Lawsuit: In Session Discover Bank v. The Commonwealth of Redmont. [2023] FCR 77

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Discover Bank (Represented by The Lovely Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

The Department of Commerce
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On September 10th, The Secretary of Commerce LilLethalVert issued a demand to Discover Bank requesting to view private information about its financial records and depositors despite having no probable cause to do so. This invasion of privacy led to some questions by the bank's counsel, and in retaliation, the Secretary decided to unilaterally revoke Discover Bank's tax exemption in a fit of rage, as well as issuing a highly defamatory statement in Government announcements that makes Discover Bank look to be a bad business when nothing could be further from the truth.


I. PARTIES
1. Discover Bank (Plaintiff)
2. The Department of Commerce (Defendant)
3. LilLethalVert (The Secretary of Commerce)
4. Nexalin (Witness)

II. FACTS
1. Secretary LilLethalVert stated, on September 10th, "The Department of Commerce is requesting a current record of all active accounts (checking, loans, and deposits) from the Discover Bank. This is a part of a routine check on all registered financial institutions in Redmont." (Exhibit A)
2. Discover Bank, via its counsel, requested the Department of Commerce to obtain a warrant, to which the Department refused. (Exhibit B)
3. The Department issued an ultimatum for compliance, to which the Bank's counsel inquired what the penalties would be if the bank did not comply with the Department's request. (Exhibit C)
4. The Department, without further communication, instantly revoked Discover Bank's tax exemption status: "Due to failure to fulfill critical requests on this firm, we are suspending your ITO (and therefore your tax exemption) as we cannot be certain you meet the criteria of an insurable bank." (Exhibit C)
5. The Secretary issued a statement in Government Announcements, pinging all persons subscribed to @economy, a statement which humilated Discover Bank. (Exhibit D)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Department of Commerce illicitly demanded that Discover Bank yield private information about its accountholders financial information as well as information about the bank itself. This directly violates the accountholder's right to be safe against unreasonable search as well as that of the company's. The Constitution provides that "XV. Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure." The term search is broad and encompasses inquiries not only into physical possessions, but anything of private value. The intent of this right is to protect citizens from intrusion by the Government in their private affairs. Finance and banking is an especially sensitive aspect of a citizen's life, and is the entire core of Discover Bank. This intrusion lacks foundation and is unsupported by probable cause. Discover Bank, as well as the "several dozen" other financial institutions the Department of Commerce has harassed, are not immediately suspected of any criminal wrongdoing, therefore the right to be secure against unnecessary searches must be upheld in this matter.
2. The Department of Commerce has also began using software to automatically track and monitor the depositing activity of financial institutions, even small amounts. This is a further intrusion into privacy and is beyond the normal scope of monitoring. This level of scrutiny should only be engaged when there is probable cause to justify such an action.
3. The Department of Commerce is not allowed to arbitrarily revoke the tax exemption status for any financial institution per the Financial Institution Taxation Act (link). Regardless of cooperation with oversight, the Department of Commerce overstepped its authority and took away a lawfully given right from Discover Bank. The law provides that "(2) Deposit-taking financial institutions will be exempt from all balance taxes." Discover Bank takes deposits from private citizens and corporate clients regularly ("(1) A deposit-taking financial institution is defined as a financial institution that takes deposits of money from other legal entities, such as companies and private citizens, in order to profitably invest them and return a portion of the profit to its depositors."), and therefore the law provides an enumerated stipulation that Discover Bank is automatically exempt from all balance taxes regardless of the Department of