Lawsuit: Adjourned 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

Spoiler: Exhibit A

Spoiler: Exhibit B

Spoiler: Exhibit C

Spoiler: 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.

 

[Dartanboy]

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.

 

[Dartanboy]

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.

 

[Dartanboy]

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.

 

[itsBlazeX]

Your honor, what is the status of this case?

 

[Matthew100x]

In recess as a result of the ongoing impeachment. Though I do apologize for not getting a verdict out prior to the matter that is being attended by the Senate.

 

[itsBlazeX]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
Due to the heavy losses my client has suffered as a result of the Commonwealth's actions, I motion to compel the Department of Commerce to restore Discover Bank's tax exemption status immediately. As stated in the The Financial Institution Taxation Act, all financial institutions are entitled to tax exemption. Discover Bank has already lost upwards off $200,000. Discover Bank will eventually lose their clients' money entirely, and will no longer be able to pay them withdrawals. This not only violates the rights of Discover Bank, but the rights of the depositors, as they no longer have access to the funds they were assured would be safe when making a deposit with 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.

 

[Matthew100x]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
Due to the heavy losses my client has suffered as a result of the Commonwealth's actions, I motion to compel the Department of Commerce to restore Discover Bank's tax exemption status immediately. As stated in the The Financial Institution Taxation Act, all financial institutions are entitled to tax exemption. Discover Bank has already lost upwards off $200,000. Discover Bank will eventually lose their clients' money entirely, and will no longer be able to pay them withdrawals. This not only violates the rights of Discover Bank, but the rights of the depositors, as they no longer have access to the funds they were assured would be safe when making a deposit with 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.

The request for the emergency injunction is Denied.

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.

Given that the case has been on hold for so long, I am going to give the plaintiff another opportunity to respond to this motion to dismiss.

Please answer the following questions, otherwise I am inclined to dismiss the case.

1. What is the justification for the lawsuit besides the constitutional right to privacy?
2. Is there any case law that supports your position?
3. Are there any laws that support your position?

As I am reading through the defendant's Answer to Complain and Motion to Dismiss, this court is inclined to believe that they have sufficiently shown that Congress has enacted law that would enable the department to bypass typical search and seizure protections a prescribed by the constitution. Is there any workaround to this position?

The plaintiff has 72 hours to respond. Please inform the court if you need an extension.

 

[zLost]

Your Honor, there has been no response to the motion to reconsider.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your Honor, there has been no response to the motion to reconsider.

Denied

 

[itsBlazeX]

Your honor, I am terribly sorry for my delayed response. My sister IRL had her first child over the weekend, and I was more focused on that than DC. Therefore, I did not have time to work on this over the weekend. May I please ask for an extension? I apologies for no prior notice, the baby came 2 weeks early, and I was not prepared.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor, I am terribly sorry for my delayed response. My sister IRL had her first child over the weekend, and I was more focused on that than DC. Therefore, I did not have time to work on this over the weekend. May I please ask for an extension? I apologies for no prior notice, the baby came 2 weeks early, and I was not prepared.

Granted. Congratulations on the new addition to your family! You have 72 hours in addition to the original 72 hours.

 

[itsBlazeX]

Answer to Motion to Dismiss
1. Yes your honor. LilLethalVert unrightfully revoked Discover Bank's tax exemption, leading to a massive loss in funds. As a result of the DOC's actions, many now think that Discover Bank is a bad business.
2. I do not believe so.
3. Yes, your honor. The Financial Institutions Tax Act (Act of Congress - Financial Institutions Tax Act (Revised)) states "The Department of Commerce is not allowed to arbitrarily revoke the tax exemption status for any financial institution." The Department of Commerce overstepped, and revoked Discover Bank's tax exemption, despite not being legally allowed to.

