Lawsuit: Dismissed Bombaz2005 Vs. The Commonwealth Of Redmont [2024] FCR 4

[dodrio3]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Bombaz2005 (Lovely Law Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

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

I. PARTIES

1. Bombaz2005 - Plaintiff
2. Commonwealth of Redmont - Defendant
3. Antilethal - Secretary of Commerce

II. FACTS

1. Bombaz2005 served on the boards of directors at Avalon but did not own any shares of the company. (Exhibit A) (Exhibit B)
2. On 03/01/2024, the Secretary of Commerce, Antilethal, sent a threatening message to Bombaz2005. (Exhibit C)
3. Lovely Law made the Secretary of Commerce aware of their mistake on 03/01/2023 and provided evidence that Bombaz2005 wasn't in an ownership position. (Exhibit D)
4. The following proceedings caused significant stress on the plaintiff.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Threat made by the Department of Commerce that isn't law-abiding.
2. Copious amounts of stress caused to Bombaz2005.

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

1. $150,000 in punitive damages for the outrageous actions of the DOC.
2. $50,000 in emotional damages due to the large amounts of stress caused to Bombaz2005.
3. $50,000 for loss of enjoyment due to the large amounts of stress caused to Bombaz2005.
4. Disallow the DOC to seize any assets that belong to Bombaz2005
5. $50,000 In legal Fees paid to Lovely Law (20% of case Value)

Exhibit A:

Exhibit B:

Exhibit C:

Exhibit D:

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

DATED: This 9 day of 1 2024

 

[dodrio3]

Emergency Injunction

Due to the harm that a seizure of assets could harm Bombaz2005 ability to make profits, we ask that the court grant this emergency injunction to

• Order the DOC to not seize any of Bombaz2005 properties
• Order the DOC to not seize Bombaz2005 Ballance

Order the DOC to not seize any of Bombaz2005 bank account balance

 

[Matthew100x]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the Bombaz2005 Vs. The Commonwealth Of Redmont [2024] FCR 4. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[Matthew100x]

Emergency Injunction

Due to the harm that a seizure of assets could harm Bombaz2005 ability to make profits, we ask that the court grant this emergency injunction to

• Order the DOC to not seize any of Bombaz2005 properties
• Order the DOC to not seize Bombaz2005 Ballance

Order the DOC to not seize any of Bombaz2005 bank account balance

I will not be granting the Emergency Injunction at this time.

 

[dodrio3]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Precedent from xAntho_ny V. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 3 should be considers as in this case the same thing is asked for and is granted. If this is not granted then It could cause my client great amounts of harm due to the large amount of money that could be taken.​

DATED: This 22 day of 01 2024

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Your honor,

As Solicitor General, I will be representing the commonwealth in this case.

RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT

Fact 1. The commonwealth AFFIRMS this point, as the Plaintiffs counsel has proven that the plaintiff was in fact in the Board of Directors, and per the evidence it does appear that the plaintiff did not own a portion of the financial institution.

Fact 2. The Commonwealth ARGUES this statement, as Antilethal did send a message to the plaintiff, however there was no intent to threaten the plaintiff, merely informing them of the law and the steps that will be taken moved forward.

Fact 3. The Defense AFFIRMS that a message was sent in response by Lovely Law, but ARGUES that the plaintiffs reasoning and interpretation of the law is incorrect.

Fact 4. The Defense ARGUES that the plaintiff suffered any “significant stress”.

Thank you.

 

[Matthew100x]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Precedent from xAntho_ny V. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 3 should be considers as in this case the same thing is asked for and is granted. If this is not granted then It could cause my client great amounts of harm due to the large amount of money that could be taken.​

DATED: This 22 day of 01 2024

What precedent is being set here? I am trying to understand the harm and damage currently being done to your client. I do not see the need to grant an Emergency Injunction, which is a measure of preventing harm, if there is no ongoing harm nor any harm that cannot be undone/remedied by an injunction/writ of mandamus at the end of the case.

 

[Matthew100x]

We shall now be moving towards Discovery. Discovery will end in 7 days. Discovery can be voluntarily ended or extended with both parties agreeing to do so. Please remember the following rules:

Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use)​

All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission. Material must have been included within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible and the argument can be voided by the presiding judge.

Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol)​

A party may submit a list for witnesses at any time before the end of discovery. In order for a witness to be called during witness testimony, they must be announced under this rule, during discovery. Any witness may be objected to according to the objections laid out within rule 6.3.

Failure to adhere to the timelines of this rule may subject that party to a contempt of court charge at the presiding judge’s decision. The presiding judge shall include a warning regarding the timeline when summoning the witness.

 

[Matthew100x]

Reminder that I am not seeing any submissions for evidence nor witness. Discovery ends this upcoming Tuesday.

 

[Matthew100x]

Discovery is now over.

- No witnesses may be called.
- No Evidence can be used outside of the plaintiff's complaint.

The Plaintiff now has 72 hours to post their opening arguments.

 

[dodrio3]

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

 

[Matthew100x]

Not granted. We will continue the case while negotiations take place in the background.

 

[dodrio3]

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

 

[Matthew100x]

Case dismissed at the request of the plaintiff.