- Joined
- Apr 15, 2025
- Messages
- 60
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
fluffywaafelz (represented by Mezimoří Law)
Plaintiff
v.
Department of Commerce
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
I. WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
II. PARTIES
a) fluffywaafelz
b) Department of Commerce
III. FACTS
- The Plaintiff, known as “fluffywaafelz,” is a member of Democracy Craft and the applicant who sought registration of a financial institution under the name NMPTreasury through the Department of Commerce.
- The Department of Commerce is the governmental department vested with authority to regulate and recognize financial institutions pursuant to the Financial Institutions Enforcement Act.
- §6(1) of the Financial Institutions Enforcement Act provides that the Department of Commerce “may, by regulation, create, define, recognise, license, and regulate new types or categories of financial institution, in addition to those recognised by the Commercial Standards Act.”
- §6(2) of the Financial Institutions Enforcement Act further provides that the Department’s authority “is intended to be broad and is not limited by the types of financial institution named in this or any other Act.”
- Pursuant to that statutory authority, the Department of Commerce published “Financial Institutions Registration” a policy governing applications for registration as a financial institution.
- The published policy states that applications are to be assessed on a “strictly needs basis” and that all listed requirements must be satisfied before registration may be approved.
- The published policy identifies the following requirements for applicants:
- Whether the firm has, since its inception, complied with all legal obligations;
- Whether the firm’s directors are free from regulatory actions, legal proceedings, or other matters affecting the institution’s financial stability; and
- Whether the firm has clearly outlined its structure and intended operations.
- The policy further directs Compliance Officers to determine whether an applicant satisfies the aforementioned requirements and, if not, to identify the specific deficiencies.
- The policy further provides that where an applicant fails to satisfy any requirement, the applicant shall be notified of the deficiencies and afforded forty-eight (48) hours, unless additional time is requested, to make the necessary adjustments before a final denial is issued.
- The policy further states that each application is to be assessed on its own individual merits and that prior decisions concerning other applicants are irrelevant to the determination.
- The Plaintiff submitted an application seeking registration of NMPTreasury as a financial institution on the date of June 25th 2026. (See Exhibit P-01)
- The Plaintiff identified the proposed institution’s name as NMPTreasury and described its intended purpose as: “NMPTreasury exists solely to exchange currency between Redmont and Alexandria for my other companies. It will make no profit, it just acts as part of the company structure.” (See Exhibit P-01)
- The application did not include an answer to the field requesting the proposed “Company Type.” (See Exhibit P-01)
- The plaintiff clarified this point, stating “I meant to put 'Other' for company type, apologies”, “This can also be classified as a payment processor, not sure if that changes anything.”(See Exhibit P-02, P-03)
- The Department conducted a review of the plaintiff’s application.
- Following review, the Department denied the Plaintiff’s application.
- The reason provided by the Department for the denial was: “Registration denied due to registration not fitting into any of the approved financial institution types.”
- The Department did not state that the Plaintiff had failed to satisfy any of the eligibility requirements identified within the published registration policy “Financial Institutions Registration”.
- The Department did not identify any deficiency relating to the Plaintiff’s legal compliance, the suitability of its directors, or the clarity of the proposed organizational structure or operations.
- The Department did not notify the Plaintiff that any portion of the application required correction or supplementation prior to issuing its decision. (See Exhibit P-01 through P-03)
- The Department did not provide the Plaintiff with the forty-eight-hour period described within its published policy “Financial Institutions Registration” to address any alleged deficiencies before denying the application. (See Exhibit P-01 through P-03)
- The Department’s stated basis for denial referenced the application’s failure to fit within “approved financial institution types.” (See Exhibit P-03)
- The Financial Institutions Enforcement Act does not expressly require that an applicant fall within a preexisting category of financial institution and expressly authorizes the Department to recognize and regulate new categories of financial institution.
- The Department’s published registration policy “Financial Institutions Registration” likewise does not list conformity with an existing or “approved” financial institution type as a criterion for approval or denial.
- In SCR 14 [2021], the Supreme Court held that the Executive is required to adhere to and apply its own established policies where those policies are consistent with governing law, and may not disregard or act contrary to such policies in the exercise of its statutory discretion.
- This principle has likewise been recognized in numerous Federal Court decisions, such as FCR 27 [2023].
- The Plaintiff relied upon the Department’s published registration policy in preparing and submitting the application.