Commerce's or its Secretary's feelings toward the Bank. The revocation was a short-sighted and authoritarian act designed to intimidate my client into giving up its right to be secure against unreasonable searches, an act that must not go unpunished. The law provides that the only information it provides to the Department of Commerce is specific in nature and occurs only at the end of the month. It is not currently the end of the month by any stretch, and my client pays its revenue taxes in a timely and honest manner. Regardless, nothing in the law empowers the Department of Commerce to revoke tax exempt status, a status automatically and unequivocally granted by the law to ALL deposit-taking financial institutions.
4. The tax exemption status was revoked as of 11:45PM EDT on September 10th, 2023. Corporate taxes at a rate of 1% weekly have begun to accrue. With the current balance of Discover Bank, the bank currently loses $244.05 in taxes every hour. Therefore, between the time when exemption was revoked and the time when it will be restored, the plaintiff will have lost $244.05 every hour needlessly and illegally. Given this financial institution is in the business of loaning out money, it is also losing interest on this money that could have been lent out. Discover Bank loans money out at an average interest rate of roughly 6%, making the hourly losses due to lost interest total at $14.64. In total, every hour Discover Bank is taxed, it loses $258.69 of hard-earned cash. If one extrapolates that over just one day, it is a heavy tax burden that is illegal.
5. The Department of Commerce has defamed my client and caused it humiliation due to the comments made by it in Government announcements. The announcement frames the perception of my client in a manner that it is not a reputable or lawfully-compliant financial institution, which can impact customers' decisions when deciding to bank with Discover Bank. This will have an effect on revenues in unimaginable ways, and therefore the damages are incalculable humiliation damages, which the Legal Damages Act allows civil plaintiffs to collect damages for (link). No matter the outcome of this lawsuit, Discover Bank's reputation is permanently tarnished by the Department's negligence, blind rage, and lack of consideration for the law.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Department of Commerce's jurisdiction to be limited to its lawful bounds, and to rewrite policy accordingly;
2. The Department of Commerce to restore the tax exemption status of Discover Bank;
3. The Department of Commerce to pay Discover Bank $10,000 in punitive damages for its gross misconduct and outrageous nature;
4. The Department of Commerce to pay compensatory damages to Discover Bank for illicit taxation and loss of interest revenue at a rate of $258.69/hr starting from 11:45PM EDT on September 10th, 2023 and ending when Discover Bank's tax exemption status is finally restored. All partial hours should be pro-rated by the minute with the hourly rate divided by 60, and then multiplied by the minute.
5. The Department of Commerce to pay consequential damages to Discover Bank for humiliation by posting a defamatory announcement grounded in falsehood and illegality. The Plaintiff requests $100,000 in damages under this claim as the earning capacity of Discover Bank is incalculably large and a statement from the Government itself can severely harm its operations. The Legal Damages Act allows this penalty to be requested beyond the normal $50,000 limit because punitive damages are being argued in this civil suit.
6. The Department of Commerce to pay consequential damages to Discover Bank for loss of enjoyment in Redmont as its implied right to privacy via the right to be secure from unreasonable searches was violated. The loss of privacy and the blatant intrusion of the Government into Discover Bank's activities make it less enjoyable and less easy to conduct business, lowers workplace moral, and demotivates upper management in the firm, causing a ripple effect of other incalculable damages. The Plaintiff therefore requests $45,000 in damages under this claim.
7. The Department of Commerce to pay the legal fees of the Plaintiff for trying this case. The Lovely Law Firm is charging the Plaintiff 20% of the value of this case, and the Plaintiff therefore requests $38,750 (when added to the other fees in the case excluding prayer for relief four, this number is 20% of the total) in legal fees plus 20% of whatever prayer for relief four ends up totaling.

