within the Federal Reserve Act.
3. The above actions have violated the Bank of Reveilles right of XIII. Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.
4. The above actions have violated the Bank of Reveilles right of XIV. Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
5. The above actions have violated the Bank of Reveilles right of XV. Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Bank Reserve Requirement Act is struck as an overreach of authority.
2. Declaratory judgment on the scope and purpose of the Federal Reserve Bank.
3. Declaratory judgment on the scope and purpose of the Federal Reserve Bank policy initiatives.
4. Legal Fees - $5,000

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 23 day of February 2025

 

[Dartanboy]

I am voluntarily recusing from the case as I was involved in the DoJ's investigation in this case when I was Solicitor General.

 

[ColonelKai]

I will be hereby denying the emergency injunction as filed by the plaintiff. 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.

 

[ColonelKai]

Writ of Summons

@Stoppers is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of NacholeBraa v. Federal Reserve Bank

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.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Writ of Summons

@Stoppers is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of NacholeBraa v. Federal Reserve Bank

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.

Dragon Law representing, your honor.

 

[ColonelKai]

Dragon Law representing, your honor.

Can you please present your proof of representation?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Can you please present your proof of representation?

 

[ColonelKai]

The defendant has 72 hours starting now to submit their response to the complaint.

 

[Angryhamdog]

Your Honor, the lawyer in charge of this case has left, and I will need additional time to familiarize myself due to IRL conflicts. I kindly ask for a 36 hour extension on the answer to complaint as a precautionary measure. Thank you so much, and my apologies.

 

[Angryhamdog]

Motion

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

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Under Rule 5.7 (Failure to Include Party), this lawsuit is invalid as the lawsuit was filed using mismatched, unrelated Plaintiffs. This can be seen in the lawsuit title "Nacholebraa v. Federal Reserve Bank (FRB)", stating Nacholebraa as the Plaintiff, and I. Parties stating "Bank of Reveille" as the Plaintiff.

DATED: 27th of February, 2025

 

[ColonelKai]

The extension has been granted. You have 36 hours from the original deadline. The motion to dismiss is hereby pending a ruling on a later date.

 

[Angryhamdog]

Answer to Complaint

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

Bank of Reveille
Plaintiff

v.

Federal Reserve Bank (FRB)
Defendant


I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. The defense AFFIRMS that “ On January 26, 2025, at 12:46 AM EST, Reserve Governor Stoppers notified the Bank of Reveille and invited them to the Federal Reserve discord.”
2. The defense AFFIRMS that “A Bank of Reveille representative joined the FRB discord on January 26, 2025, at 10:47 pm EST.”
3. The defense AFFIRMS that “ On the 17th of February, Attorney General Freeze_Line opened a support ticket to issue a search warrant for Bank of Reveille’s balance sheets.”
4. The defense AFFIRMS that “On the 17th of February, The Bank of Reveille requested to view the warrant.”
5. The defense NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that “On the 18th of February, Bank of Reveille representatives notified the Attorney General of the clerical error of the warrants filing that the information presented was improper and that a Bank of Reveille representative did, in fact, join the FRB Discord.”
6. The defense DENIES that “On the 18th of February, The Attorney General ignored the indication of the clerical error in the warrants filing and still requested the information.”
7. The defense NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that “Evidence of the clerical error was provided to the Attorney General.”

II. DEFENSES

1. The Commercial Standards Act does not mandate that ONLY the Department of Commerce may exercise the authorities related to investigating and enforcing monetary policies and issues, in fact, the Federal Reserve Act mandates that the Federal Reserve ‘bears the primary responsibility for shaping and executing policies relating to money.’ The Federal Reserve Act additionally states that the Federal Reserve shall ‘exclusively’ have the power to ‘set reserve requirements, which are the minimum amounts of funds that banks must hold in reserve against their deposits.’
2. The actions of the Federal Reserve Bank have not violated the Bank of Reveille’s constitutional rights, as the Bank of Reveille broke the Federal Reserve Bank's established requirements by failing to provide the mandated reserves by the established due date of the 28th of January, and such were subject to compulsory measures, in this case being the requesting and issuance of a search warrant.
3. The Bank of Reveille failed to make all reasonable measures to establish communications regarding compliance with the Bank Reserve Requirement Act.The Bank of Reveille’s representatives failed to contact the Reserve Governor, other reserve representatives, or open inquiry tickets in order to comply.
4. The search warrant provided by Attorney General Freeze_Line was completely reasonable as it only requested information that was already required by the FRB Bank Reserve Requirement Act. It did not ask for client information, as stated by the Plaintiff.

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: February 27, 2024

 

[Angryhamdog]

Objection

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

The Plaintiff stated that that warrant issued on or around February 17th was ‘against the Bank of Reveilles client information.’ This is a clear lie and attempt to mislead the court, as you can clearly see in P-003 that Attorney General Freeze_Line requested only for the balance sheets of the Bank of Reveille, as mandated by the FRB Bank Reserve Requirements Act.

​

 

[Nacho]

Motion

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

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Under Rule 5.7 (Failure to Include Party), this lawsuit is invalid as the lawsuit was filed using mismatched, unrelated Plaintiffs. This can be seen in the lawsuit title "Nacholebraa v. Federal Reserve Bank (FRB)", stating Nacholebraa as the Plaintiff, and I. Parties stating "Bank of Reveille" as the Plaintiff.

DATED: 27th of February, 2025

Response to Motion to Dismiss

Your Honor,

I am filing the case on behalf of the Bank of Reveille. While I wouldn’t have thought this would be that big of a deal, being a Director within the bank, we ask the following of the court.

We request the court to amend the case title within the thread title to align with every other aspect of our case filing... The proper filing of the case should be “Bank of Reveille v. Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) [2025] FCR 22.”... We appreciate the court’s consideration of the matter.

 

[Nacho]

Answer to Complaint

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

Bank of Reveille
Prosecution

v.

Federal Reserve Bank (FRB)
Defendant


I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. The defense AFFIRMS that “ On January 26, 2025, at 12:46 AM EST, Reserve Governor Stoppers notified the Bank of Reveille and invited them to the Federal Reserve discord.”
2. The defense AFFIRMS that “A Bank of Reveille representative joined the FRB discord on January 26, 2025, at 10:47 pm EST.”
3. The defense AFFIRMS that “ On the 17th of February, Attorney General Freeze_Line opened a support ticket to issue a search warrant for Bank of Reveille’s balance sheets.”
4. The defense AFFIRMS that “On the 17th of February, The Bank of Reveille requested to view the warrant.”
5. The defense NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that “On the 18th of February, Bank of Reveille representatives notified the Attorney General of the clerical error of the warrants filing that the information presented was improper and that a Bank of Reveille representative did, in fact, join the FRB Discord.”
6. The defense DENIES that “On the 18th of February, The Attorney General ignored the indication of the clerical error in the warrants filing and still requested the information.”
7. The defense NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that “Evidence of the clerical error was provided to the Attorney General.”

