Lawsuit: Adjourned The Commonwealth v. Trentrick_Lamar [2022] SCR 14

Status
Not open for further replies.

HugeBob

Citizen
Former President
Supporter
hugebob23456
hugebob23456
donator3
Joined
Jun 7, 2020
Messages
655
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


The Commonwealth
Prosecution

v.

Trentrick_Lamar
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows:

Officers of publicly traded companies are bound by Fiduciary Duty (Relevant Law), which compels them to act in the best interest of the company and not intentionally engage in activity that undermines their duty or the integrity of their company. This act was made to protect the investors of Redmont from bad actors intentionally tanking stocks, as a means to prevent scams that were once commonplace in Redmont.

When the Defendant was asked to share the performance of their company with The Exchange to update their shareholders, the Defendant refused stating "I'd rather just delist with my lack of interest in stocks in general". Delisting is regulated by law to prevent scams, to protect people from having hundreds of thousands of dollars stolen from them. When a company delists, it is required by law to relist on the same or another securities exchange within 30 days of delisting, or alternatively the company could "go private" with the consent of 2/3s of the shareholders, but this would require the company to buy back all outstanding stock. In the event that a company attempts to delist but refuses to follow the prescribed process, it is then the responsibility of the DEC Secretary to order it be relisted on the exchange which it was previously listed.

When employees of The Exchange made clear to the Defendant what the law requires of him, he responded "That's fine, I'll just break the law. Because you can't force me to update soemthing[sic] I don't have time for". The Defendant is using his position as the DEC Secretary to refuse to enforce the law on his own company, defrauding his investors of the money they originally invested and the money they have earned through those investments.

It is clear that a conflict of interest has developed that the Defendant has chosen to exploit to conceal the performance of his company from his investors. The use of public office to defraud public investors to the tune of at least $276,708.32 is clearly unlawful and an open act of corruption. A total of 715 shares of Walgreens stock has been sold to the public (35.75% of all the company's stock), how many different people have been harmed in this scheme? How many investors, both large and small, have lost significant portions, if not all of the value of their investments? This is not a victimless crime. This is one of the largest scams to have ever happened on DC.

I. PARTIES
1. Trentrick_Lamar
2. Walgreens
3. The Exchange
4. Shareholders of Walgreens
5. The Department of Education and Commerce

II. FACTS
1. Defendant violated their Fiduciary Duty by refusing to give updates to shareholders
2. Defendant committed corruption by allowing their own company to evade enforcement of laws designed to prevent scams
3. When confronted, Defendant confessed their intent to break the law
4. When confronted further, Defendant threatened he would rather leave the server than follow the law

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. Corruption
2. Breach of Fiduciary Duty

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. For Corruption: $25,000 in fines and removal from public office for a period of 2 months.

2. For Breach of Fiduciary Duty we are requesting a fine made payable to the State of $20,000 and there is a clause requiring that the Defendant "pay full restitution to shareholders of the approximate loss of potential value that their actions caused to shareholders". There are 3 possible metrics the Courts could cite for fines and they are as follows:

35.75% of the company's stock is owned by public shareholders, the current value of the company is $774,009.29, the highest past value of the company is $922,849.86, and our 6 month future projection of the company's value is $1,384,274.80.
- Based on the current value of the stock: Fines of $276,708.32, or $387 per share
- Based on the maximum previous value of the stock: Fines of $329,918.83, or $461.42 per share
- Based on a 6 month future projection of the stock's value: Fines of $494,878.24, or $692.14 per share
The reason we have presented multiple options for the Court is because of the word "potential" for damages entitled to the shareholders of the company. The future projection is based on the past performance of the company. The Courts are of course free to choose a different value however we strongly recommend it be no less than the current value of the stock and no more than a 6 month future projection of the stock's performance.

1662219651294.png

1662219662728.png

1662219690526.png

Act of Congress - Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act
1662219787994.png

1662219774267.png
1662219759362.png


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 3rd day of September 2022
 

Attachments

  • 1662219767449.png
    1662219767449.png
    23.9 KB · Views: 95
Under the powers given to the Supreme Court by the Constitution of Redmont, the Supreme Court will have original jurisdiction over this case as it calls for the removal of a secretary.

This case will be heard in the Supreme Court pending a writ of summons.​
 
Supreme_Court.png

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS


Trentrick_Lamar is required to appear before the court in the case of the Commonwealth of Redmont v. Trentrick_Lamar [2022] SCR 14. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
Mr. Secretary, thank you for your quickness in attending you trial. I ask that you provide either an answer to complaint or motion to dismiss. If you further respond with anything else, I will hold you in contempt. Your deadline is Sep. 6 at 10:00 AM Eastern Standard Time.
 
Good morning Justice,

I will be representing the defendant. I am traveling this Labor Day weekend, so I kindly ask that you extend your deadline by 24 hours.
 

Attachments

  • E56352F5-B244-45C3-A001-D833E64CC06E.jpeg
    E56352F5-B244-45C3-A001-D833E64CC06E.jpeg
    242 KB · Views: 108
24 hours extension granted. Please respond by Sep. 7 10 AM Eastern Standard Time.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. This case has been filed as a criminal case with the federal government prosecuting. However, under the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act, the federal government generally does not have legal standing to bring a case, as most securities litigations are civil cases between 2 private parties (such as the shareholders v. the company). §3.4.f.ii of the aforementioned Act provides the only situation in which the government has legal standing to initiate a case. This is when 30 days have elapsed since an attempt to delist and the company has not bought out all shareholders. The prosecution has not clearly shown the date on which the attempt to delist took place when the defendant spoke to Nacholebraa. The DLA warned the defendant on August 23rd, which suggests that the requisite 30 days have not yet elapsed for the government to have legal standing to go after the defendant. Even if the 30 days have elapsed, this should be a civil, not criminal, case like all other securities litigation. Prosecutors may want this to be a criminal case for the additional reason of their allegation of corruption, which would warrant a criminal case. However, the allegation of corruption is entirely baseless. In all of the interactions with the defendant that the prosecutors have screenshotted, the defendant is speaking in his capacity as a private citizen and CEO of Walgreens. Just because he happens to be DEC Secretary, that does not mean he was acting in the capacity of a secretary. The DEC has many employees who can carry out the DEC's responsibilities under §3.4.f.ii; the law does not require that the secretary be the one to do so. The corruption charge, and thus this entire criminal case, is completely baseless because the secretary doesn't need to be the one to enforce §3.4.f.ii. Regardless, the 30 days don't appear to have lapsed anyways, so §3.4.f.ii is unenforceable by the secretary or any of his employees.

1662516426445.png

1662516439227.png

1662517161250.png

1662518385322.png

2. Under a policy implemented by former Onyx Exchange owner Zab, the Exchange began purchasing the stock of listed companies so that they could sell it to any person who wished to buy a stock, rather than having to find a pair of people who wanted to buy and sell the same stock. Under this policy, all shares of Walgreens were bought by the Exchange, while Trentrick_Lamar was retained as Walgreens CEO. Essentially, the Exchange became the full owner of Walgreens. Now, to complete the privatization and delisting of Walgreens, The Exchange as the Walgreens shareholder would have to be bought out by The Exchange as the Walgreens owner. However, The Exchange was also selling their Walgreens shares to the public, creating an increasing number of shareholders. Meanwhile, The Exchange, in its capacity as a securities exchange, is demanding that CEO Trentrick_Lamar figure out a way to buy out the shareholders, even though The Exchange as the owner should be the one to do it. The Exchange is making the buyout task impossible by diluting the Walgreens ownership when they sell shares to the public and by being the presumptive majority shareholder of Walgreens that collects the profits, leaving the CEO without any funds to do a buyback. If any fiduciary duty is being violated here, it is that of The Exchange. The government's claims that the defendant violated fiduciary duty are frivolous and inaccurate. Trentrick_Lamar has no feasible way of meeting The Exchange's demands to buy back shares in order to delist, when The Exchange owns most if not all of the shares, dilutes the shares by selling to the public, and uses the power of the shares they own but also list to prevent the CEO from being able to delist.

DATED: This 6th day of September 2022
 
Your honor, may I have an opportunity to rebut the above motion to dismiss?
 
The Commonwealth has 48 hours to provide a rebuttal if they would like. Please file your rebuttal by September 9th at 8:20 PM Eastern Standard Time.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REBUTTAL TO MOTION TO DISMISS

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

Trentrick_Lamar (nnmc representing)
Defendant

REBUTTAL

For the convenience of the Judge and others reviewing this case, each of our rebuttals to each claim made by the Defendant will use the same numbering system.

1. The Defendant claims that the Fiduciary Duty is a civil matter and not a criminal matter. This is false. The text of the bill expressly states that anyone who breaches Fiduciary Duty "will be convicted". To avoid an extended debate over the definition of English words, I have attached a screenshot of the definition of the word convicted which clearly states criminal offense. Furthermore, the presence of fines made payable to the state strengthens the position that the breach of the Fiduciary Duty clause is to be prosecuted in a criminal capacity.
1662598155812.png

1662598249085.png

As far as the Corruption charges are concerned, simply claiming that they are "baseless" is not generally acceptable grounds for a Motion to Dismiss. I have submitted screenshots that include the Defendant clearly stating his intent to break the law through the abuse of his position as Secretary of the DEC. While it is true that, in theory, other members of the Department could enforce these rules on the Defendant's company, they are not given express powers to do so and would certainly face retribution from a Secretary that is willing to openly admit their intention to violate the law for their own private benefit.

2. I have witness testimony from C-Suite level executives within The Exchange that dispute the nature of this deal and suggest that the Defendant may have perjured themselves. Even if The Exchange were the owners of a majority of the Walgreens stock, The Exchange did not fail to present financial documents to shareholders, the CEO did. And if the shareholders are unable to reach a deal on delisting the company, then the Executives of the company are bound by the Fiduciary Duty to generate these financial documents. The Shareholders cannot be held liable for withholding information from and defrauding themselves.

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 7th day of September 2022
 
While it is true that, in theory, other members of the Department could enforce these rules on the Defendant's company, they are not given express powers to do so and would certainly face retribution from a Secretary that is willing to openly admit their intention to violate the law for their own private benefit.

OBJECTION
Speculation

Counsel is speculating on the retribution claims, and in a manner that is rather demeaning and libelous to my client. Counsel has no way of knowing if my client would punish DEC employees for doing their job.
 
After discussion, the Supreme Court has rejected the motion to dismiss. The objection is overruled.

The Commonwealth has 48 hours (September 13th at 8:43 PM Eastern Standard Time) to provide an opening statement.
 
Your honor, the state would like to request an extension of 24 hours from the previously allotted time.

I could make up some silly reason for the delay but to be 100% frank this lawsuit moved to the back of my mind in the absence of any action for multiple days. Under normal circumstances I would have just posted a late opening statement, but it’s 3am and I’m typing from my phone.
 
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

The Commonwealth should have requested an extension before the deadline passed. At this point, the court should move on without their opening statement.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

Trentrick_Lamar (nnmc representing)
Defendant

In the interest of keeping things moving, the State has elected to post an Opening Statement now and simply allow for the presiding Judge to disregard it if they feel as though the time constraints are more important than hearing the full nature of this case.

This case is very simple. It is a crime for any person bound by Fiduciary Duty to intentionally and knowingly act in a manner that undermines the value of their own company. This includes if the CEO refuses to provide financial performance information to their shareholders. When shareholders choose to invest their money in a company, there are protections in place to ensure that their investments are not stolen or defrauded. This is the result of past incidents in the stock market that have resulted in several hundreds of thousands of dollars in stolen funds.

1. Defendant was asked to provide financial documents to shareholders.

2. Defendant refused to provide financial documents to shareholders and sought to delist their company.

3. Defendant was informed that delisting their company would require them to seek the approval of shareholder's holding 2/3 of the company's equity and the buyback of stocks.

4. Defendant refused, stating "Lol I never signed anything agreeing to that" and "That's fine, I'll just break the law"

5. The DEC Secretary has the duty to enforce these laws on non-compliant companies.

6. The Defendant is the currently sitting DEC Secretary.

Let us remember that for as long as this lawsuit takes, there are many people who have invested their savings in Walgreens stock. Those people are currently unable to access their savings because of an ongoing stock freeze because of this non-compliance. For those people, this is not an abstract conversation about whether or not the DEC Secretary has abused their power to inflate the value of their own company. For those people, they have been robbed of between $276,708.32 and $494,878.24.

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 14th day of September 2022
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECUSE

As we all know, Nacholebraa was recently confirmed to the Supreme Court. While I congratulate the new Justice, he does have an undeniable direct involvement in the subject matter of this case. He is the owner of The Exchange, and based on my arguments, he technically has control over Walgreens. The prosecutor's initial filing includes a screenshot conversation between now-Justice Nacho and the defendant. The screenshot was presumably taken by and sent to the DLA by the now-Justice. For these reasons, I respectfully request Justice Nacho recuse himself from any involvement in this case.

DATED: This 16th day of September 2022
 
I will let Justice Nacholebraa speak to the motion to recuse against however I do want to keep this case moving.

The prosecution's opening statement will stand however, this is the Commonwealth's final warning. Future tardiness may result in being held in contempt and potential dismissal.

The defense has 48 hours to provide an opening statement (September 18th at 8:00 PM EST).
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your Honor, I look forward to presenting my opening statement. However, to defend my client to the best of my ability, I need a piece of evidence from the prosecutor, which I would like to compel through discovery. As seen in the attached photo below, I requested that the prosecutor provide a bigger screenshot of the conversation between the defendant and Nacholebraa. This is so that the full timestamp is visible which would show me the date of the interaction. This is important to my defense as the relevant law mentions a 30-day grace period. It also causes no harm to any party to compel the release of the date of interaction. My client said he does not have access to this ticket anymore, so there is no alternative other than to compel.

I would like to ask that the deadline for my opening statement be pushed back to 48 hours after this evidence is made available to me.

1663373088638.png

DATED: This 16th day of September 2022
 
Your honor, may the State have an opportunity to rebut this motion to compel?
 
The commonwealth may provide a rebuttal. Please keep it brief and file it within the next 48 hours.
 
The Defendant wishes to know how many days have elapsed on the grounds that it invalidates the Prosecution's case. The Fiduciary Duty clause has no 30 day wait time, the 30 day wait time is for the DEC to forcibly relist the company, as seen in the following screenshot which was part of our original post.
1663596648669.png

Originally, the State was going to make the argument that the Defendant had made it very clear that they fully intended to break the law as seen in the following screenshot which was part of our original post.
1663596754131.png

However, we have instead decided to share the information that the Defense has requested because it further proves guilt. 30 days has elapsed. The Defendant is no longer merely openly threatening to violate the law and endanger the investments of law-abiding shareholders, they have elapsed the 30 day window and are now, as we speak, using their position as the DEC Secretary to refuse to apply the same laws and regulations to their own company that applies to other companies. No other company is allowed to elapse this 30 day window. For any other company, the DEC Secretary would forcibly relist them, but not for Walgreens. The first screenshot is from the report ticket where this infraction was brought to our attention, with a clear timestamp from more than 30 days ago. The second screenshot is from the public Walgreens channel in The Exchange which shows the same timestamp. The Defense knew they had access to this public channel. It's the Walgreens stock price channel, to claim they don't know about this as the CEO of Walgreens is either perjury or a further demonstration of their breach of Fiduciary Duty (link)
1663596970000.png

1663596996035.png

This request for information was not made in good faith. Their strategy was never to claim that the Defendant was innocent, just that they should be prosecuted at a later time, that we should sit on our hands and wait for the shareholders to take on more damage. They sought an early not-guilty verdict for the Corruption charge based strictly on the timeframe so that when we sue at a later date they could claim double jeopardy. It's disgusting, it's dangerous, and it's not going to work.

Thank you.
 
Your honor, given that the Defense has, in their motion to compel, admitted that their defense strategy is predicated on the 30 day grace period and we have proven to have elapsed the 30 day grace period as well as given more than sufficient screenshots showing the Defendant openly admitting that they are breaking the law, the State is hereby requesting a summary judgement to end this matter immediately.
 
Does the defendant's council have any objections to the motion for summary judgement?
 
I strongly object to the motion for summary judgement.

admitted that their defense strategy is predicated on the 30 day grace period
This is a singular part of our defense strategy. It is just one of many parts mentioned in the motion to dismiss, and I do have further defenses lined up that were not relevant to a motion to dismiss. Said further defenses will be presented in opening/closing statements, and I do have witnesses planned to back up my defenses. Prosecutor is completely in the wrong to say that my defense strategy is entirely predicated on this singular factor in such a complicated case.

If the prosecutor is in a rush to settle this case, I invite them to discuss a plea deal with me in DMs.
 
May I also ask if there is any update on the motion to recuse for Justice Nacholebraa? As long as the case continues to move along, it is in my client's interest and in the interest of justice that the court can impartially consider this case.
 
I had notified the other justices of this previously but I see it was never notated on the thread for that I apologize. I will be accepting the motion for recusal and stepping away from this case.​
 
After a discussion with the Supreme Court (prior to Chief Justice Wuutie resignation), the motion for summary judgment is rejected.

The defendant may provide their opening statement. Please provide your statement within 48 hours (September 26, at 11:30).
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

The DLA is pretending that my client is obstructing the enforcement of the laws regarding delisting. However, in this very case, the DLA is working to enforce those laws, which shows a strong contradiction in the prosecutor's argument. Furthermore, my client is not blocking any DEC employees from looking into this matter if they wish, and if they do wish to do that, they are welcome to look into it. So really, there are no grounds for a corruption charge. My client should be considered in this case in his capacity as CEO of Walgreens, not DEC Secretary.

That brings us to the fiduciary duty matter. Putting aside legal technicalities, I would like to point out a common sense argument. My client does not pocket all of the profits of Walgreens. He is more interested in serving his customers and his company over himself. The monetary punishment that the DLA seeks to impose on Trentrick_Lamar far exceeds his personal balance. And so that brings me to my next point. What kind of absurd law mandates that any CEO pay hundreds of thousands of dollars just to take a company private? What right does the government have to dictate that to a CEO, especially to my client who isn't personally pocketing hundreds of thousands of dollars? The government does not have the mental capability or the constitutional right to tell a CEO what they have to do to get a delisting done. Clearly, they do not understand the CEOs that are getting these regulations shoved down their throats. The CEO of Walgreens cannot be expected nor is he capable of providing hundreds of thousands of dollars. He is not the owner of the company stock. He is merely an employee, a senior one yes, but that doesn't change the fact that he isn't the company's owner. While the company may have great sums of revenue, my client is not the company.

It is also worth noting that Walgreens was founded long before the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act was signed into law on August 12, 2022. The CEO of Walgreens has long been operating without the presumption that the CEO needs to pay huge sums just to delist from an exchange. For his entire tenure as CEO, which also long predates this law, he has presumed that while shares are in perpetuity the property of their owner, it would not require him to pay a fortune to simply remove the company from a stock exchange. Logically speaking, it is perfectly sound that a CEO can remove a company from a stock exchange, and the owners of shares can still keep their shares, just without them being listed in the public markets. But now, my client is being ruthlessly prosecuted for something that has been legal since the founding of Walgreens. These charges should thus all be thrown out on grounds of them being ex post facto.

Really, the entire Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act is full of issues. It violates the constitutional right to freedom of association, by having the government forcibly dictate the terms of any business association. This poses an undue burden to people like my client, who are made to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars simply because they lead a business association that no longer wants to have shares bought or sold in public markets, instead preferring private markets. This is why the court should seriously consider striking down the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act as an unconstitutional intrusion into private enterprise.
 
The Court now calls for both parties to submit a list of witnesses and/or expert testimonies if any.

Both parties have until September 27th at 11:05 PM Eastern Standard Time (24 hours).
 
Your honor, the State has no witnesses to call.
 
Defense would like to call LordBen2466, Elaina Thomas, and black_ven0m. I would like to note that there is an additional witness that I haven’t been able to reach, but if I receive confirmation that this person is available to testify, I would like to add them later on.
 
Prior to issuing a summons, what relation does each witness have to this case?
 
They are character witnesses who can testify to my client's respect for the law and the DEC, and confirm my client's significant real life commitments that led to him not being able to issue financial reports to The Exchange. The witnesses are long-time associates of my client who are well aware of his activities both in DC and in real life.
 
I would also like to add Zab. He was the witness I was waiting on to confirm availability.
 
I would like to call Zab for the same reason as the other witnesses and the additional reason that he is the founder and former long-time owner of The Exchange. He can offer his expertise and knowledge of Walgreens’ time as a publicly listed company
 
The Supreme Court will not be summoning any of the witnesses. While LordBen2466, Elaina Thomas, black_ven0m, and Zab may indeed have insight into Trentrick_Lamar's personal life, the Supreme Court only has jurisdiction within the Commonwealth. While we understand that we all have personal lives, the Supreme Court of Redmont, in general, only has jurisdiction over the laws and common law that surround the Commonwealth.
Furthermore, Zab retired from the Onyx Exchange and left the Commonwealth on December 30th, 2021. Since then, laws surrounding the practices of securities exchanges have changed, the management and terms and conditions have changed with the rebranding of the Onyx Exchange to The Exchange. Calling Zab an expert witnesses into Walgreens as a public company is a stretch of the word "expert." Too much has changed and so much time has passed.