 

[Matthew100x]

Having reread the motion to dismiss, I see that this is entirely focused on claim for relief #5. That being said, this court, as stated before, is reviewing the entire situation. The main concern of the court is the allegations of arbitrary revocation of Discover Bank's status as a financial institution. The humiliation damages and allegations of false statements hinge first on whether or not what the government was allowable. An analysis would first have to be conducted of arbitrary revocation and whether or not what the defendant did was "arbitrary" or standard procedure placed against all financial institutions. Given that this review needs to be conducted first and that the claim for relief regarding arbitrary revocation was not requested in the motion to dismiss, the motion to dismiss will be denied.

Moving forward, the plaintiff should be well aware at this point of what the court is looking at with regards to this case. Counsels for both sides should advise their clients as such. The Court non-binding recommendation as we move forward with this case is for plaintiff's counsel to negotiate with the commonwealth to see what can be done to mediate the issue while litigation continues.

The Plaintiff now has 72 hours to make opening statements.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, the plaintiff has failed to make an opening statement.

 

[Matthew100x]

The Defendant now has 72 hours to make opening statements.

 

[itsBlazeX]

Your honor, my sincere apologies. I have asked for an extension for the rest of my cases, but this slipped my mind. I have had an incredibly busy week of school IRL and haven’t been on DC. I know it is late, but may I please have an extension? Thank you.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor, my sincere apologies. I have asked for an extension for the rest of my cases, but this slipped my mind. I have had an incredibly busy week of school IRL and haven’t been on DC. I know it is late, but may I please have an extension? Thank you.

Unfortunately the time has passed for me to grant an extension. Each presiding judge has their own manner of doing things. While I typically will not give contempt of court for missing deadlines, if a timely extension is not requested, I do move the court on to the next stage of litigation.

Therefore this request for an extension is denied.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, the prosecutor assigned to this case is going through personal real life matters. The Commonwealth asks for a 48 hour extension to appoint a new prosecutor and get an opening statement out.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor, the prosecutor assigned to this case is going through personal real life matters. The Commonwealth asks for a 48 hour extension to appoint a new prosecutor and get an opening statement out.

Granted. You have 72 additional hours.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Opening statements

Your honor,
May it Please the court,

Banks are a powerful resource here in Redmont, and with that great power comes great responsibility.

responsibility to the citizens that rely on the bank to work in their best interest. As such the citizens of Redmont have a clear right to understand what banks are doing with their own money behind closed doors. In order to protect everyone, simple measures and checks are put in place to ensure that banks work in the best interest for Redmont and its citizens. without these checks in place banks can go rogue, banks can work against the citizens that trust in it. this will create disastrous results for the economy and even worse results for Redmont. One of the strongest ways to prevent this disaster is by routine checks on finacial institutions. When Discovery bank refused to participate in it this routine check it refused to uphold in the safety of the citizens of Redmont. By demonstrating their irresponsibility on this required routine check they demonstrated that they did not Respect the power given to them by the people. As such the powers given to it by the DOS, namely its tax exemption status, should be and has been revoked. We can not give power to banks that show that they can not be responsible about that power.

According to Financial Services Act “The Department is afforded access to financial institution accounts on request for the purposes of monitoring them for compliance.”

When The DOC exercised the power granted to them by this act the plaintiff refused to cooperate leading to the use of
the Safer Banking Act. The Safer Banking act clearly states
Institutions not suitable for insurance will be deregistered by the DOC as a financial institution.”

Although this case involves banks this is not a case simply about banking. This is a case about holding our financial institutions accountable for their actions against Redmont.
Failure to do so would strip the DOC of their power, and allow banks to go unmonitored and unchecked.

Thank you,
your honor.

 

[Matthew100x]

Both sides shall now have the next 72 hours to declare to the court whether or not they have any witnesses they would like examined.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honor,
The defense would not like to call any witnesses.
Thank you.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, there was a miscommunication. Nexalin will be called as a witness. He was listed as a witness in the original complaint.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor, there was a miscommunication. Nexalin will be called as a witness. He was listed as a witness in the original complaint.