- At no point prior to the denial was the Plaintiff informed that the proposed institutional structure was categorically ineligible for registration under the Financial Institutions Enforcement Act.
- At no point prior to the denial was the Plaintiff afforded an opportunity to respond to or address the Department’s stated basis for denial.
- The Department’s denial prevented the Plaintiff from obtaining registration of NMPTreasury as a financial institution.
- The Plaintiff thereafter retained legal counsel and commenced this action seeking judicial review of the Department’s decision, and a writ of mandamus compelling the Department to perform its statutory duties in accordance with law.
IV. CLAIMS OF RELIEF
I. Failure to Perform Statutory Duty
The Department of Commerce committed a negligent failure to perform a statutory duty by failing to evaluate the Plaintiff’s application in accordance with the Financial Institutions Enforcement Act and the Department’s own published registration policy.
The Financial Institutions Enforcement Act expressly grants the Department broad authority to “create, define, recognise, license, and regulate new types or categories of financial institution” and further provides that this authority “is intended to be broad and is not limited by the types of financial institution named in this or any other Act.” The Act therefore contemplates that the Department may recognize financial institutions beyond any previously established classifications.
Pursuant to that statutory authority, the Department adopted and published “Financial Institutions Registration” establishing the criteria upon which applications are to be assessed. That policy requires applicants to be evaluated according to: (1) compliance with legal obligations, (2) the suitability of the institution’s directors, and (3) whether the applicant has adequately explained the institution’s structure and intended operations. The policy further requires that, where an applicant fails to satisfy any of those requirements, the applicant be notified of the deficiency and afforded forty-eight (48) hours to correct it before an application is denied, absent exceptional circumstances.
The Plaintiff’s application was not denied because it failed any of the published eligibility requirements. Rather, the Department denied the application because it allegedly “did not fit into any of the approved financial institution types.” Neither the Financial Institutions Enforcement Act nor the Department’s published registration policy identifies conformity with an existing financial institution type as a requirement for registration. To the contrary, the governing statute expressly authorizes the Department to recognize new categories of financial institutions.
As preceded in SCR 14 [2021] and repeatedly reaffirmed by the Federal Court, including FCR 27 [2023], the Executive is required to comply with and apply its own lawful policies. While the Department retains discretion in determining whether to approve or deny an application, that discretion must be exercised within the framework established by the Financial Institutions Enforcement Act and the Department’s own published policy. The Department may not deny an application on grounds outside that framework.
By relying upon a criterion absent from both the governing statute and the Department’s published policy, the Department failed to discharge the statutory duty entrusted to it. This failure directly deprived the Plaintiff of a lawful determination of the application and constitutes a violation of the Failure to Perform Statutory Duty provision.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Department of Commerce to reconsider the Plaintiff’s application in accordance with the Financial Institutions Enforcement Act and the Department’s published registration policy.
The Financial Institutions Enforcement Act expressly grants the Department broad authority to “create, define, recognise, license, and regulate new types or categories of financial institution” and further provides that this authority “is intended to be broad and is not limited by the types of financial institution named in this or any other Act.” The Act therefore contemplates that the Department may recognize financial institutions beyond any previously established classifications.
Pursuant to that statutory authority, the Department adopted and published “Financial Institutions Registration” establishing the criteria upon which applications are to be assessed. That policy requires applicants to be evaluated according to: (1) compliance with legal obligations, (2) the suitability of the institution’s directors, and (3) whether the applicant has adequately explained the institution’s structure and intended operations. The policy further requires that, where an applicant fails to satisfy any of those requirements, the applicant be notified of the deficiency and afforded forty-eight (48) hours to correct it before an application is denied, absent exceptional circumstances.
The Plaintiff’s application was not denied because it failed any of the published eligibility requirements. Rather, the Department denied the application because it allegedly “did not fit into any of the approved financial institution types.” Neither the Financial Institutions Enforcement Act nor the Department’s published registration policy identifies conformity with an existing financial institution type as a requirement for registration. To the contrary, the governing statute expressly authorizes the Department to recognize new categories of financial institutions.
As preceded in SCR 14 [2021] and repeatedly reaffirmed by the Federal Court, including FCR 27 [2023], the Executive is required to comply with and apply its own lawful policies. While the Department retains discretion in determining whether to approve or deny an application, that discretion must be exercised within the framework established by the Financial Institutions Enforcement Act and the Department’s own published policy. The Department may not deny an application on grounds outside that framework.
