Lawsuit: Pending Vanguard & Co v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 49

[Dartanboy]

Objection #1 Improper Evidence
Sustained, please split up the collage so each component can be address individually throughout this case.

Objection #2 Relevance
Sustained, Please provide both sides of the conversation.

My apologies for not adding these sooner. It is my mistake. But as the court ordered them to be entered, I must enter them:

Spoiler: Exhibits P-011 through 18

11:

12:

13:

14:

15:

16:

17:

18:

Spoiler: Exhibit P-019

Tickets Dashboard

dashboard.tickets.bot

 

[Dartanboy]

Opening Statement

Introduction
Your honor,

I have no doubt the Commonwealth will provide lengthy arguments attempting to show how, through some misinterpretation of the Taxation Act, this seizure was somehow justified, but in reality this case is simple: The Commonwealth has frozen a business and seized millions of dollars worth of assets without cause, and without the authority to do so.

On The Facts
Most of the Facts in this case were agreed to by the Commonwealth, except for the following:

• (Denied) The Bank Holiday prevented all banking activity
  • Without noting why they deny this fact, we assume it is because they allowed in-game ATMs to operate during the holiday. This is technically true but all other banking activity was prevented. This is a minor error in the wording of the complaint.
• (Denied) The DoC’s claims of “grave liquidity concerns” and “misrepresentation of financial statements” were false
  • They provided no evidence to show that these statements were misrepresented, however, it is possible the DoC misunderstood them.
• (Denied) The DoC refused to discuss the lack of warrant or bankruptcy proceedings.
  • As shown in Exhibit P-019, they frequently beat around the bush and pointed to the Taxation Act as if it somehow gave them the power to perform unreasonable seizures.
• (Neither Confirmed Nor Denied) The source of the incomplete spreadsheet(s) they had.
  • It didn’t come from us, so it must have been a third party.
• (Denied) the announcement caused significant harm to Vanguard’s reputation.
  • This is disproven by Exhibits P-011 through P-018 (originally P-005).

On The Constitution
The Constitution grants the following rights to Nexalin & Vanguard’s shareholders, and by extension to Vanguard itself (see [2021] SCR 8):

• Right to a Fair Trial
• Right to be Confronted with Evidence Against Them
• Right to Understand the Cause and Nature of the Accusation
• Right to Life, Liberty, and Security
• Right to be Secure Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure

By seizing two entire banks and millions of dollars worth of assets, without providing evidence until after-the-fact (and insufficient evidence), and without taking us to court before doing so, the Commonwealth violated all of the above-listed rights.

On The Taxation Act
The Taxation Act does make the Department of Commerce the enforcer of financial laws, however they are not the interpreter. They lack the Constitutional Authority to decide when and where a financial institution has broken the law. This was clarified by the Learned and Honorable Former Justice BananaNova in [2022] FCR 97, where the court ruled:

It is written in the Constitution that the Executive branch “administers and enforces the law respectively, as written by the legislature and interpreted by the judiciary”
…
These two statements are written clearly for the intent to outline exactly what each branch may and may not do.
…
Thus, it is the opinion of the court that anything to the contrary of these two statements must pass by a Constitutional amendment.

As we can see, for the Department of Commerce, part of the Executive Branch, to unilaterally decide that Vanguard had broken the law and seize their assets without serving a warrant, it is clear that they acted not only as the executor of the law, but as the interpreter of the law as well.

On The Commonwealth’s Evidence
While the Commonwealth has failed to show Vanguard’s assets as insufficient to pay depositors, even if they had this evidence (which they don’t, because it doesn’t exist) they still broke the law by becoming themselves the interpreter of the law, entirely side-stepping the courts and seizing millions of dollars in assets without a warrant.

Now, let’s look at their evidence. Exhibits D-001 and D-002 are financial statements of Vanguard National Bank and Discover Bank some time ago, not accurate to the time of seizure (Even in Exhibit D-006, they claim this data is at least “a few weeks” old). We would also note that due to a miscommunication, these sheets included both assets and liabilities in foreign nations as well as Redmont.

We would also like to note that “Cash Equivalents” would not show up as in-game cash and that roughly $10,000,000 of Vanguard’s cash was fraudulently stolen by Naezaratheus, and we are awaiting the return of that cash as we await a verdict in [2025] FCR 32.

On Defamation
As shown in Exhibit P-011 through P-018, it is clear the announcement made by Defendant damages Vanguard’s reputation. It is also clear through Exhibit P-10 that Vanguard is neither insolvent nor illiquid (noting there are no legislated or regulated reserve requirements, even a 1% reserve rate would be considered liquid enough in Redmont).

This shows all the necessary components of Defamation (falsehood, publicly stated, and damaging to reputation).

In Conclusion
The Commonwealth has no legs to stand on. They have decided that an action of enforcement granted to them by the Taxation Act has somehow also given them Judicial power. They have decided that a spreadsheet provided by a third party is somehow sufficient evidence to prove the insolvency and/or illiquidity of a business. They have violated the rights of Vanguard’s shareholders and customers.

This injustice cannot be permitted.

 

[ko531]

The defense has 72 hours to provide their opening statement