V. MATERIAL EVIDENCE

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

Exhibit D

VI. EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
Due to the gravity of this case and for my client to be taxed quite heavily in an erroneous manner, I motion to compel the Department of Commerce to restore Discover Bank's tax exemption status immediately. The Financial Institution Taxation Act says all financial institutions are entitled to tax exemption, regardless if the Commerce Secretary likes it or not. With the current corporate tax rate being 1% for my client's corporate balance, my client would suffer 160k a month, which a Court case easily could take up, and therefore this injunction should be granted to protect the welfare of all the depositors of Discover Bank.

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 11th day of September, 2023.

 

[Milkcrack]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
@Dartanman is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Discover Bank v. The Commonwealth of Redmont. [2023] FCR 77

Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment 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]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
@Dartanman is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Discover Bank v. The Commonwealth of Redmont. [2023] FCR 77

Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment 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.​

Your honor, there is an emergency injunction outstanding.

 

[Milkcrack]

RULING ON THE EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
I will be denying the emergency injunction. The plaintiff has failed to prove that the possible damages from not granting the emergency injunction are immediate and irreparable. The possible damages appear to be monetary in nature and can therefore be justly compensated by the commonwealth if this court rules in favour of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff may propose a new temporary injunction after the defence has filed its answer to complaint.

 

[Dartanman]

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

Discover Bank
(Plaintiff)

v.

Department of Commerce (Commonwealth of Redmont) [Dartanman, Drew_Hall, and Pugsy representing]
(Defendant)

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM that Secretary LilLethalVert stated, on September 10th, "The Department of Commerce is requesting a current record of all active accounts (checking, loans, and deposits) from the Discover Bank. This is a part of a routine check on all registered financial institutions in Redmont."
2. AFFIRM that Discover Bank, via its counsel, requested the Department of Commerce to obtain a warrant, to which the Department refused.
3. AFFIRM that the Department issued an ultimatum for compliance, to which the Bank's counsel inquired what the penalties would be if the bank did not comply with the Department's request. NOTE that it was already made quite clear that they did not intend to comply (as shown in the Plaintiff’s evidence).
4. AFFIRM that the Department revoked Discover Bank's tax exemption status, stating: "Due to failure to fulfill critical requests on this firm, we are suspending your ITO (and therefore your tax exemption) as we cannot be certain you meet the criteria of an insurable bank." NEITHER CONFIRM NOR DENY that this was done without further communication. Also NOTE that the announcement is clear, defining this “revocation of tax exemption” as follows: “[revocation of] Discover Bank's special registration as a banking institution.”
5. AFFIRM that the Secretary issued a statement in Government Announcements, pinging all persons subscribed to @Economy. NEITHER CONFIRM NOR DENY the effect of humiliation by the message.

II. DEFENSES
1. The Constitution does, in-fact, provide "XV. Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure." (emphasis added)

The Commonwealth emphasizes the operative word unreasonable. The Defense asserts that banking compliance is in the best interest of the Commonwealth and her people – particularly, it protects account holders from malicious banking practices.

2. The Constitution also provides “The Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society.”

The Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the portion of the Constitution that provides the right against unreasonable search and seizure.

So here we have it – not only does this right protect against unreasonable search, but the Constitution recognizes that all of these rights may be subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society.”

Through the Financial Services Act (“The Department is afforded access to financial institution accounts on request for the purposes of monitoring them for compliance.”) and Safer Banking Act (“Institutions not suitable for insurance will be deregistered by the DOC as a financial institution.”), the Commonwealth asserts that the actions taken are prescribed by law and that the result being the insurance of all account holders’ accounts and deposits is a reasonable limit that is justified in our free and democratic society.

Note that the revocation of tax exemption is truly a deregistration as a financial institution (not as a business – just as a financial institution).

3. The Department of Commerce is given the following duty by the Constitution: “Enforcing compliance with national corporate standards.”

It is impossible to enforce compliance with Discover Bank if they literally refuse to comply. The Department of Commerce has taken necessary action to enforce compliance with tax laws and reporting obligations.

4. In Summary, a brief overview of the Plaintiff’s arguments (purple) and the Defendant’s defenses (yellow):
a. Plaintiff: The Department of Commerce illicitly demanded that Discover Bank yield private information about its accountholders financial information as well as information about the bank itself.

Commonwealth: The Department of Commerce is given this authority through the Financial Services Act, Safer Banking Act, and Constitution. Furthermore, the Constitution expressly allows for reasonable and justified limits on the Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms when prescribed by law.

b. Plaintiff: The Department of Commerce has also began using software to automatically track and monitor the depositing activity of financial institutions, even small amounts. This is a further intrusion into privacy and is beyond the normal scope of monitoring.

Commonwealth: The Department of Commerce is given this authority through the Financial Services Act, Safer Banking Act, and Constitution. Furthermore, the Constitution expressly allows for reasonable and justified limits on the Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms when prescribed by law. On top of this, “monitoring the depositing activity … even small amounts” is literally, by definition, monitoring – and not “beyond the normal scope of monitoring.”

c. Plaintiff: The Department of Commerce is not allowed to arbitrarily revoke the tax exemption status for any financial institution per the Financial Institution Taxation Act.

