Sigil: City of Doors

wrote:To those working on the former ENOW Fine and Taxation Project:

I will simply ask you this: what proof do you have that taxes were evaded? And can you truly say that taxes were not paid? They most certainly paid taxes whether purchasing or importing any good within the boundaries of Sigil. Furthermore, I will note that at the time of their purchases they were still registered as a charity, and we cannot make fines or charges upon them retroactively. in regards to the registrations as an actual entity, ENOW was registered under law as a charity, and thus is susceptible to several notable "tax privileges." It is what happened at that time, not now, that is important. Unless you have a clear, and definite paper trail of true tax evasion, these charges will not hold.

Finally, I will note that all of our records show that the ENOW project is, indeed, failed, and that the entities that had funded it, including Meor/Sensbane industries, had long pulled their efforts from this project, so not only does this not apply to these entities as they are no longer in any official affiliation with the project, but there is no project to begin with.

On one final note, in the future do your research more wisely next time you attempt your audits and lawsuits. It costs more time and money necessarily when we are looking into empty cases as opposed to more important ones.

~Administraitor Richard Vaslord.

wrote:Administrator Vaslord.

First allow me to congratulate you on your first assignment after being appointed administrator. Seeing as your inexperience shows through on your reply to our court motion please permit me to help you somewhat to avoid further embarrassment in the future in such cases. First, please do us the courtesy of using your rank number when corresponding with us. Your Faction brethren can attest to the success of doing so in gaining the right attentions. Secondly, never finish your letter on a thinly veiled insult. That can backfire on you severely should the reader take offence to your casual remark and launch legal actions should they be warranted.

NowÂ… as to the context of your letter.

The Fated are the keepers of Tax files and records. They are acutely aware of all tax forms filed for any case involving the movement of coin throughout the city. That is their job… you’d do well to remember that. When Meor/Sensbane industries cancelled the project, they took on the responsibility of all taxes laid against the project. You see, under the tax code (which I highly suggest reading before replying to an official motion) the project is only considered a “charitable enterprise” if it is completed. This is a failsafe clause that prevents people from exploiting the taxation loopholes to their own benefits. You see I could start up a massive project in the Hive under the guise of charity. I could build an entire compound to help the poor of the city. All the while I’m bringing in manpower, supplies, etc… all tax free under the charities act. Then, before the final door is hung, I simply “cease” operations and pull out, handing the project over to the construction company to do as they please… to even sell back to me for a song. They simply pay the tax to complete the hanging of the final door… only a few coins… interesting, no?

NoÂ… that scenario would not be permitted thanks, in part, to the taxation and charities act. The project must be completed to avoid paying the tax. If it is not, then a return must immediately be filed to cover the costs, retroactively, of the failed project. Meor/Sensbane industries did not file this return. Hence, they are on the hook for the entire taxable totals IÂ’ve included in my previous letter.

NowÂ… seeing as youÂ’re new enough to the job to not know to include your Rank number and not experienced enough to understand the codes you now toss back at us, IÂ’m willing to overlook your condescending remark at the end of your note. Live and learn as it were.

Please inform your superiors that we look forward to discussing this at a first appointed meeting designated by them.

Thank you and have a pleasant day.

Sebastian Clarke

Legal Aide

Goodman Legal Enterprises

wrote:
To Legal Aid Sebastian Clarke and associates:

My last letter was not of veiled hostility. It was advisement and to make a few legal problems known to you. Your response was not "veiled" hostility, but rather, hostile, so let me remind you firstly that it is the Fraternity of Order who governs how the law is run in this city, not you, and not the Fated.

More for you to know as well:

Firstly, the one in charge of this is me, and you're dealing with me as chosen by the current process. You can appeal all the way up to the Factol but if he says he doesn't want to deal with you, then that is your problem and the case will be dropped. As it stands, I do not find your evidence sufficient, and there is to be absolutely no more debate about that until confirmed records can be given by our sources, -not- the Fated.

Secondly, that failsafe is a non-existent clause, what is in place is certainly not what you stated, and it is -we- who write the LAW in this city. I would suggest you consider just who it is you are writing to before you accuse them of not knowing the very law they write instead of insulting the one in charge of your case.

Thirdly, we have records too, as all companies, even charitable ones must comply with law and fill out legal representation documents and appropriate forms, including those for taxes, on accounts that the laws or contracts might be broken. On these, I suggest reading my previous letter, as nothing has changed.

Fourthly, if you wish to submit a complaint against my language in response please do so by filling out the appropriate paperwork which I have in fact gladly provided with you.

Fifthly, it is not a requirement that a member of the Fraternity of Order state their exact position on a letter. It is a formality.

Now, all of that said and done, have you anything more compelling to bring forward about this case I will be happy to deal with you. Otherwise, you are welcome to send an appeal through the chain and I shall give you those appropriate fourms in this letter too. If you want to vent and complain about how I have handled this case, please fill the form attached to the letter also.

~Administrator Richard Vaslord.

wrote:Administrator Richard Vaslord.

wrote:My last letter was not of veiled hostility. It was advisement and to make a few legal problems known to you. Your response was not "veiled" hostility, but rather, hostile, so let me remind you firstly that it is the Fraternity of Order who governs how the law is run in this city, not you, and not the Fated.

