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.