Commonwealth: This was not an “arbitrary” revocation. It was a legal and necessary action taken to enforce compliance. The Department of Commerce is given this authority through the Financial Services Act, Safer Banking Act, and Constitution. Furthermore, we again assert that the “revocation of tax exemption status” is actually a deregistration as a financial institution.

5. The Defense wishes to note that by the nature of a percentage-based tax, every hour that the Plaintiff is taxed, they are taxed slightly less for the next hour, so this should be taken into account when calculating their taxes.

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

DATED: This 12th day of September 2023.

 

[Dartanman]

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

The Commonwealth believes that "Claim For Relief 5" which is quoted below should be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Plaintiff fails to allege the necessary components of Defamation.

The Plaintiff claimed:
"5. The Department of Commerce has defamed my client and caused it humiliation due to the comments made by it in Government announcements. The announcement frames the perception of my client in a manner that it is not a reputable or lawfully-compliant financial institution, which can impact customers' decisions when deciding to bank with Discover Bank. This will have an effect on revenues in unimaginable ways, and therefore the damages are incalculable humiliation damages, which the Legal Damages Act allows civil plaintiffs to collect damages for (link). No matter the outcome of this lawsuit, Discover Bank's reputation is permanently tarnished by the Department's negligence, blind rage, and lack of consideration for the law."

Let's take it one sentence at a time:
1. "The Department of Commerce has defamed my client and caused it humiliation due to the comments made by it in Government announcements."

There were comments made, but merely saying it was defamation does not sufficiently allege the components of it.

2. "The announcement frames the perception of my client in a manner that it is not a reputable or lawfully-compliant financial institution, which can impact customers' decisions when deciding to bank with Discover Bank."

We will not be addressing the accuracy of this statement in the Motion to Dismiss, however we will note that it does not allege falsehood.

3. "This will have an effect on revenues in unimaginable ways, and therefore the damages are incalculable humiliation damages, which the Legal Damages Act allows civil plaintiffs to collect damages for (link)."

Again, we will not be addressing the accuracy of this statement in the Motion to Dismiss, however we will note that it does not allege falsehood.

4. "No matter the outcome of this lawsuit, Discover Bank's reputation is permanently tarnished by the Department's negligence, blind rage, and lack of consideration for the law."

Again, we will not be addressing the accuracy of this statement in the Motion to Dismiss, however we will note that it does not allege falsehood.

Because the Plaintiff never alleged that the supposed defamation was false, the claim must be dismissed.

 

[Milkcrack]

The plaintiff has 48 hours to respond to the motion to dismiss.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, the plaintiff asserts that there were false statements in the announcement the Secretary sent. Further, through the course of this trial, we will show that defamation has occurred.

The defense's motion is nothing more than arguments. Lack of evidence is not sufficient reason to dismiss and therefore I assert that all components of defamation will be examined in this trial.

 

[zLost]

RULING ON THE EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
I will be denying the emergency injunction. The plaintiff has failed to prove that the possible damages from not granting the emergency injunction are immediate and irreparable. The possible damages appear to be monetary in nature and can therefore be justly compensated by the commonwealth if this court rules in favour of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff may propose a new temporary injunction after the defence has filed its answer to complaint.

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

Your Honor, while it appears that the Plaintiff is only suffering monetary damages, the fact is that these damages cause the Plaintiff to lose potential customers, on which a price can't be put, as being taxed puts the Plaintiff at a competitive disadvantage as other banks that are not subject to taxation can provide more attractive financial packages. The taxes cause a great deal of burden to the bank every single passing day this case goes on, and if nothing is done it will cause irreparable damage. Along with this, the Plaintiff will have to increase costs and fees in order to remain profitable which can deter even more people away from the bank.

 

[Matthew100x]

I am the new judge assigned to this case. Please give me 48 hours to review the case and get myself up to speed on the matters. I reserve the right begin making decisions on this matter sooner than 48 hours.

 

[zLost]

Your Honor, I apologize for speaking out of turn, but I would like to inform you that it has been around a week and more than 48 hours.

 

[Dartanman]

I am informing the Court that I am no longer the Attorney General. @drew_hall is and I will no longer be involved in this case.