Since all the defendant's potential witnesses have been rejected a summons, I will extend an additional 24 hours for any party to list any witnesses that have relevance to this case.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor, I strongly urge you to reconsider your ruling in regards to summoning Zab as a witness. He was the owner of the Exchange at the time that Walgreens became a publicly listed company and at the time that the Exchange bought out Walgreens' shares. Even though he has not been owner for some time, he was the owner at the time of several significant events at the Onyx Exchange relating to this case.

I would like to note that Zab has made clear that he is available to testify. Per the Constitution (Point VIII of the Charter of Rights & Freedoms), as Zab did join DemocracyCraft, he is entitled to citizenship of Redmont and should still have a right to speak in Redmont's courts, regardless of the fact that he left.
 
The motion to reconsider to rejected. The Supreme Court has already made it's decision and will not be changing it. As the Court stated in the previous denial of Zab, Zab, as the owner previously, has no authority or legal integrity within this current dealings within The Exchange. These are two very different occasions, with new laws surrounding the practices of a new securities exchange.

The Court acknowledges that Zab is still a citizen of the Commonwealth. However, there is not right to "speak in Redmont's courts." Citizenship does not guarantee anyone to be summoned to testify as a witnesses.

Seeing as the extension for witnesses has elapsed, the Court now calls the Commonwealth to provide its closing statement within the next 48 hours (October 3rd at 12:40).
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v

Trentrick_Lamar
Defendant

Your honor, I'll keep this brief.

The Defendant continues to refuse to give legally required financial information to their shareholders.
The Defendant continues to refuse to enforce the law on a business that they themselves own.
The Defendant's actions have defrauded private investors from several hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The Defendant has violated their fiduciary duty to their shareholders, and is using their position as DEC Secretary to exempt their own organizations from the law. They have even admitted to such themselves in this screenshot which we submitted previously:
1664815235535.png


This is a very simple case that includes a CONFESSION. Thank you.

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 3rd day of October 2022
 
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

The prosecutor seems to have missed the deadline for the closing statement. Although it was not missed by much, this is the 2nd time in this case that the prosecutor has disregarded a court deadline.
 
Your honor, no other party sought to move this case along in the whole 2 minutes that the closing statement was beyond due. There was no delay created by the late submission.
 
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

The prosecutor seems to have missed the deadline for the closing statement. Although it was not missed by much, this is the 2nd time in this case that the prosecutor has disregarded a court deadline.
Overruled. The Commonwealth was late by 120 seconds. There is a huge difference between being late by 120 seconds and 120 minuets.

The Court now ask for the defendant to provide its closing statement within the next 48 hours (October 5th at 5:05 PM EST).
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

This is a criminal case, and so the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my client is guilty. However, it is clear that Trentrick Lamar is far from guilty. The entire law surrounding this case is a seemingly unconstitutional intrusion into free enterprise. But for the sake of argument, even if we were to assume this law to be constitutional, the prosecution still cannot find my client guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. To quote Section 3, Subsection 7 of the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act:

The employees, officers, and other such decision-making personnel of a company will have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders of the company to maximise the long-term profits and increases in value of the shares of the company.

Fiduciary duty is defined as an obligation to do two things, maximize profit and increase stock prices. If you take a look at the direct quote from the prosecutor's initial filing, they seem to think that my client is going to increase the values of the company shares.
35.75% of the company's stock is owned by public shareholders, the current value of the company is $774,009.29, the highest past value of the company is $922,849.86, and our 6 month future projection of the company's value is $1,384,274.80.
- Based on the current value of the stock: Fines of $276,708.32, or $387 per share
- Based on the maximum previous value of the stock: Fines of $329,918.83, or $461.42 per share
- Based on a 6 month future projection of the stock's value: Fines of $494,878.24, or $692.14 per share
The prosecutor forecasts that in 6 months, the Walgreens company will be worth over $1.3 million, which would be a new record high market capitalization for the company. That's a remarkable increase from the reported current value of over $0.75 million. I can't say I am surprised, since Walgreens is one of the longest-lasting and most consistent for-profit entities in Redmont. So it appears that by the prosecution's own admission, my client is doing an excellent job of fulfilling his fiduciary duty. The only thing that is clear beyond a reasonable doubt here is that my client is an excellent CEO of Walgreens. Given this financial information, this alone creates enough doubt to find my client not guilty of violating fiduciary duty.