I read what I read. Perhaps you should polish up on your communication skills if you do not want to be taken out of context. My apologies if you cannot see honest advice for what it is. Perhaps this misunderstanding can be remedied through proper means and not “tit-for-tat" letters.

wrote:More for you to know as well:

Firstly, the one in charge of this is me, and you're dealing with me as chosen by the current process. You can appeal all the way up to the Factol but if he says he doesn't want to deal with you, then that is your problem and the case will be dropped. As it stands, I do not find your evidence sufficient, and there is to be absolutely no more debate about that until confirmed records can be given by our sources, -not- the Fated.

Please… do not presume to speak for your Factol in final matters. Unless he has, indeed, stated he doesn’t want to deal with this… then it has yet to be decided. For you to even presume to come out and unequivocally state that the case will be dropped is a sad deed. I do hope you understand this as it does not speak for your professionalism. “MY” evidence is the tax law and the absence of a tax return. Perhaps you like to make judgments based on phantom forms that do not exist but we do not. No Tax form filed… no taxes paid. Pretty simple.

wrote:Secondly, that failsafe is a non-existent clause, what is in place is certainly not what you stated, and it is -we- who write the LAW in this city. I would suggest you consider just who it is you are writing to before you accuse them of not knowing the very law they write instead of insulting the one in charge of your case.

The clause exists to protect the taxation system of the city. To prevent unscrupulous people from exploiting the charities act. A project MUST be completed as stated in the original permits or it is deemed null and void. Again, to make this easier on you, this was not the case. AgainÂ… project not completed, no tax forms filed, no taxes paid.

wrote:Thirdly, we have records too, as all companies, even charitable ones must comply with law and fill out legal representation documents and appropriate forms, including those for taxes, on accounts that the laws or contracts might be broken. On these, I suggest reading my previous letter, as nothing has changed.

I look forward to reading these permits that exempt the failed enterprise from paying taxes, during our pre-court meetings. Please ensure they are copied for our files and records.

wrote:Fourthly, if you wish to submit a complaint against my language in response please do so by filling out the appropriate paperwork which I have in fact gladly provided with you.

As statedÂ… I have no interest in complaining about itÂ… perhaps you missed that part. Please feel at ease knowing that the issue has been dropped.

wrote:Fifthly, it is not a requirement that a member of the Fraternity of Order state their exact position on a letter. It is a formality.

In official correspondence it most certainly is. This is not a personal letter sent to a friend or loved one. This is official court documents and must be treated as such. Even you, good administer, are not above the law. Please remain professional if you wish to be treated professional.

wrote:Now, all of that said and done, have you anything more compelling to bring forward about this case I will be happy to deal with you. Otherwise, you are welcome to send an appeal through the chain and I shall give you those appropriate fourms in this letter too. If you want to vent and complain about how I have handled this case, please fill the form attached to the letter also.

Before we even consider appealing to another member of the Fraternity, please send fourth, to our firm, any and all forms that you have signed, dealt with or otherwise handled, in the past, pertaining to E-NOW or Meor/Sensbane enterprisesÂ… just so we can put to rest any thoughts of hidden agenda.

Aside from filing forms for the pending docket this will be my last expansive letter to you. I am not in the habit of debating court cases via letter. I look forward to our pre-trial meeting.

Thank you and have a pleasant day.

Sabastian Clark

Legal Aide

Goodman Legal Enterprises

wrote:To Sabastian Clark/Sebastian Clarke and associates:

It is the finding of this Court that you and your company have acted with questionable judgement. Combined with this and a lack of what the Court considers reputable evidence, your request for a case is thus declined. Despite your questionable actions against the Fraternity of Order and assuming to take it's judgement and laws into your own hands, it has been decided that no criminal action will be taken against you at this time for contempt of court. You are free to file an appeal which will be reviewed by a legal representation board within the next 90 days, to which they will give you a response.

These proceedings are closed.

~Administrator Richard Vaslord.

wrote:Greetings and salutations.

It has come to my attention that the case, filled by my lawyer, Charles Goodman and yours truly, was closed due to certain misunderstandings.

Therefore I would like to implore you to reconsider your decision before we are forced to appeal to higher instances, which is time consuming for us, and undoubtedly detrimental for your carrier.

As for incentive to do so, please allow me to remind you that while Fraternity of The Order are truly the one and only legislators of our fair city, the duty of taxation is entrusted to the Fated. And while all the taxes and laws regarding taxes must be reviewed by Fraternity of the Order before they pass, it is Fated who keep the extensive and detailed records of those laws among with any information regarding taxes.

For example, the clause we base our accusations on and the one that you claim does not exists, is actually three hundred and twenty three years old and is among the first proposed laws proposed by the Fated. And yes, it was passed, along with another hundred or so laws, on the very same day.

Once again, I ask you to reconsider your decision.

              Tax Collector, Namer Rylif

wrote:To Namer Rilf:

We thank you for your concern and prompt response in asking us these considerations, but I would like to remind you as well as we reminded your legal representatives not to tell the Fraternity of Order what is, and is not, the Law. I do appreciate your tone being far more civil than your council's though, and the fact that you take your job so seriously in these times is an encouraging thing to see.

However this decision was made and cannot be overturned now, even by myself, short of anything but an appeal, but even with that I shall stand behind the decision. I gave your legal council the forms for filing for an appeal, but I will attach a secondary copy for you as well to the back of this letter. Fill these out, and within a 90 day processing period we should have an answer for your appeal.

I wish you the best in your future endeavors,

~Administrator Richard Vaslord.