Denied. We're past time to declare witnesses for the sake of witness examination. Just because Nexalin is listed as a witness in the relevant party does not make them immune to the rule of being declared a witness for the sake of examination.

 

[Matthew100x]

With that said, the plaintiff now has 72 hours to post their closing statement.

 

[dodrio3]

Your Honour,

The Defences main argument is that the Banking Act states " The Department is afforded access to financial institution accounts on request for the purposes of monitoring them for compliance." The Department has no need to monitor the Discover bank for compliance as they had no reason to suspect the bank of not-complying with the laws surrounding the issue. Therefore when the constitution states "XV. Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure." The search was unconstitutional as the department had no reason to suspect Discover bank of failing to meet it requirement's set out Financial Institutions tax act and the banking act.


Despite what is ruled regarding the tax exemption being removed from Discover bank the post made by the secretary of the department of construction and transport is still puts discover bank in bad light the post resulted in the loss of customers for the discover bank as it made people believe that it was scandalous when it was not.

Thank you for you time and consideration in this matter

 

[Matthew100x]

Can the Defendant please post their closing statement within the next 72 hours?

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Closing statements

Your Honor,

The plaintiffs main argument was that the DOC over-stepped their power by revoking discover bank's tax exemption status as a finacial institution, we have shown through this case that, is not just incorrect but further more, the Department of Commerce had a responsibility to do so.

Finacial institutions left un-checked and unmonitored pose an overwhelmingly large threat to Redmont and its citizens. By requiring finacial institutions to follow procudures including monitorization and audits the DOC is keeping our country's finacial infrastructure safe.

This is a big responsibility of the DOC, but it is also the responsibility of discover bank.

They have a fiduciary responsibility to follow the DOC's procudure in order to ensure that their clients and the citizens of redmont are not harmed by their psractices. This responsibility comes with many perks including tax exemption and when the plaintiff refused to participate in the responsibilites that are required of a finacial institution they also refuse benefits that come along with it.

I implore the court to hold the plaintiff responsible for their actions as the Department of commerce has. I also implore the plaintiff to follow proper procedures that the DOC and the law outline. They are to keep everyone safe.

Thank you for your time and dedication,
Your Honor.

 

[Matthew100x]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Discover Bank v. The Commonwealth of Redmont. [2023] FCR 77

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The defendant's policy violated accountholder's 15th amendment right.

2. The defendant arbitrarily revoked the tax exemption status of the plaintiff.

3. The defendant's notice for information came outside of the normal timeframe of when the plaintiff was supposed to report.

4. The heavy tax burden laid against the plaintiff due to the defendant's action is illegal.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Defendant's action does not violate the accountholder's 15th amendment due to actions not being unreasonable.

2. That rights are limited as prescribed by laws that are justified in a free and democractic society.

3. That the actions that were taken by the defendant were authorized by law via the Financial Service Act and Safer Banking Act.

4. The defendant is constitutionally obligated to "enforcing compliance with national corporate standards".

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. As stated in the court's verdict on the motion to dismiss, protections typically offered by the Constitution can be reasonably circumvented by law (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - xLayzur & Krix v. Politico [2023] FCR 62).

2. That the Financial Services act was improperly cited as it has since been rescinded (see Rescinded - Financial Services Act and Act of Congress - Banking Act). However, the citied provisions of law has moved from the Financial Service Act to the Banking Act and is still allowable.

3. The Reporting requirement in the Safer Banking Act (and more broadly the Financial Institution Tax Act) states that banks must "must report their net revenue and obligations to the depositors monthly to the Department of Commerce. The Department of Commerce will notify financial institutions within the first seven days of the fiscal month. The financial institutions have until the last five days to provide the report to the Department of Commerce" is for tax related purposes.

4. That the powers under Section 10 of the Banking Act does allow the defendant "access to financial institution accounts on request for the purposes of monitoring them for compliance" which generally allows them to review a financial institutions "accounts" specifically for compliance.

5. That the Department of Commerce is charged with "Enforcing compliance with national corporate standards" via the Constitution under the Department Reform Act (see Act of Congress - Department Reform Act).

6. Thus, a standard must be applied:

In order to understand what a legal standard is, first one must understand the definition of "standard". The Oxford Dictionary's definition is "a level of quality, especially one that people think is acceptable" (standard_1 noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced American Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com.). Typically in IRL Courts, a standard is applied to test the validity of a government action or law to see if the action was justified to the constitution. Such examples under American Law, a similar but entirely separate system of law, have standards of review. Such examples include the rational basis test, the intermediate scrutiny test, and the strict scrutiny test. In Redmont, we will apply the weighted test standard. First applied in Lawsuit: Adjourned - Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] SCR 13, weighs "the government necessity of taking said action against the importance of maintaining individual rights". Under the common law, "any limitation on a constitutional right must be deemed reasonable and properly justified in a free and democratic society, as specifically mentioned in the constitution" (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Bank and Trust of Redmont v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 8).

With that said, we first must begin with an understanding of what will be weighed with the scales. Weighing on the side of the plaintiff is the 15th constitutional right protecting it from "unreasonable" searches or seizures (see Government - Constitution) , whether or not the actions of the defendant were done arbitrarily, and whether or not the "reasonable limits prescribed by law" (see Government - Constitution) were violated. Weighing on the side of the defendant is their constitutional mandate to enforce "compliance with national corporate standards” and provisions of the banking act and other financial law allowing for compliance. Weighing against the plaintiff, supporting the defendant, is an assumption of constitutional behavior on the part of the defendant since they were fulfilling their mandate as well as their registration as a Financial Institution. Weighing against the defendant, supporting the plaintiff, is a factor of arbitrariness or unreasonableness of the actions that the defendant took against the plaintiff as well as other financial law dictating when and how the Defendant should act.

To begin with, we need to establish the key factors. There are “reasonable limits” to how a law can override a constitutional right. Specifically, the right in question is right XV. which protects citizens from unreasonable search. Under the common law, it’s been previously established that a company does not have personhood and therefore does not have a constitutional right to protect themselves from unreasonable search or seizure (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Bank and Trust of Redmont v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 8). In this case, the plaintiff does not invoke the company’s constitutional rights and instead invokes their accountholders. So since the plaintiff argues that the protection comes not from themselves but on the protection of their accountholders, would the impact of the government intrusion impact the acountholders’ constitutional rights? Potentially, if the seizure does not fit the “reasonable limits'' as prescribed by law.

So what are the reasonable limits and where do they begin? One thing to bring up is that there may be a negating factor in that the constitutional mandate that is imposed on the defendant allows them to act in the interest of the nation. The court disagrees with this assessment on the grounds that the negation of a constitutional right in favor of a constitutional mandate would lead to a slippery slope where the government may violate citizens’ rights. A constitutional mandate allows a government authority to set up executive policy within their jurisdiction that is non-beholden to Congress, but it does not allow them to bypass constitutional protections. However, it is certainly possible that a congressional mandate granted by law would allow in this case the defendant to act against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff asserts that reasonable limits do not allow for arbitrary revocations or searches while the defendant asserts that reasonable limits are allowed by banking law enacted by Congress. The Banking Act and the Financial Institution Tax Act gives clear guidelines under law to which the defendant may move to act against a financial institution: 1) as part of the monthly financial report and 2) they’re afforded access “on request”. This power is specifically made for the defendant’s use in a narrowly tailored manner against financial institutions only. This in itself could certainly be a reasonable limit.

So if the actions were within a “reasonable limit”, were the actions also not “unreasonable”? That has not been determined. Just because an action is within a reasonable limit as prescribed by law does not mean that it automatically is not unreasonable under Right XV.

The real question then becomes does the defendant’s action constitute an unreasonable search against the plaintiff’s accountholders? The answer is yes. The defendant’s conduct against the plaintiff showed a complete disregard to their concerns. The same day that the defendant first demanded the information, the defendant also made no attempt to resolve this judicially or show any form of due process. Instead, the defendant made a second and final demand of the plaintiff before pulling their financial status. While legally, most of the actions that the defendant took would be reasonable up to such a point that they made their demands and pulled the plaintiff’s privilege on the same day. Such conduct shows an unreasonable attempt to resolve the situation.

Proper notice must be given and the financial institution must be given time to respond. Any further matters should be addressed by a court or by another administrative junction capable of handling such issues. Ultimately, the defendant is allowed to deregister a financial institution, but it should do so in such a way that shows proper restraint as to not unreasonably seize from a financial institution and its clientele. Thus, while the defendant is legally allowed to demand information from a financial institution, they are not allowed to unreasonably search a financial institution since such measures would harm the financial institution’s accountholders.

7. With the standard applied, it is clear that the defendant violated the accountholder’s constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

8. It is then logical to conclude that the pursuing action taken by the defendant in removing the plaintiff’s status as a financial institution was unconstitutional because the reasoning to do so was made on an unconstitutionally invalid premise.

9. Damages are incalculably high. The only arguments made for damages were done by the defendants. Therefore, the burden is on the defendant to review their compensatory harm to the plaintiff, otherwise the damages given by the plaintiff will have to be taken at face-value.

10. Defendant’s harm to the plaintiff is very high, potentially going into the hundred of thousands of dollars, and the defendant is a part of the government and manages the treasury and has the most money of any account. The sameday demand of information and pull of tax exemption status would fit the standard of “outrageous” conduct (see Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act.).

11. In assessing Humiliation Damages, a court must review whether or not the plaintiff was made to look “disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish” (see Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act.). All on the same the plaintiff was of demanded their internal documents, given a “final warning”, had their ITO / tax exemption status pulled, and had this information publicly announced. The conduct of the defendant borders on blackmailing/strong-arming the plaintiff out of their internal documents. Therefore, the threshold needed to make a humiliation claim has been breached.

12. In assessing The Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont damages, a court must review whether or not the plaintiff lost “their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm” (see Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act.). There is no evidence that the plaintiff stopped banking or lost their ability to do so. While they did receive harm that could cause them to lose enjoyment in the form of taxes harming their financial institutions, the court plans to remedy that with other solutions and thus is not deeming it sufficient to overcome the threshold needed to make this claim.

13. Legal fees will be adjusted to the reward given, capped at 20% of the case value prior to the addition of legal fees (see Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act.).

14. Since the compensatory damages are currently incalculable, they will not be included in the overall case value in assessing legal fees.


IV. DECISION
The Federal Court hereby rules in favor of the Plaintiff, and grants a modified Prayer for Relief.

The Federal Court is issuing a Writ of Mandamus to the Defendant to properly write guidelines for requesting bank information. There must be some reasonable reason as to why the information is needed prior to the end of the month as well as time given to properly resolve any dispute prior to pulling tax exemption status.

The Federal Court is issuing a Writ of Mandamus to the Defendant to restore the plaintiff’s tax exemption status.

The Federal Court is issuing a Writ of Mandamus to the Defendant to review the tax burden created by pulling the tax exemption against the plaintiff and return all cash that was taken by the wealth tax. This court is warning now that failure to do this will make the court take the plaintiff’s estimation of compensatory damages, which after 75 days of litigation is $465,642. Whatever amount is returned to the Plaintiff, please add an additional 20% to it for the Plaintiff’s Legal Fees.

The Federal Court orders the Department of Justice to fine the Defendant $100,000 (one hundred thousand) in Punitive Damages for “outrageous” conduct and unfine the Plaintiff the same amount.

The Federal Court orders the Department of Justice to fine the Defendant $75,000 in Consequential Damages for humiliation and unfine the Plaintiff the same amount.

The Federal Court orders the Department of Justice to fine the Defendant $35,000 in Legal Fees and unfine the Plaintiff the same amount. Plaintiff is instructed to pay their attorney this amount.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.