By relying upon a criterion absent from both the governing statute and the Department’s published policy, the Department failed to discharge the statutory duty entrusted to it. This failure directly deprived the Plaintiff of a lawful determination of the application and constitutes a violation of the Failure to Perform Statutory Duty provision.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Department of Commerce to reconsider the Plaintiff’s application in accordance with the Financial Institutions Enforcement Act and the Department’s published registration policy.
II. Denial of Due Process
The Department of Commerce denied the Plaintiff due process by failing to follow the procedures governing the consideration of financial institution registration applications.
The Department’s published registration policy establishes the procedure by which applications are to be reviewed. Where an applicant fails to satisfy any of the stated requirements, the policy requires that the applicant be informed of the specific deficiency and afforded forty-eight (48) hours to make the necessary corrections before a final denial is issued, unless exceptional circumstances justify otherwise.
The Department did not identify any deficiency within the Plaintiff’s application under the published eligibility criteria. Nor did it notify the Plaintiff that the application required amendment or afford the Plaintiff the opportunity to cure any alleged deficiency. Instead, the Department summarily denied the application based upon a criterion not contained within either the governing statute or the Department’s own published policy.
By failing to follow the procedures governing financial institution applications, the Department denied the Plaintiff the process required by law before rendering a decision affecting the Plaintiff’s legal interests. The Department’s actions therefore constitute a denial of due process.
The Department’s published registration policy establishes the procedure by which applications are to be reviewed. Where an applicant fails to satisfy any of the stated requirements, the policy requires that the applicant be informed of the specific deficiency and afforded forty-eight (48) hours to make the necessary corrections before a final denial is issued, unless exceptional circumstances justify otherwise.
The Department did not identify any deficiency within the Plaintiff’s application under the published eligibility criteria. Nor did it notify the Plaintiff that the application required amendment or afford the Plaintiff the opportunity to cure any alleged deficiency. Instead, the Department summarily denied the application based upon a criterion not contained within either the governing statute or the Department’s own published policy.
By failing to follow the procedures governing financial institution applications, the Department denied the Plaintiff the process required by law before rendering a decision affecting the Plaintiff’s legal interests. The Department’s actions therefore constitute a denial of due process.
V. PRAYER OF RELIEF
Writ of Mandamus:
The Department of Commerce failed to discharge the statutory duties entrusted to it under the Financial Institutions Enforcement Act by denying the Plaintiff's application on a basis neither authorized by statute nor contained within the Department's own published Financial Institution Registration Policy. Rather than evaluating the application under the criteria established by its own policy, the Department relied upon an extraneous requirement that an applicant fit within an "approved financial institution type," despite the Financial Institutions Enforcement Act expressly authorizing the Department to create, define, and recognize new categories of financial institutions. Furthermore, the Department failed to follow its own published procedures by neither identifying any deficiency under its stated eligibility requirements nor providing the Plaintiff the prescribed forty-eight-hour opportunity to remedy any such deficiency prior to denial.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Department of Commerce to vacate and set aside its denial of the Plaintiff's application, reconsider the application in strict accordance with the Financial Institutions Enforcement Act and the Department's published “Financial Institutions Registration”, evaluate the application solely under the criteria lawfully established by statute and policy, and fully comply with all procedural requirements governing financial institution registration, including providing notice of any identified deficiencies and affording the Plaintiff the opportunity to cure such deficiencies in accordance with the Department's published prFocedures before issuing any subsequent final determination.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Department of Commerce to vacate and set aside its denial of the Plaintiff's application, reconsider the application in strict accordance with the Financial Institutions Enforcement Act and the Department's published “Financial Institutions Registration”, evaluate the application solely under the criteria lawfully established by statute and policy, and fully comply with all procedural requirements governing financial institution registration, including providing notice of any identified deficiencies and affording the Plaintiff the opportunity to cure such deficiencies in accordance with the Department's published prFocedures before issuing any subsequent final determination.
Legal Fees:
Pursuant to the Redmont Civil Code Act, the Plaintiff seeks legal fees in the amount of 30% of the total awarded relief, or no less than $3,000, to cover attorney costs and filing expenses associated with this action.
VI. EVIDENCE
Exhibit P-01, P-02 & P-03
The plaintiff’s application to the DoC and their subsequent denial and reasoning.
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 13th day of July, 2026
Last edited:
