Lawsuit: Dismissed Hamilton City Bank v. Wetc [2022] FCR 10

Featured Businesses

Status
Not open for further replies.

drew_hall

Citizen
Justice
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Drew_Hall
Drew_Hall
justice
I’ll move forward to questioning the other witness.

1. When did you stop working for the Onyx Exchange (if you’re not sure about the date a general time will suffice)

2. During your time working for the exchange did you personally witness companies temporarily delisting?

3. Do you believe that HCB has an intention to takeover the banking sector?

4. Do you believe that HCB and others conspiring to run at a loss in order to bankrupt my client is considered a crime?

5. Do you feel that HCB is targeting my client?

6. Can you go into more detail (if there is any) about plans to drive my client out of the market?
 

Attachments

  • 741912ED-8A14-4549-B4B6-002FD7F69A7F.png
    741912ED-8A14-4549-B4B6-002FD7F69A7F.png
    127.7 KB · Views: 46
  • D236C6A6-5A72-4B71-A6C4-29A88EC3AA2D.png
    D236C6A6-5A72-4B71-A6C4-29A88EC3AA2D.png
    25.9 KB · Views: 48
  • E5992A08-C3A0-4F2C-9C47-BF2B6F69D487.png
    E5992A08-C3A0-4F2C-9C47-BF2B6F69D487.png
    127.7 KB · Views: 49

Unix

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
LuckyPerms
LuckyPerms
aventura-res
1. When did you stop working for the Onyx Exchange (if you’re not sure about the date a general time will suffice)

I resigned at about 4 PM 1/8/2022 EST.

2. During your time working for the exchange did you personally witness companies temporarily delisting?

I did not interact with companies at all as an Onyx Exchange employee and only communicated with certain crypto clients through the Binance Discord guild.

3. Do you believe that HCB has an intention to takeover the banking sector?

Clearly, both as a former executive in the company and as a recent member of communication with them. The current executives of Hamilton City Bank have easily taken over every other bank while losing nearly nothing. While the original intention of the group chat was to maintain Onyx Exchange's stability it slowly morphed into an agreement between HCB and all other banks merging into "The First National Bank of Redmont."

4. Do you believe that HCB and others conspiring to run at a loss in order to bankrupt my client is considered a crime?

Alone, that appears to be simple capitalism at work, however combined with the hundreds of messages of conversation with they are clearly employing monopolization and harming other companies out of spite rather than competitiveness.

5. Do you feel that HCB is targeting my client?

Yes, HK clearly has a heavy bias against your client as seen in the evidence I provided to you. (num. 3 within your message)

6. Can you go into more detail (if there is any) about plans to drive my client out of the market?

I am unsure of specific attempts other than those that I handed to you, however I don't doubt that there have been subtle hints towards that.
 

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
Drew_hall, if you have any follow up questions, please post them within 24 hours otherwise the plaintiff will be given the chance to question the witnesses.
 

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
The plaintiff may question the witness. Please keep all questions in one post if possible. The plaintiff has 24 hours to ask their questions or the court will move on without it.
 

Cooleagles

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Cooleagles
Cooleagles
attorney
Your honor,

Most likely, the Plaintiff will have follow-up questions following the answers to the questions below. Those will of course be posted at an appropriate and quick time, following the witness's testimony.
Thank you.

Questions:

1. You were asked to read up on this case prior to testifying and make yourself aware of the arguments presented by both parties. Could you please, in your own words, explain what are the main arguments of this case?

2. You stated in direct, “The current executives of Hamilton City Bank have easily taken over every other bank while losing nearly nothing.” Do you mind elaborating on this for the court, perhaps providing an example?

3. You stated the following in direct, “however combined with the hundreds of messages of conversation.” However you have only supplied the court with those 3 pieces of evidence; moreover, you have no evidence of any further attempt by my clients to “monopolize.” You can only testify to those single statements made by my client?

4. You stated in direct, “they are clearly employing monopolization and harming other companies out of spite rather than competitiveness.” Is it correct that you are not stipulated anywhere in this court to be an expert on economic laws or laws focused on monopolization? In other words, you have no way of knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that my clients are guilty of such a crime?

5. You stated in direct the following, “ however I don't doubt that there have been subtle hints towards that.” Just to reiterate what I asked in question 3, you have no proof of any of these “subtle hints.” You only have your singular, individual, opinion, correct?

6. You stated in direct the following, “HK clearly has a heavy bias against your client as seen in the evidence I provided to you.” Is it possible, in your opinion, that the Defendant could have a bias against my clients for some of the evidence you presented?

That is all for now,
Thank You
 
Last edited:

Cooleagles

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Cooleagles
Cooleagles
attorney
Your Honor,

If I may, it has been over 48 hours since the posting of my questions. The plaintiff respectfully asks that the witness either begin answering the questions or counsel presents some form of an objection.

Thank you
 

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
The witness has 24 hours to answer the plaintiff's questions or face being held in contempt of court.
 

Unix

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
LuckyPerms
LuckyPerms
aventura-res
I apologize for the extremely slow response,

1. You were asked to read up on this case prior to testifying and make yourself aware of the arguments presented by both parties. Could you please, in your own words, explain what are the main arguments of this case?

I have read the case thoroughly as noted in my numerous comments of the case within the DemocracyCraft #economics and #politics channels, however the case is that it is to disestablish the contract between HCB and wetc that was misworded according to the plaintiff.

2. You stated in direct, “The current executives of Hamilton City Bank have easily taken over every other bank while losing nearly nothing.” Do you mind elaborating on this for the court, perhaps providing an example?

HCB has been consistent in its attempts to monopolize the banking industry. The earliest example of this is while I was still an executive of the company. Hamilton City Bank merged with (not sure of the name) Icarus Banking? The shareholders, which at the time were very limited, gained a decent amount of value upon their shares and the company absorbed the other bank (again, I believe it's Icarus.) The shareholders of that company all received about the same gain. Therefore, HCB absorbed the company with zero monetary loss and pure gain due to monopolization.

A later example of this, and one that is still currently ongoing, is their merger with the only other large banking company. Redmont People's Trust was the next target, and however it would not be as major it would still set them up for further mergers as seen by the title of their new bank: The First National Bank of Redmont.

I believe I was removed from both the Discord group chat and document (no blame to the other members, I probably shouldn't be leaking but its for the best) however the original document resided at this link. The name is invisible now as far as I know however it still appears in my history tab, as proven in attachment one (1).

3. You stated the following in direct, “however combined with the hundreds of messages of conversation.” However you have only supplied the court with those 3 pieces of evidence; moreover, you have no evidence of any further attempt by my clients to “monopolize.” You can only testify to those single statements made by my client?

Read above, I was removed from the chat so I have no evidence to the hundreds of messages, however I did provide the plaintiff with a few images when they first approached me that they are free to present.

4. You stated in direct, “they are clearly employing monopolization and harming other companies out of spite rather than competitiveness.” Is it correct that you are not stipulated anywhere in this court to be an expert on economic laws or laws focused on monopolization? In other words, you have no way of knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that my clients are guilty of such a crime?

I like to believe myself to be an expert on economic law, having run 2 banks and having constant activity in politics and law, therefore in my eyes HCB's behavior is that of attempting to monopolize the banking sector. This is not currently a case of whether or not your client is guilty of any crime so there is no need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, I would've thought you'd know that. I have been asked on whether I believe HCB is trying to illegally, or with malicious intent, bankrupt drew_hall's client by running at a loss, and I answered yes I do.

5. You stated in direct the following, “ however I don't doubt that there have been subtle hints towards that.” Just to reiterate what I asked in question 3, you have no proof of any of these “subtle hints.” You only have your singular, individual, opinion, correct?

Refer to the earlier questions, I no longer have access to these chats and can not provide any direct proof of these subtle hints but I remember clearly that they occurred.

6. You stated in direct the following, “HK clearly has a heavy bias against your client as seen in the evidence I provided to you.” Is it possible, in your opinion, that the Defendant could have a bias against my clients for some of the evidence you presented?

No, I do not believe wetc possessed a bias as he was open to making offers and negotiations with this client.
 

Attachments

  • unknown.png
    unknown.png
    24.1 KB · Views: 27

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
If the plaintiff's counsel has any further questions, please post them within 24 hours.
 

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
Thank you to the witnesses for their time. The court will now move into closing statements. The plaintiff has 48 hours to present their closing statement or face being held in contempt.
 

Cooleagles

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Cooleagles
Cooleagles
attorney
Your Honor & Opposing Counsel,

The case that lies before us all, was brought into this court for originally one simple flaw in a contract. A simple flaw that could have cost my clients hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, due to the large difference in payment methods. However, I will not waste the court’s time in repeating already argued positions, as mentioned before, both parties have stated their positions, they only await a proper ruling.

I will instead move on to a much more interesting topic, one that developed quickly throughout the entirety of this case. Through evidence provided by the DEC, and confirmed by wuttie, the Defendant manipulated the market with most likely an intent to better their profits gained through the Onyx Backed Credit Obligation contracts. The Defense will try to paint this illusion of a failing market in which they were responding to, as would any other business owner invested in the market; however, the evidence and the timeline just doesn’t add up. They tried to prove this by asking Wuttie numerous questions about the exchange’s state and how secure clients felt during such a timeframe. What exactly did the Defense prove when questioning Wuttie? They proved that there was a slight calculation error, one that was fixed only hours following might I add, but that is about it. Let me ask this, even if there was some large reason for the Defendant to delist his companies from the Exchange, why relist them the next day? An interesting question that has continued to go unanswered. As Wuttie stated, companies would delist for months; yet, the defendant delisted for not even a full day. More importantly, the date he relisted was directly after cashing in on my client’s contract. If you're all wondering what happened, allow me to make it clear. January 14th my client is approached by the defendant about the Onyx Backed Credit Obligation and signs the day of, the next day the defendant cashes in on the contract whilst delisting their 3 companies from the exchange. With the valuations for the 3 companies not being included with the full Exchange value, it easily drops below the margin, so profit would flow right in. All so they could relist the companies the next day, and act as if nothing happened. A well thought out scheme, no doubt about that, but hopefully it won't be one that gets to see its final stages.

Finally, I want to address another one of the larger points made by the Defendant’s counsel, the alleged bias my client has towards the Defendant. My only question is, where is the relevance? How is such an alleged bias, anyway related to the Onyx Backed Credit Obligation and the mountains of questionable factors surrounding it. Why would my clients sign the contract in the first place if they had such a strong bias or dislike towards the defendant? How would this alleged bias in any way affect the contents of the contract or this case? The Defense may say it was bankrupt the Defendant, but even then the story doesn’t quite line up. In what possible way could my clients bankrupt the Defendant, that is of course related to the Onyx Backed Credit Obligation? The answer is simple, they couldn’t. Let’s make this one point clear, the Defendant had nothing to lose. If the Defendant got their money, they would walk away with a fresh wallet. If the Defendant didn’t, they would move on to another business deal with another business professional with another stockpile of money. The Defendant was in a position of power, if anything, the alleged bias of my client towards the Defendant only gives more reason for why the Defendant would do the heinous acts mentioned above. The Defendant knew he had “enemies”, so to take them out, why not scam them out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. As the self-justified expert claimed, this is not a prosecution against my client for “attempts to monopolize.” This is purely an attempt by the Defense to pull the littlest threads of argument they have to try and combat the truth.

That truth being, the Defendant manipulated the market. They did it to use my client and make a quick buck off them. They wrote the contract in such verbiage to maximize profit even further. They did it to take out the enemy.

So as you consider your ruling your honor, we ask you to think who really made the power plays here, and see that the answer is quite clear.

Thank you,
We Rest Our Case.
 
Last edited:

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
Thank you for your closing statement. The defendant now has 48 hours to provide a closing statement. Please provide the court with a closing statement or risk being held in contempt.
 

drew_hall

Citizen
Justice
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Drew_Hall
Drew_Hall
justice
I ask the court to grant me a 24 hour extension, as I have been extremely busy, dealing with work and family matters
 

drew_hall

Citizen
Justice
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Drew_Hall
Drew_Hall
justice
Your Honor, opposing counsel,

This case was filed with the original intent to clarify a section of mutually agreed upon contract, but has shifted throughout the case, now being centered on bogus claims of market manipulation. The opposing counsel has mentioned throughout the case of 'evidence from the DEC' yet has not provided a shred of evidence, and instead only got a witness to legitimatize my client's reasoning for temporarily delisting his companies. The Plaintiff points out that yes, my client only had the companies off the exchange for less than a day, but points out that the error made was corrected only after a few hours. My client rejoined once an error that made investors and other business owners wary of the exchange was fixed, and did not impact the standing of the contract signed by both parties.

I will now address claims that my client manipulated the market. Through no evidence provided to the courts, the opposing counsel has repeatedly made claims of market manipulation in an effort to get out of paying my client any money which they are rightfully owed. Under the Corporate Crimes Act market manipulation is defined as "Any act to artificially inflate or deflate the value of a company or stock for personal gain." My client did not gain anything from temporarily deregistering his company as he did not count his companies deregistration into the final amount he was owed by the Plaintiff. It is quite simple really why he would deregister his companies at the time he did, not only investors were thrown off by the error made and the scandal revolving a government bailout, but he had heard from other business owners they were going to pull their companies out as well. In an effort to retain any money owed to him by HCB, my client temporarily deregistered his companies and approached the Plaintiff to initiate the contracts signed. My client wanted to activate the contract before the amount owed became big enough to potentially bankrupt the Plaintiff so that he would get paid. After approaching is when both sides realized their interpretations were different and to appease both parties a second contract, a payment plan basically, was arranged. In this payment plan, however, the value of my client's deregistered companies was not taken into account towards the total value lost in the exchange, and the amount owed was lowered by hundreds of thousands of dollars to what should have been owed under my client's interpretation of the contract. Without any personal benefit or gains by my client deregistering his companies he legally has not committed market manipulation. On the other hand, as shown in evidence provided to this court, the Plaintiff was conspiring with other banking companies to price fix my client out of the market entirely. Its laughable that in the same breath they can accuse my client of a crime they are conspiring to commit and nothing is done about it.

To finish, the Plaintiff's counsel alleges my client attempted to 'scam' them out of money. How can a contract which both sides signed be considered a scam? A misinterpretation of a section is one thing, but to call it a 'scam' is outrageous. HCB has been the biggest bank for quite some time now and if they openly admit they agreed to a so-called 'scam,' and not only agreed, but also signed a payment plan contract afterwards, I wonder how that look plays out in the public. Along with this, the bias mentioned above was formed only after the contract had been activated. To claim they hold no bias against my client or that their bias could have no impact on my client who is just 'taking out the enemy' is a far-fetched story at best. HCB and the leaders of it have shown a clear bias against my client and his companies, and again, even went as far as to conspire to break Law 11.8 and price fix the market to run my client out of it. Its concerning to imagine them planning to break laws because of a grudge they hold against my client. Its incredibly unprofessional and a complete violation of the Corporate Crimes Act and I hope the court will take notice of that.

I will end off with this. My client has not met the legal definition of market manipulation as he did not see profits increase due to his temporary deregistration. A difference in interpretation of the contract is one thing, but to throw out false claims to hopefully have the contract and dues voided all together is a testament to not only the character of HCB and its leaders, but also to how they handle business when things don't go their way. My client never believed HCB to be an enemy and still does not. He simply wants to be paid for a legally-binding contract which both parties signed and agreed to.

Thank you.
 

drew_hall

Citizen
Justice
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Drew_Hall
Drew_Hall
justice
Your Honor, a settlement agreement is underway between both parties. We would like to ask the court to give us time to attempt to solve the matter this way before the court gives a final decision. Thank you.
 

Cooleagles

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Cooleagles
Cooleagles
attorney
Your Honor, both parties have reached an agreement and have decided to settle.
We thank you for your time as always.
 

JoeGamer

Justice
Justice
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
Seeing as both parties have agreed to an out of court settlement, I hereby dismiss this case. Thank you to both parties for their time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top