II. DEFENSES

1. The Commercial Standards Act does not mandate that ONLY the Department of Commerce may exercise the authorities related to investigating and enforcing monetary policies and issues, in fact, the Federal Reserve Act mandates that the Federal Reserve ‘bears the primary responsibility for shaping and executing policies relating to money.’ The Federal Reserve Act additionally states that the Federal Reserve shall ‘exclusively’ have the power to ‘set reserve requirements, which are the minimum amounts of funds that banks must hold in reserve against their deposits.’
2. The actions of the Federal Reserve Bank have not violated the Bank of Reveille’s constitutional rights, as the Bank of Reveille broke the Federal Reserve Bank's established requirements by failing to provide the mandated reserves by the established due date of the 28th of January, and such were subject to compulsory measures, in this case being the requesting and issuance of a search warrant.
3. The Bank of Reveille failed to make all reasonable measures to establish communications regarding compliance with the Bank Reserve Requirement Act.The Bank of Reveille’s representatives failed to contact the Reserve Governor, other reserve representatives, or open inquiry tickets in order to comply.
4. The search warrant provided by Attorney General Freeze_Line was completely reasonable as it only requested information that was already required by the FRB Bank Reserve Requirement Act. It did not ask for client information, as stated by the Plaintiff.

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: February 27, 2024

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

The defense improperly filed their answer to the complaint. The defense has listed the plaintiff as having prosecutorial authority. We have identified this case as a civil action of The Bank of Reveille against the Federal Reserve Bank.

We ask the answer to the complaint be struck and refiled with the proper wording. However, we will also accept it if they wish to amend their answer to the complaint with the court’s permission, of course.

 

[Nacho]

Objection

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

The Plaintiff stated that that warrant issued on or around February 17th was ‘against the Bank of Reveilles client information.’ This is a clear lie and attempt to mislead the court, as you can clearly see in P-003 that Attorney General Freeze_Line requested only for the balance sheets of the Bank of Reveille, as mandated by the FRB Bank Reserve Requirements Act.

​

Response to Objection

Your Honor,

The information requested by the Attorney General through their warrant was for the Banks Balance sheet. The bank balance sheet includes all bank liabilities, including client deposits. The Bank of Reveilles balance sheets include information on the account holder. This requested information is considered ‘client information’ in the eyes of the Bank of Reveille.

 

[Angryhamdog]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

The defense improperly filed their answer to the complaint. The defense has listed the plaintiff as having prosecutorial authority. We have identified this case as a civil action of The Bank of Reveille against the Federal Reserve Bank.

We ask the answer to the complaint be struck and refiled with the proper wording. However, we will also accept it if they wish to amend their answer to the complaint with the court’s permission, of course.

My apologies for the improper wording. I will be amending the Answer to Complaint as follows:

Bank of Reveille
ProsecutionPlaintiff

 

[Kaiserin_]

Response to Motion to Dismiss

Your Honor,

I am filing the case on behalf of the Bank of Reveille. While I wouldn’t have thought this would be that big of a deal, being a Director within the bank, we ask the following of the court.

We request the court to amend the case title within the thread title to align with every other aspect of our case filing... The proper filing of the case should be “Bank of Reveille v. Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) [2025] FCR 22.”... We appreciate the court’s consideration of the matter.

Objection

Breach of Procedure

Motions do not automatically warrant responses without request. No response was granted by the court, and the defense asks that it be struck.

 

[ColonelKai]

Objection

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

The Plaintiff stated that that warrant issued on or around February 17th was ‘against the Bank of Reveilles client information.’ This is a clear lie and attempt to mislead the court, as you can clearly see in P-003 that Attorney General Freeze_Line requested only for the balance sheets of the Bank of Reveille, as mandated by the FRB Bank Reserve Requirements Act.

​

Response to Objection

Your Honor,

The information requested by the Attorney General through their warrant was for the Banks Balance sheet. The bank balance sheet includes all bank liabilities, including client deposits. The Bank of Reveilles balance sheets include information on the account holder. This requested information is considered ‘client information’ in the eyes of the Bank of Reveille.

This objection is overruled. You may use evidence and arguments on your end to argue a point to be false, but Perjury requires proof that the submitter is aware of the fact that the information is false. The movant has failed to demonstrate this bar.

Motion

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

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Under Rule 5.7 (Failure to Include Party), this lawsuit is invalid as the lawsuit was filed using mismatched, unrelated Plaintiffs. This can be seen in the lawsuit title "Nacholebraa v. Federal Reserve Bank (FRB)", stating Nacholebraa as the Plaintiff, and I. Parties stating "Bank of Reveille" as the Plaintiff.

DATED: 27th of February, 2025

Motion is denied. The mismatch does not fall strictly under the definition of 5.7, and extending 5.7 to apply to this situation would not add any further stability to the case, and dismissing without prejudice (which is what this motion would result in) would only delay court procedures as the court does not see a fundamental threat to the validity of the case.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

The defense improperly filed their answer to the complaint. The defense has listed the plaintiff as having prosecutorial authority. We have identified this case as a civil action of The Bank of Reveille against the Federal Reserve Bank.

We ask the answer to the complaint be struck and refiled with the proper wording. However, we will also accept it if they wish to amend their answer to the complaint with the court’s permission, of course.

My apologies for the improper wording. I will be amending the Answer to Complaint as follows:

Bank of Reveille
ProsecutionPlaintiff

The amendment has been acknowledged by the courts. The defendant may amend their answer to complaint.

Objection

Breach of Procedure

Motions do not automatically warrant responses without request. No response was granted by the court, and the defense asks that it be struck.

This objection is sustained. The plaintiff may still request that the title be modified separately. The original response will be struck.

---

That all being said, this court hereby enters the discovery period, which is to last no more than 72 hours if not extended.

 

[Angryhamdog]

Your Honor, the defense submits D-001 and D-002 as evidence.

Spoiler: D-001

Spoiler: D-002

 

[Angryhamdog]

Your Honor, the defense submits D-003 as evidence.

Spoiler: D-003

 

[ColonelKai]

Apologies for the delay.


The deadline for the discovery period has passed. The plaintiff has 48 hours for their opening statement.

 

[Nacho]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

Today, we are here because The Bank of Reveille and the more significant financial industry have been unjustly targeted, wrongfully accused, and subjected to an improper warrant based on flawed information. The Federal Reserve Bank of Redmont (FRB), an entity with no investigative authority, sought to impose its will on The Bank of Reveille by assuming powers beyond its legal scope. It did so with the uncritical assistance of the Department of Justice (DOJ), which failed in its fundamental duty to conduct due diligence. As a result, an improper search warrant was issued, violating the rights of The Bank of Reveille and setting a dangerous precedent of unchecked authority.

The facts in this case are clear. On January 26, 2025, the FRB’s Reserve Governor, Stoppers, invited a representative of The Bank of Reveille to join an FRB-controlled communication platform. That invitation was accepted and acted upon. Yet, despite this compliance, on February 17, 2025, the Department of Justice—relying on fundamentally incorrect information provided by the FRB— was issued a warrant against The Bank of Reveille under the claim that it had failed to comply with FRB policy under the so-called ‘Bank Reserve Requirement Act.’ Upon receiving this warrant, The Bank of Reveille immediately sought clarification and the correction of the errors underlying its issuance. However, the DOJ ignored the truth rather than acknowledging these critical errors and persisted in its wrongful demand.

This case presents fundamental legal questions regarding the Federal Reserve Bank’s overreach. The FRB is not an investigative agency and does not possess the authority to assume investigatory powers granted by law to the Department of Commerce. The FRB’s actions violate the Federal Reserve and Commercial Standards Act. Furthermore, the Department of Justice, which is entrusted with the duty of impartially enforcing the law, has failed to ensure that its actions are grounded in proper investigative findings.

The violations suffered by The Bank of Reveille are not merely procedural but constitutional. The warrant was issued in direct violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in law:

• The right to equal protection under the law, free from unfair discrimination.
• The right to life, liberty, and security of the person, free from arbitrary deprivation.
• The right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.

In this case, the warrant was based on demonstrably false claims, disregarding clear evidence provided to the DOJ of a clerical error. The refusal of the DOJ to correct its mistake and its insistence on pursuing an improper course of action exemplifies a grave miscarriage of justice. The Bank of Reveille has suffered harm through the invasion of its lawful operations and the reputational damage caused by this baseless accusation.

We will present evidence demonstrating that the FRB exceeded its authority, that the DOJ failed to conduct its due diligence, and that The Bank of Reveille was unfairly targeted. We will establish that the search warrant was unlawful and that the FRB and the DOJ actions are not supported under the law.

At the conclusion of this case, we will ask the Court to recognize these violations and grant appropriate relief to The Bank of Reveille. Justice demands accountability, fairness, and the correction of this wrongful act.

 

[ColonelKai]

The defendant has 48 hours for their opening statement.

 

[Angryhamdog]

Opening Statement

Your Honor, opposing counsel, and all citizens of Redmont who are present, thank you for your presence today. May it please the court,

The claim of the plaintiff is that the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) has overreached its lawfully delegated authority. However, they have thoroughly failed to provide any reasonable claims.

Firstly, they argue that the FRB lacks investigative authority. However, the Federal Reserve Act grants the FRB the power to oversee banks and ensure the stability and strength of the financial system in section 3.3. This makes it clear that banks are legally required to comply with reasonable requests from the reserve.

Additionally, the plaintiff's claim is fundamentally flawed, as it alleges that the FRB conducted an investigation. As seen in D-003, the FRB requested the Department of Justice (DOJ) take investigative action to ensure the bank’s compliance. It was Attorney General Freeze_Line, the Department of Justice, and the Commonwealth Judiciary that exercised independent authority in issuing the search warrant. Any claims of improper investigative actions or miscarriage of justice – including any breach of rights due to the search warrant – should be directed at the Department of Justice as part of the Commonwealth, not the Federal Reserve.

The plaintiff has stated that the FRB assumed powers that it is not legally entitled to, but they’ve failed to provide any examples as to what precise powers the Reserve attempted to expand that were not already granted to it by the Federal Reserve Act.

Now, let us examine the damages the Plaintiff is claiming. They assert their XIV and XV rights of life, liberty and security of the person against unreasonable search were violated. However, the plaintiff was already legally required to provide those documents, solely consisting of the Bank of Reveille’s balance sheets, search warrant or not. No “unreasonable search” was undertaken, and no rights were threatened as a result of these actions, because the only information requested was already required by law.

The Bank of Reveille (BOR) had ample opportunity to establish communication with the Reserve. In D-003, it can be seen that the Reserve only requested DOJ intervention for a singular bank. If Stoppers did not make it clear that the Bank needed to share the balance sheets, why were other banks not receiving similar warrants? The answer is simple: the BOR attempted minimum possible compliance in order to avoid having to pay the cash required by law. This is further proven by their claim for relief of having the Bank Reserve Requirement Act struck, which is listed in order to further avoid holding 10% of their balance with the Federal Reserve, even though it's a reasonably small amount of money that is being held with interest.

It is clear to the defense that this case is an effort to circumvent congressionally-delegated economic regulations through the court system. The Plaintiff accused the Federal Reserve of violation of their constitutional rights, even though the Defendant was uninvolved with the actions of the Commonwealth while obtaining and executing a search warrant. The Plaintiff has attempted to exploit the Federal Reserve by making no reasonable efforts to comply with the Reserve Governors directive. Finally, there are no reasonable claims for relief, as Congress, through the Federal Reserve Act, has given the Federal Reserve the authority to establish regulatory measures relating to money in order to create a stable economy. Therefore, we petition the court to deny the claims sought by the Plaintiff, and award the Defendant reasonable legal fees in order to compensate for the unwarranted filing against the FRB.

We thank the court for their time.

 

[ColonelKai]

The court thanks both parties for their opening statements.

For clarification, the plaintiff has listed within their parties list the Department of Justice as a witness in parenthesis. Does this mean they wish to call upon them during witness examinations?

 

[Nacho]

The court thanks both parties for their opening statements.

For clarification, the plaintiff has listed within their parties list the Department of Justice as a witness in parenthesis. Does this mean they wish to call upon them during witness examinations?

That is correct your honor, as well as Stoppers as the reserve governor listed as a party.

 

[ColonelKai]

You have not listed Stoppers as a witness, so the DoJ Secretary will be the only one to be summonsed as a witness.

Writ of Summons

@Freeze_Line is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Bank of Reveille v. Federal Reserve Bank (FRB).

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.

 

[Freeze_Line]

Present.

 

[ColonelKai]

Thank you for the timely response. The plaintiff has 48 hours to present questions, and the witness has 48 hours starting from the time of presentation to answer them.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

May I please request a small 24-hour extension? I have recently had some IRL items I needed to attend to the past day or so, which has had my mind away from DC as a whole.

 

[ColonelKai]

Granted.

 

[Nacho]

I humbly thank the court for their generous extension. We have expedited our questions and have provided them below.

Questions

1. What is your current role within the Department of Justice?
2. How familiar are you with economic law within the Commonwealth of Redmont?
3. What made the Department of Justice pull the warrant request from the court against the Bank of Reveille?
4. In your expert opinion, can you explain the legal definition of 'policy'?
5. In your expert opinion as an officer of the court. Does the Federal Reserve Bank have the authority to pull warrant requests through the Court system?
6. Can you validate that the images and the conversation you submitted within P-3 were between yourself and a Judicial Officer within the warrant thread? (This question will have multiple parts)
7. In your expert opinion, can you explain the legal definition of regulation?
8. Within P-4, a Bank Representative noted that the warrant information you submitted to the court was improper. Did you notify the court of this error of filing following being notified? (This question will have multiple parts)
9. In your expert opinion, can you explain the ‘Bank Reserve Requirement Act’?

 

[Freeze_Line]

I’m buried in schoolwork, requesting a 24 hour extension.

 

[ColonelKai]

granted.

 

[Freeze_Line]

1. What is your current role within the Department of Justice?
   - Attorney General.
   
   
2. How familiar are you with economic law within the Commonwealth of Redmont?
   - Quite familiar.
   
   
3. What made the Department of Justice pull the warrant request from the court against the Bank of Reveille?
   - The Department of Justice was notified that the Bank of Reveille was not compliant with the Bank Reserve Requirement Act. We were informed that the FRB sent a direct message to the CEO of the Bank of Reveille, requesting compliance to determine the required reserve amount, but got no response or cooperation. Additionally, we were told that the FRB had set a reserve requirement for banks, as allowed under the Federal Reserve Act. The Bank of Reveille failed to meet the deadline, so the Department of Justice requested a warrant to get the deposit sheet for the FRB.
   
   
4. In your expert opinion, can you explain the legal definition of 'policy'?
   - A policy is an established set of rules or guidelines.
   
   
5. In your expert opinion as an officer of the court. Does the Federal Reserve Bank have the authority to pull warrant requests through the Court system?
   - I'm not sure what you mean by an officer of the court, as I'm not a judge or clerk. However, the warrant process goes through either the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Justice. In this case, the FRB reached out to the Department of Justice, and we began our investigation by requesting a warrant.
   
   
6. Can you validate that the images and the conversation you submitted within P-3 were between yourself and a Judicial Officer within the warrant thread? (This question will have multiple parts)
   - Yeah, it was between me and the judge.
   
   
7. In your expert opinion, can you explain the legal definition of regulation?
   - Regulation is a rule or directive made and enforced by an authority to control or manage something.
   
   
8. Within P-4, a Bank Representative noted that the warrant information you submitted to the court was improper. Did you notify the court of this error of filing following being notified? (This question will have multiple parts)
   - The Bank Representative did not "note" that the warrant information I submitted was improper. Rather, they attempted to explain their case but did not explicitly state that the warrant information was incorrect. Furthermore, the judge approved the warrant after reviewing it, if it had been improper, it would have been denied.
   
   
9. In your expert opinion, can you explain the ‘Bank Reserve Requirement Act’?
   - The Bank Reserve Requirement Act ensures that banks in Redmont keep a portion of their customers' deposits as reserves with the FRB. This is to maintain financial stability, prevent bank failures, and protect depositors' money.

 

[ColonelKai]

The defendant may now cross-examine the witness. 48 hours to present questions, and the witness has 48 hours starting from the time of presentation to answer them.

 

[Angryhamdog]

1. Can you validate that the images and the conversation you submitted within P-3 were between yourself and a Judicial Officer within the warrant thread? (This question will have multiple parts)

The defendant may now cross-examine the witness. 48 hours to present questions, and the witness has 48 hours starting from the time of presentation to answer them.

Your Honor, I believe the Prosecution intended to ask a follow-up to question 6, and the Defense requests that the Prosecution be allowed to ask these questions before the Defense begins their cross-examination.

 

[ColonelKai]

Apologies, continue.

 

[ColonelKai]

The defendant may now cross-examine the witness. 48 hours to present questions, and the witness has 48 hours starting from the time of presentation to answer them.

The court hereby retracts this statement and allows the same time limits to the plaintiff for the continuation of their examination.

 

[Nacho]

In your expert opinion as an officer of the court. Does the Federal Reserve Bank have the authority to pull warrant requests through the Court system?
- I'm not sure what you mean by an officer of the court, as I'm not a judge or clerk. However, the warrant process goes through either the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Justice. In this case, the FRB reached out to the Department of Justice, and we began our investigation by requesting a warrant.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE

The question is formed in a yes or no format. The question did not ask who has the proper authority. The question asks if the defendant has the authority or not to pull warrant requests.

We ask the court to strike the answer and order the witness to provide the answer in a yes or no format. If the court maintains the response, we request to submit a follow-up question(s) for this witness.

 

[Nacho]

Can you validate that the images and the conversation you submitted within P-3 were between yourself and a Judicial Officer within the warrant thread? (This question will have multiple parts)
- Yeah, it was between me and the judge.

Follow up for question 6.

1. During your conversation with the judicial officer, did they express dissatisfaction with the warrant and its purpose?
2. Can you confirm or deny these comments from the Judicial Officer within the warrant thread you just confirmed and referenced within P-3?
   1. "Why is that this policy is inaccessible to the public via the forums?" - Judicial Officer
   2. "How is the public supposed to find these policies?" - Judicial Officer
   3. "The policy says it’s open to the public, yet it is also classified?" - Judicial Officer
   4. "Why does this say Act, which converts the idea that this is an Act of Congress when this is a financial policy?" - Judicial Officer
3. Does the Judicial Officer reference the "Bank Reserve Requirement Act" as a policy or a Regulation within the warrant thread?

Within P-4, a Bank Representative noted that the warrant information you submitted to the court was improper. Did you notify the court of this error of filing following being notified? (This question will have multiple parts)
- The Bank Representative did not "note" that the warrant information I submitted was improper. Rather, they attempted to explain their case but did not explicitly state that the warrant information was incorrect. Furthermore, the judge approved the warrant after reviewing it, if it had been improper, it would have been denied.

Follow up for question 8.

1. Did you file the original warrant request before or after you discussed it with the Bank Representative in P-4?
2. Within P-4 you informed the Bank Representative you would "Forward your concerns to the FRB." - Why would you forward this comment to the FRB?
3. What was the DOJ's probable cause when they submitted the warrant request to the Court for review?
4. Did the Department of Commerce, within this process (warrant filing), ever recommend or submit an investigation to the Department of Justice for you to begin an investigation into the Bank?
5. Within your original filing of the warrant, did you state the following (This is a yes or no question as a direct quote of the witness): "'The institution has neither responded nor taken action to comply with this requirement The deadline for compliance expired on January 28, 2025, making them non-compliant with the law." (We do have additional question(s) about this question and are dependant on the answer)

 

[ColonelKai]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE

The question is formed in a yes or no format. The question did not ask who has the proper authority. The question asks if the defendant has the authority or not to pull warrant requests.

We ask the court to strike the answer and order the witness to provide the answer in a yes or no format. If the court maintains the response, we request to submit a follow-up question(s) for this witness.

Objection overruled. The court believes that the extra information provided by the witness is not unrelated and the question asked has been answered adequately. You may ask a follow-up question.

 

[Freeze_Line]

Follow up for question 6.

1. During your conversation with the judicial officer, did they express dissatisfaction with the warrant and its purpose?
   - I wouldn't say so. The judge seemed a bit confused about why the act wasn't on the forums, but I don't believe they expressed any dissatisfaction with the warrant's purpose.
   
   
2. Can you confirm or deny these comments from the Judicial Officer within the warrant thread you just confirmed and referenced within P-3?
   
   1. "Why is that this policy is inaccessible to the public via the forums?" - Judicial Officer
      - Yes
   2. "How is the public supposed to find these policies?" - Judicial Officer
      - Yes
   3. "The policy says it’s open to the public, yet it is also classified?" - Judicial Officer
      - Yes
   4. "Why does this say Act, which converts the idea that this is an Act of Congress when this is a financial policy?" - Judicial Officer
      - Yes
      
   Spoiler: Statement Struck by Court

   [*]Does the Judicial Officer reference the "Bank Reserve Requirement Act" as a policy or a Regulation within the warrant thread?
   - I suppose one could interpret it as a policy. I think the judge viewed it that way, but that might be speculation.
3. Follow up for question 8.
   1. Did you file the original warrant request before or after you discussed it with the Bank Representative in P-4?
      - I filed it before, can't show up empty-handed and request a balance sheet.
      
      
   2. Within P-4 you informed the Bank Representative you would "Forward your concerns to the FRB." - Why would you forward this comment to the FRB?
      - The Bank Representative seemed displeased with how the FRB structured the message, so I forwarded it to the FRB so they could potentially reword it next time.
      
      
   3. What was the DOJ's probable cause when they submitted the warrant request to the Court for review?
      - The CEO failed to respond or take action to comply with the FRB's requirement, rendering them non-compliant with the law.
      
      
   4. Did the Department of Commerce, within this process (warrant filing), ever recommend or submit an investigation to the Department of Justice for you to begin an investigation into the Bank?
      - The FRB mentioned that they were ready to coordinate with the Department of Commerce, but the Department of Commerce itself did not reach out to us.
      
      
   5. Within your original filing of the warrant, did you state the following (This is a yes or no question as a direct quote of the witness): "'The institution has neither responded nor taken action to comply with this requirement The deadline for compliance expired on January 28, 2025, making them non-compliant with the law." (We do have additional question(s) about this question and are dependant on the answer)
      - Yes

 

[Angryhamdog]

Follow up for question 6.
3. Does the Judicial Officer reference the "Bank Reserve Requirement Act" as a policy or a Regulation within the warrant thread?

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Calls for a conclusion

The Plaintiff is asking the Witness to give an opinion on the intepretation of the Judicial Officer's words, rather than factual information regarding their own experiences or thoughts.

 

[Angryhamdog]

Does the Judicial Officer reference the "Bank Reserve Requirement Act" as a policy or a Regulation within the warrant thread?
- I suppose one could interpret it as a policy. I think the judge viewed it that way, but that might be speculation.

Objection

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

Witness provided testimony on an intepretation of the judge's views, instead of their own experiences and thoughts.

 

[Nacho]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Calls for a conclusion

The Plaintiff is asking the Witness to give an opinion on the intepretation of the Judicial Officer's words, rather than factual information regarding their own experiences or thoughts.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honor,

That is blatantly false. We never asked them to give an opinion on the question. We asked whether the Judicial Officer references the Bank Reserve Requirement Act as a policy or Regulation. They have previously confirmed direct quotes from the Judicial Officer within follow-up question 2.

The question is very clear... we are asking the witness to validate a portion of a conversation they had with a Judicial Officer about the warrant they requested.

Objection

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

Witness provided testimony on an intepretation of the judge's views, instead of their own experiences and thoughts.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honor,

We agree with the defense. We ask that the court order the witness to answer the question rather than attempt to dodge the question. As previously indicated, the witness has already confirmed what the presiding officer said.


Lastly, may we resume our follow-up questions for the witness?

 

[ColonelKai]

The court concurs with the plaintiff. However, it is also notable here that the question inherently asks for an answer that will be hearsay. Therefore, the question and answers will be struck. The plaintiff may feel free to file a motion to reconsider.

 

[Nacho]

The court concurs with the plaintiff. However, it is also notable here that the question inherently asks for an answer that will be hearsay. Therefore, the question and answers will be struck. The plaintiff may feel free to file a motion to reconsider.

Can we clarify which objection the court will sustain and which response will be struck?

 

[ColonelKai]

Does the Judicial Officer reference the "Bank Reserve Requirement Act" as a policy or a Regulation within the warrant thread?

[*]Does the Judicial Officer reference the "Bank Reserve Requirement Act" as a policy or a Regulation within the warrant thread?
- I suppose one could interpret it as a policy. I think the judge viewed it that way, but that might be speculation.

These.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

The plaintiff rests.

 

[ColonelKai]

The defendant may now cross-examine the witness. 48 hours to present questions, and the witness has 48 hours starting from the time of presentation to answer them.

 

[juniperfig]

Greetings. I will be taking over as presiding officer for this case.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

The plaintiff would like to request the reason for the change of presiding officer mid-case...

 

[juniperfig]

Your Honor,

The plaintiff would like to request the reason for the change of presiding officer mid-case...

The decision to change the presiding officer mid-case was made in the interest of upholding the right to a speedy trial. Given Kai's substantial caseload, the courts determined reassignment would be appropriate.

 

[Angryhamdog]

Your Honor, The Plaintiff requests a 14 hour extension to witness questioning due to some unexpected IRL obligations. (12:32am EST deadline).

 

[juniperfig]

Your Honor, The Plaintiff requests a 14 hour extension to witness questioning due to some unexpected IRL obligations. (12:32am EST deadline).

Granted.

 

[Angryhamdog]

@Freeze_Line

1. Does the DOJ have any legal requirement to comply with the requests of the FRB?
2. Did the FRB take any part in executing the search warrant?
3. In your opinion, was the execution of the warrant in line with standard legal procedures?
4. Who was responsible for ensuring the warrant request was properly written?
5. What would be the process for officially challenging a warrant?
6. Did the Bank of Reveille provide the required balance sheets before the warrant was filed?
7. Did the DOJ verify the claims made by Reserve Governor Stoppers before filing the warrant?
8. Did the warrant seek anything other than the BORs balance sheets?

1. "Why is that this policy is inaccessible to the public via the forums?" - Judicial Officer
   - Yes
2. "How is the public supposed to find these policies?" - Judicial Officer
   - Yes
3. "The policy says it’s open to the public, yet it is also classified?" - Judicial Officer
   - Yes
4. "Why does this say Act, which converts the idea that this is an Act of Congress when this is a financial policy?" - Judicial Officer
   - Yes

9. Did the Judicial Officer approve the warrant after stating the comments you confirmed above?

We will be asking follow-up questions depending on the Witnesses answers.

 

[Freeze_Line]

1. Does the DOJ have any legal requirement to comply with the requests of the FRB?
- We always investigate if we believe something is illegal. I'm not entirely sure if there is a law that specifically requires us to do so however.

2. Did the FRB take any part in executing the search warrant?
- The balance sheet was later provided directly to the FRB instead of me, but they did not take any part in executing the search warrant.

3. In your opinion, was the execution of the warrant in line with standard legal procedures?
- I believe so, yes.

4. Who was responsible for ensuring the warrant request was properly written?
- I was, based on the information provided to the DOJ.

5. What would be the process for officially challenging a warrant?
- I don't think you can actually challenge a warrant. If the judge approves it, it's approved.

6. Did the Bank of Reveille provide the required balance sheets before the warrant was filed?
- I asked for the balance sheet after the warrant was filed, but it was not provided to the FRB before the warrant was filed.

7. Did the DOJ verify the claims made by Reserve Governor Stoppers before filing the warrant?
- The FRB provided screenshots.

8. Did the warrant seek anything other than the BORs balance sheets?
- No.

9. Did the Judicial Officer approve the warrant after stating the comments you confirmed above?
- Yes.

 

[Angryhamdog]

My apologies for the wait. The Defendant will only be asking one followup question:

@Freeze_Line
Follow-up for question 8:
Was the Bank of Reveille already legally required to provide the Balance Sheets under the powers granted to the FRB under the Bank Reserve Requirement Act?

 

[Freeze_Line]

Follow-up for question 8:
Was the Bank of Reveille already legally required to provide the Balance Sheets under the powers granted to the FRB under the Bank Reserve Requirement Act?

Yes.

 

[Angryhamdog]

Your Honor, the Defense has no more questions. Thank you.

 

[juniperfig]

Cross-examination has now ended. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to submit their closing statement. @Nacho

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

We request a 24-hour extension as I have been working straight 12-13-hour days in retail in the springtime. After getting home, I have been dead for the past couple of days.

 

[juniperfig]

Your Honor,

We request a 24-hour extension as I have been working straight 12-13-hour days in retail in the springtime. After getting home, I have been dead for the past couple of days.

Granted.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Your Honor,

We request a 24-hour extension, I have been requested to take up the closing statements at this time, and while I appreciate that the court has provided a 24-hour extension just prior, I would ask for just a smidge more to properly formulate a closing statement as the plaintiff has come unto a busy schedule.

We appreciate the court during this time and thank you for your patience in this matter, we will have a closing statement prepared within this time. Thank you again.

 

[juniperfig]

Your Honor,

We request a 24-hour extension, I have been requested to take up the closing statements at this time, and while I appreciate that the court has provided a 24-hour extension just prior, I would ask for just a smidge more to properly formulate a closing statement as the plaintiff has come unto a busy schedule.

We appreciate the court during this time and thank you for your patience in this matter, we will have a closing statement prepared within this time. Thank you again.

Granted. This will be your final extension.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Closing Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Reserve Ratios

The Federal Reserve Act outlines clearly the responsibilities in Section 3, and allows them some level of policy shaping and execution. The way they are to do so is outlined in Section 5 - Monetary Policy Tools.

'(e) Reserve Requirements
(i) The Reserve Bank sets reserve requirements, which are the minimum amounts of funds that banks must hold in reserve against their deposits. By adjusting these requirements, the central bank affects the amount of money banks can lend and the money multiplier.'

The key point here is that they may set a ratio ‘minimum amounts of funds’ that ‘BANKS MUST HOLD in reserve against their deposits’ -- Their policy executing authority only reaches so far, under this legislation, they MAY NOT dictate that banks hold funds in the Federal Reserve, and enabling them to do so could potentially CAUSE harm by delaying depositor withdraws.

The Bank of Reveille does not contend with the Federal Reserve’s ability to set a reserve ratio as compelled by legitimate policy.

On the Bank Reserve Requirement Act

Most importantly in all of this is that the ‘Bank Reserve Requirement Act’ isn’t public. P-1 clearly shows that this was never put up to motion by the Federal Reserve, and if you look today at the FRB Motions Thread they make use of this thread, but this ‘Act’ and the many others the FRB has ‘passed’ were never made public.

This confusion isn’t unique, as confirmed by the Attorney General the presiding judicial officer was quite confused on how the public would be aware of this act at all, and why it was being presented as a legislative ‘act’, the judicial officer also noting that the document was ‘classified’ -- witness testimony


Cloak and Dagger policy

While the Federal Reserve may enjoy certain independence, they are NOT a shadow legislator.
7 - Financial Independence and Accountability outlines that they are to make regular MONTHLY reports to congress, and that congress may overturn a decision (7.2 & 7.6), and the FRB has historically failed to follow through on these reports. In the PUBLIC #frb-reporting channel in Congress. Notably the ‘Bank Reserve Requirement Act’, was never posted there either.

The Federal Reserve may be able to draft policy, but it is not reasonable for them to execute policy made and kept in secret and labeled as ‘classified’. This is NOT how policy is regularly enacted in Redmont. The DCT has a thread for their policy which the courts have historically relied on as enactable policy. -- DCT Policy Thread

In the case of Intercepticon v. DCT [2021] FCR 10 ‘It is questionable to me that a department feels it is sufficient to operate policies with such a cloak and dagger approach. These policies and regulations affect the public; they should be accessible to the public.’ This feels staggeringly relevant to the facts of the case today, the Bank Reserve Requirement Act was never made public.

In the Verdict they asked the DCT to make their policy public barring reasonable justification.
‘The DCT to make public on the forums all non-sensitive BI protocols as soon as is reasonably practicable, given that such a change may require staff to edit permissions. Reasonable justifications must be given if any protocols are withheld from the public.’

This Verdict was clarified here that policies need to be accessible to the public to be binding on them. It is clear in that case as it is here, that it is unreasonable for a permanent location for a policy, and as such the Bank Reserve Requirement Act is not a binding policy.

This is a clear overreach of power that is NOT outlined to the Federal Reserve, they should be held to the same standards of policy as Departments are. Public and accessible to be binding.


On the expansion and assumption of powers not granted


The Federal Reserve additionally expanded its own responsibilities and assumed those already given to the Department of Commerce outlined in the Commercial Standards Act.

4 - Powers of the Commerce Department -

‘(2) The Department of Commerce is afforded access to financial institution accounts on request for the purposes of monitoring them for compliance.
’(5) The Department of Commerce is charged with investigating commerce-related white-collar crimes.’

Both the access to financial information AND the investigative nature in looking into being ‘non-compliant with the law’ as the Attorney General says here are responsibilities legislated to the Department of Commerce, and by assuming these responsibilities at all, but more importantly with secret policy is an overreach of their powers entirely and NOT something the Federal Reserve Act enables them.

Additionally in the Taxation Act, the role of the Department of Commerce is CLEAR.

8 - Powers of the Department of Commerce --

‘Historical events have proven that strong regulatory powers are necessary for the adequate protection of the depositors of deposit-taking institutions.’
‘These powers are vested in the Department of Commerce to uphold the integrity of financial institution taxation, ensure compliance with regulations, and protect the interests of depositors and the broader financial system.’

It is clear cut, the Department of Commerce is the REGULATORY body of financial institutions, and is given strong regulatory powers specifically for deposit-taking institutions such as BOR. The FRB CANNOT assume authority where it has already been granted explicitly, and should instead work with the DOC to enact on its policy.


On the defences opening statement

‘No “unreasonable search” was undertaken, and no rights were threatened as a result of these actions, because the only information requested was already required by law.’ -- If this is true then the search MUST have been unreasonable and rights threatened, because the information requested could NOT be binding as it was NOT public, and therefore not required by law.

‘It is clear to the defense that this case is an effort to circumvent congressionally-delegated economic regulations through the court system.’
BOR has no issue following legitimate and legal policy enacted according to law. BOR has not had issues with compliance with the DOC unlike some banks recently. This policy was not issued to the public, and is therefore non-binding. Additionally the delegated regulations were provided to the DOC, NOT the FRB, and as such the Federal Reserve has overreached in their powers and authority.

‘as Congress, through the Federal Reserve Act, has given the Federal Reserve the authority to establish regulatory measures relating to money in order to create a stable economy.‘
This is flatly false, the Federal Reserve Act allows them to ‘shape and execute policies related to money’ -- The Act does not enable them regulatory powers, and this is obvious by the clear outline of these powers to the Department of Commerce.


In Summary

It is our position that the Federal Reserve should not be allowed to regulate deposit-taking institutions in such a way as to request financial records directly from them, or to request that the DOJ investigate on their behalf as this was never allotted to them as it was the DOC, and the FRB is NOT a regulatory body.

We ask the court to recognize the importance of policy being public. If we enable the Federal Reserve to act in secret, they can make policy with no public oversight or knowledge, the public is deprived of any potential benefit or harm caused.

We believe it is important that this court clarify where reserve ratios are held and request an interpretation of the law explicitly should a legitimate policy be put into place in the future.

 

[juniperfig]

The Defence has 72 hours to submit their closing statement.

 

[Angryhamdog]

Your Honor, I would like to request a 18 hour extension (Friday, 10:06PM EST). I was preoccupied with running the elections for the DOS tonight, my apologies.

 

[juniperfig]

Your Honor, I would like to request a 18 hour extension (Friday, 10:06PM EST). I was preoccupied with running the elections for the DOS tonight, my apologies.

Granted.

 

[Angryhamdog]

Your Honor, I made a mistake in calculating the times and under-requested the time we should have asked for (as I converted the time to EST). I request a 6 hour extension on top of the previous request (for a total of 24 hours on the original deadline) to allow me to polish my closing statement to an acceptable degree before the court. My apologies, and we thank the court.

 

[juniperfig]

Your Honor, I made a mistake in calculating the times and under-requested the time we should have asked for (as I converted the time to EST). I request a 6 hour extension on top of the previous request (for a total of 24 hours on the original deadline) to allow me to polish my closing statement to an acceptable degree before the court. My apologies, and we thank the court.

Granted.

 

[Angryhamdog]

Closing Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT


“The Federal Reserve bears the primary responsibility for shaping and executing policies related to money.”

This is the first statement under the Federal Reserve Act, Section 3, regarding the responsibilities of the Federal Reserve. This clause is intentionally broad as the legislators of the time understood the vast and difficult to legislate needs of the federal reserve. Just as the Plot Standards Act delegates the power to the DCT to shape policy executed as law, the Federal Reserve Act gives the power to the FRB to shape policy, regarding to ‘money’, that is to be considered binding.

One such policy is the ability to assert ratios of ‘minimum amounts of funds that banks must hold in reserve against their deposits’. This does not state where the banks are required to hold their deposits, which allows the federal reserve to have discretion and publish a policy, such as the Bank Reserve Requirement Act, which dictates where they are required to hold these deposits.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Bank Reserve Requirement Act isn’t public. This is ridiculous. Reserve Governor Stoppers posted it in the #announcements channel of the Federal Reserve discord server twice, with the associated announcements, on the 25th of January and the 3rd of February. The ‘classified’ nature of the document is merely a Federal Reserve organization internal policy, and the document clearly states the classification is ‘1 (May be viewed by the Public”.

Regarding the ‘Cloak and Dagger’ policy enforcement, the Federal Reserve was clearly not ‘shadow legislating’ or enforcing their policies in a way that would make it difficult for banks to comply. Other than the general announcements and a post in #news regarding it, Reserve Governor Stoppers individually messaged the owners of each institution that was affected. Of the parties to be accused of ‘Cloak and Dagger’ dealings, it should be clear that the party that failed to show transparency was the Bank of Reveille, who failed to even acknowledge the message was received and needed a warrant and was blocked by the courts in order to comply.

For the Plaintiff’s quoted case of Intercepticon v. DCT [2021] FCR 10, this case is completely irrelevant to the issues at hand. The Plaintiff in Interception v. DCT was given no notice, and had his property seized without any chance to remedy the issue. In contrast, the Bank of Reveille had two announcements and a private DM (see P-006) requesting compliance with several weeks of buffer to ensure compliance.

Regarding the Judicial Officers’ reservations that were confirmed by Freeze_Line, it is worth again mentioning that the Judicial Officer signed the warrant. If there was a serious issue in which the Judicial Officer truly believed that the Act’s publicity and subsequent notifications to the bank weren’t sufficient, then why would they approve the warrant?

Regarding the Taxation Act, the reasoning for it was signed four years before the Federal Reserve came into existence. The exact reasoning is hardly applicable here, as it has now been over six years since those reasons were used, which is almost the entirety of the length Redmont has existed as a country, and the duties of the Federal Reserve and the Department of Commerce are vastly different than they were six years ago.

Finally, I wish to address the most important question before the court: Does the Federal Reserve have regulatory powers?

The answer to this question is unequivocally yes. Under the Federal Reserve Act, Section 4, it explains a group under the Federal Reserve is the ‘Commercial Board’, charged with serving as an ‘advisory body to regulatory agencies’, and that ‘Their expertise and insights would be valuable in crafting effective regulations’. This clearly shows that the government agency of the Federal Reserve has regulatory powers. Additionally, they are given powers such as changing Starting Player Balance and minting currency, which are inherently actions used to regulate the economy as a whole.

Your Honor, the Federal Reserve Bank has acted justly, legally, and within the bounds established by Congress, which are continually reaffirmed as Congress doesn’t exercise their powers to overturn decisions made by the Federal Reserve (Federal Reserve Act Section 7.6), and we petition the court to confirm that the FRB, working in tandem with the Executive Government, can create policy necessary that ensures our economy allows all citizens of Redmont to thrive.

We thank the Judiciary and opposing counsel for their time.

 

[juniperfig]

The Court will hereby enter recess pending verdict.

 

[juniperfig]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Bank of Reveille v. Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) [2025] FCR 22

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) unlawfully assumed investigative and enforcement powers not granted under the Federal Reserve Act, infringing on powers explicitly granted to the Department of Commerce under the Commercial Standards Act and Taxation Act.

2. The FRB’s enforcement of the “Bank Reserve Requirement Act” violated fundamental constitutional rights, including protection against unreasonable search and seizure, due process, and equal treatment under the law.

3. The “Bank Reserve Requirement Act” is not a binding policy as it was never made public in accordance with legal precedent (e.g., Intercepticon v. DCT), rendering compliance unenforceable.

4. The Department of Justice issued a warrant based on materially false or incomplete information, without proper independent investigation or recognition of clerical errors presented prior to execution.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Federal Reserve Bank acted within the lawful scope of its authority under the Federal Reserve Act to set and enforce monetary policies, including reserve requirements.

2. The FRB did not conduct an investigation or execute the warrant but rather referred concerns to the Department of Justice, which independently sought and executed the warrant.

3. The “Bank Reserve Requirement Act” was sufficiently published via FRB announcements and direct outreach to affected institutions, meeting the requirement of public accessibility.

4. The Bank of Reveille failed to meet the clear and communicated compliance deadline, and the search warrant was a reasonable and proportionate measure based on established noncompliance.

5. No constitutional rights were violated, as the information requested was already lawfully required and did not extend into protected client or private data.

III. THE COURT OPINION
This case is complex and has far-reaching consequences. To summarize the following ~1000 words: the Court finds that the “Bank Reserve Requirement Act” was not publicly accessible, was improperly labeled as legislation, and reflects a serious misunderstanding of the Federal Reserve Bank’s limited role under Redmont law.

Was the “Bank Reserve Requirement Act” public, and therefore binding? No.
While technically posted in the FRB Discord’s #announcements channel on January 25th and again on February 3rd, the Court finds that the policy was not sufficiently published to be considered binding, and finds no reason to believe it was sufficiently accessible for the Bank of Redmont representative. The first post was made before the Bank of Reveille’s representative joined the server. The second post, although closer to the relevant date, included no ping, no confirmation of delivery or acknowledgment, and no corresponding post in a permanent public forum, such as the government forums where other departments publish binding policy.