Now, in regards to the allegation of corruption, I also say that there is too much doubt to find my client guilty. The prosecution has provided zero evidence that my client is using his position as DEC Secretary to stop department employees from enforcing laws. The fact that my client is being prosecuted is showing that clearly Secretary Lamar has not blocked enforcement attempts. Nobody has been harassed, intimidated, threatened with being fired from the DEC, or faced any other form of corrupt coercion. For there to have been corruption, there had to have been some undue advantage obtained by the defendant. But what advantage did he gain? Nothing. Due to his time-consuming real-life tasks, he was unable to provide financial reports to The Exchange. The owner of that stock exchange threatened that he would have to give those reports or pay an exorbitant sum to delist out of his own pocket. When he was again unable to do either due to real-life time constraints and financial inability, what happened? Well, The Exchange delisted him. That's right, after all those threats to give reports or money, Walgreens stock is no longer publicly traded in The Exchange. The allegation that my client corruptly used his Cabinet position to get a delisting makes zero sense when clearly The Exchange has given him his delisting regardless of the threats from both the stock exchange and the DLA, empty as they turned out to be. My client has obtained no undue advantage from corruption; the advantage he did obtain was the delisting he had originally wanted in the first place, which has been achieved without my client lifting a finger as it turns out.

1664913526603.png

Given all of these holes in the prosecution's logic, the court should find my client to be not guilty of all charges. The high standards needed to convict my client in this criminal case have not been reached, given all the doubts I have presented.
 
OBJECTION
Perjury

"Now, in regards to the allegation of corruption, I also say that there is too much doubt to find my client guilty. The prosecution has provided zero evidence that my client is using his position as DEC Secretary to stop department employees from enforcing laws."

Prosecution has made it abundantly clear that Walgreens is required by law to relist on the stock exchange within 30 days and that the DEC Secretary is required by law to enforce this law upon Walgreens. And yet, the Defendant refuses to enforce this law on his own company. Furthermore we have presented screenshots of confession by the Defendant that we will again submit here.
1664916271437.png
 
OBJECTION
Relevance

"Due to his time-consuming real-life tasks, he was unable to provide financial reports to The Exchange. The owner of that stock exchange threatened that he would have to give those reports or pay an exorbitant sum to delist out of his own pocket. When he was again unable to do either due to real-life time constraints and financial inability, what happened? Well, The Exchange delisted him."

The law makes no exception for IRL limitations. The Defendant has spent a significant amount of time on the Minecraft server, on the Discord server, and on the Forums both before this case was filed and throughout the duration of this case. More than ample time was given prior to the filing of this case and even more time has elapsed since the case was filed.
 
OBJECTION
Relevance

"The entire law surrounding this case is a seemingly unconstitutional intrusion into free enterprise. But for the sake of argument, even if we were to assume this law to be constitutional, the prosecution still cannot find my client guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

We are not debating the constitutionality of the Fiduciary Duty law. Even if we were, there is no constitutional right to free enterprise. The Government has interfered with "free enterprise" on many occasions including creating a minimum wage, creating a minimum commission, providing public transit, selling plots, the tender program, Department sell chests, laws against monopolization, laws against corruption, laws against bribery, etc etc. "free enterprise" is not protected by the Constitution, nor does it exist.
 
OBJECTION
Assumes facts not in evidence

"The prosecutor forecasts that in 6 months, the Walgreens company will be worth over $1.3 million, which would be a new record high market capitalization for the company. That's a remarkable increase from the reported current value of over $0.75 million. I can't say I am surprised, since Walgreens is one of the longest-lasting and most consistent for-profit entities in Redmont. So it appears that by the prosecution's own admission, my client is doing an excellent job of fulfilling his fiduciary duty."

The prosecution has made clear that this 6 month projection represents potential value that has been potentially irreparably lost due to the actions of the Defendant. It is based strictly upon the gains that the company has experienced in the past and is used as a recommendation for the Courts as to what the absolute maximum value should be when considering potential fines for lost shareholder value.
 
I ask the court for permission to respond to these.
 
The objection on perjury is overruled; the defendant has not perjured himself.
Both objections on relevance is overruled; improper use of the relevance objection.
The objection on assumes facts not in evidence is overruled; improper use of the objection.

This Court is now in recess while the Supreme Court enters conference to discuss this case.
 
Your honor, 10 days have elapsed. This is not intended to rush you, but merely serve as a reminder in the event that this case has been (understandably) forgotten about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top