Even worse, the Bank Reserve Requirement “Act” was not a forum thread but a google document riddled with contradictory and deeply concerning markings. Specifically:

• Every page of the document was labeled “CLASSIFIED” despite being allegedly “open to the public.”
  
  
• The document warns in bold, capitalized text: “ACCESS BY NON-FEDERAL RESERVE BANK GOVERNORS IS A VIOLATION OF POLICY AND PROSECUTABLE.”
  
  
• The footer states that “NO COPIES ARE TO BE DISTRIBUTED PUBLICLY WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE GOVERNOR OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK.”

Let the Court be perfectly clear: This is not public policy. This is not transparency. This is not accessible. This is absurd. The Federal Reserve’s claim that this document constitutes “public posting” is entirely disingenuous, and frankly, insulting to the standards of governance expected within the Commonwealth of Redmont.

Moreover, this Court is appalled at the FRB's continued use of the term “Act”. The term “act” is used primarily as the “act of congress” as legislation passed by the congress. The usage of the term by the Federal Reserve Bank is inappropriate and misrepresents the legal origin and authority. Relying on a term associated with the second highest code of our Commonwealth is highly condemnable.

This conduct flies directly in the face of the Federal Reserve Act §3(3), which requires the FRB to ensure:

“clear and accessible communication... to the public.”​

Instead, the FRB chose to host policy in an externally hosted document, mark it as classified, restrict its distribution, and post it without notification in a transient channel. This is governance by cloak and dagger.

As affirmed in Icypenguin79 v. Department of Construction and Transport [2021] FCR 44, policies “need to be accessible to the public to be binding on them.” The Bank Reserve Requirement “Act” utterly fails this standard—in form, function, and publication. It cannot bind anyone — and it certainly cannot justify the issuance of a search warrant.

This Court finds the “Act” not only non-binding, but also emblematic of a broader misunderstanding—or willful ignorance—of the FRB’s role within Redmont’s legal hierarchy.


There were a few more legal questions brought up which I’d like to answer.

Are banks protected by constitutional rights afforded to citizens? No.
As established in Bank and Trust of Redmont v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 8, “organizations such as banks are not considered citizens under the law.” While citizens operating within those organizations may be indirectly impacted by governmental action, Articles XIII, XIV, and XV do not directly apply to organizations, as they specifically reference citizens. Therefore, claims of constitutional violation raised by the Plaintiff are unfounded in law and are accordingly dismissed.

Does the Federal Reserve have investigative authority? No.
The Federal Reserve Act empowers the FRB to “oversee and guide banks,” and to “set reserve requirements,” but it does not grant the power to conduct investigations or pursue warrants. In contrast, the Commercial Standards Act explicitly grants these powers to the Department of Commerce:

“(1) The Department of Commerce is authorized to monitor financial transactions…”​

“(2) The Department of Commerce is afforded access to financial institution accounts on request for the purposes of monitoring them for compliance.”​

Specific statutory authority trumps general authority. The Department of Commerce, not the FRB, is the regulatory and investigative authority over financial institutions in Redmont. Additionally, the FRB’s own policy—the very “Bank Reserve Requirement Act” at the center of this case—only states that the FRB:

“may impose penalties on institutions failing to meet the reserve requirement, including fines or restrictions on lending and investment activities.”​

There is no mention whatsoever of the FRB conducting investigations or filing warrants. The FRB was, by its own terms, limited to economic penalties, not investigative processes.

The Court frankly does not understand—and sees no statutory or policy justification—for why the FRB believed it had the authority to refer the Bank of Reveille to the Department of Justice for enforcement. Nor does the Court understand why the DOJ accepted that request without consulting the Department of Commerce, the actual body empowered to investigate and monitor banks.

This is not a minor procedural error; it is a fundamental breakdown of legal boundaries. It reflects either a serious misreading of the law by both the FRB and DOJ, or a troubling attempt to circumvent the correct regulatory process entirely.

Does the law require banks to hold their reserves within the FRB itself? No.
The governing statute — the Federal Reserve Act §5(e)(i) — states:

“The Reserve Bank sets reserve requirements, which are the minimum amounts of funds that banks must hold in reserve against their deposits.”​

This clause permits the FRB to establish ratios for how much of a bank’s funds must be retained in reserve—that is, withheld from lending or investment to ensure liquidity. However, critically, it does not specify where those reserves must be held, and it contains no language mandating that those funds be deposited into the FRB's own accounts.

Moreover, this Court observes an important textual distinction: throughout the Federal Reserve Act, the term “Reserve”—when referring to the Federal Reserve Bank—is capitalized as a proper noun. However, in this clause, the word “reserve” appears in lowercase, suggesting that it does not refer to the institution, but to the general economic concept of a reserve fund. This deviation implies that the statute intends for banks to retain their own reserves—not necessarily transfer them to FRB custody.

If the legislature had intended for banks to deposit reserves directly into FRB-controlled accounts, it could have said so explicitly. It did not. This Court therefore concludes that the FRB’s imposition of a location-based reserve mandate—requiring banks to deposit a portion of funds with the Federal Reserve itself—lacks statutory support.

Accordingly, any enforcement action premised on failure to deposit reserves with the FRB, rather than simply holding them internally, rests on a misreading of the law.

IV. DECISION
The Federal Court of Redmont hereby rules in favour of the Plaintiff, and grants the following Prayers for Relief:

Prayer for Relief #1: That the Bank Reserve Requirement Act is struck as an overreach of authority.
Granted. The Court hereby STRIKES the "Bank Reserve Requirement Act" in full. The Court finds that the policy was not lawfully enacted, not sufficiently published, and not binding upon financial institutions within the Commonwealth of Redmont. The FRB lacked both the statutory authority and procedural foundation to enforce this policy, and its attempt to do so constituted a clear overreach of power. Additionally, the naming of the policy as an “Act” falsely implied legislative legitimacy, which the FRB does not and cannot possess. The Court rules that this policy shall carry no legal weight, retroactively or prospectively.

Prayer for Relief #2: Declaratory judgment on the scope and purpose of the Federal Reserve Bank.
Granted. The Court DECLARES that the Federal Reserve Bank is authorized under the Federal Reserve Act to shape and execute monetary policy, including setting reserve ratios for banks. However, it is not authorized to conduct investigations, request legal enforcement actions, or compel financial disclosures. These functions rest exclusively with the Department of Commerce under the Commercial Standards Act. It must enforce its policies in coordination with the Department of Commerce.

Prayer for Relief #3: Declaratory judgment on the scope and purpose of the Federal Reserve Bank’s policy initiatives.
Granted. The Court DECLARES that any policy initiative of the Federal Reserve Bank must:

• Be clearly and publicly published in an official, accessible, and persistent location, preferably on the forums;
• Avoid titles that suggest legislative authority, such as "Act," unless passed by Congress;
• Adhere to the powers expressly delegated by the Federal Reserve Act;
• Be enforced only in cooperation with the Department of Commerce or other relevant regulatory agencies.

Any policy failing to meet these standards shall not be considered binding or enforceable against any institution or individual.

Prayer for Relief #4: Granted. $5000 in legal fees are to be paid to the Plaintiff.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.