Lawsuit: In Session RaiTheGuy v. lukeyyyMC_ [2025] FCR 30

@Bardiya_King and @MasterAshim are both held in contempt for failing to respond to the questions within the allotted timeframe. For every 24 hours the witnesses fail to respond, they will be charged with contempt an additional time. Witnesses were not dismissed, and should have no excuse for failing to comply with court deadlines.
 
ameslap said:
Thank you, your honor.


@MasterAshim:
  1. What were the circumstances around the auction that made you want to bid on it?
  2. What was your public response after opening the mystery box for the first time?

@Bardiya_King:
  1. Describe the process of approving a mystery box at the time of this auction?
Click to expand...
To be frank, the Department of Commerce does not have a formalized or standardized process for approving Mystery Boxes. Generally, a DOC Economist reviews the application and grants approval independently, without consulting senior economists. However, in cases where the requested amount is significantly high, as in this instance, approval typically escalates to upper management, including the Deputy Secretary and the Secretary.

Dr_Eksplosive said:
@Bardiya_King and @MasterAshim are both held in contempt for failing to respond to the questions within the allotted timeframe. For every 24 hours the witnesses fail to respond, they will be charged with contempt an additional time. Witnesses were not dismissed, and should have no excuse for failing to comply with court deadlines.
Click to expand...
Your Honor I apologize for the delay, I was involved in a car crash last night and did not have time to post my response to the question.
 
Bardiya_King said:
To be frank, the Department of Commerce does not have a formalized or standardized process for approving Mystery Boxes. Generally, a DOC Economist reviews the application and grants approval independently, without consulting senior economists. However, in cases where the requested amount is significantly high, as in this instance, approval typically escalates to upper management, including the Deputy Secretary and the Secretary.
Click to expand...
Firstly, I hope you are okay from last night.

What is your process for approving a mystery box auction, as an economist?
 
ameslap said:
Firstly, I hope you are okay from last night.

What is your process for approving a mystery box auction, as an economist?
Click to expand...
I am fine, just a couple bruises. Now on the question. I personally accept a mystery box if it’s under 10k without question if the items within the box are seemingly valuable, however when it comes to boxes 10k plus I consult the CPI and use common sense if items aren’t on the CPI
 
Bardiya_King said:
I personally accept a mystery box if it’s under 10k without question if the items within the box are seemingly valuable
Click to expand...
What is your definition of "seemingly valuable"?

Bardiya_King said:
however when it comes to boxes 10k plus I consult the CPI and use common sense if items aren’t on the CPI
Click to expand...
Was CPI consulted prior to this mystery box being approved?
 
ameslap said:
What is your definition of "seemingly valuable"?


Was CPI consulted prior to this mystery box being approved?
Click to expand...
1: Weapons, Collectable Items, things that are rare and or take effort to make

2: In this case considering the fact that most items within the Box were not within the CPI we just made a baseline assessment and believed that 50k would be a good starting price
 
Bardiya_King said:
2: In this case considering the fact that most items within the Box were not within the CPI we just made a baseline assessment and believed that 50k would be a good starting price
Click to expand...
Having reviewed the contents and/or the evidence provided by either the Plaintiff or the Defendant, which items in particular did the DOC value high enough to justify the $50,000 bid?
 
ameslap said:
Having reviewed the contents and/or the evidence provided by either the Plaintiff or the Defendant, which items in particular did the DOC value high enough to justify the $50,000 bid?
Click to expand...
Looking back at the listing and items, I believe that the item that caused such a high starting price was the old Klondike Minecraft, considering that Klondike had been gone for almost two years at the time it seemed to be a very valuable collectors item
 
Bardiya_King said:
Looking back at the listing and items, I believe that the item that caused such a high starting price was the old Klondike Minecraft, considering that Klondike had been gone for almost two years at the time it seemed to be a very valuable collectors item
Click to expand...
Just for clarification, do you mean that the minecart was valuable 2 years ago or in 2025?
 
ameslap said:
Just for clarification, do you mean that the minecart was valuable 2 years ago or in 2025?
Click to expand...
In 2025, Klondike went away in 2023 if I am correct.
 
Bardiya_King said:
In 2025, Klondike went away in 2023 if I am correct.
Click to expand...
What price tag did the DOC determine Klondike was worth?

Did the DOC use any marketplace or CPI analysis to determine if that price was accurate?
 
What were the circumstances around the auction that made you want to bid on it?
I wanted to get something of value, perhaps a plot, resources, or vehicles.

What was your public response after opening the mystery box for the first time?
Disbelief. I had received items that contained little to no value.

Apologies for the delay
 
ameslap said:
What price tag did the DOC determine Klondike was worth?

Did the DOC use any marketplace or CPI analysis to determine if that price was accurate?
Click to expand...
Klondike as a whole or The item?
 
ameslap said:
Just the minecart that was in the mystery box.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the delay, similar items such as the Oakridge axe, which was also a collectible, had previously sold for 50k or so, if I am correct. The minecart was priced accordingly with the previous sales of such collectibles.
 
Bardiya_King said:
Sorry for the delay, similar items such as the Oakridge axe, which was also a collectible, had previously sold for 50k or so, if I am correct. The minecart was priced accordingly with the previous sales of such collectibles.
Click to expand...
1. When was the of the Oakridge axe?

2. Are all "collectables" worth the same amount?
 
ameslap said:
1. When was the of the Oakridge axe?

2. Are all "collectables" worth the same amount?
Click to expand...
I don't remember when the axe was on the market.

Not necessarily, however, considering both items, the Oakridge Axe and the Klondike Minecart, were both collectibles of towns they were about the same in my opinion
 
Bardiya_King said:
I don't remember when the axe was on the market.

Not necessarily, however, considering both items, the Oakridge Axe and the Klondike Minecart, were both collectibles of towns they were about the same in my opinion
Click to expand...
So is it possible that the Klondike Minecart is not worth $50,000?
 
ameslap said:
So is it possible that the Klondike Minecart is not worth $50,000?
Click to expand...
Maybe, the value is in the eye of the beholder. Its not up to me
 
Bardiya_King said:
To be frank, the Department of Commerce does not have a formalized or standardized process for approving Mystery Boxes. Generally, a DOC Economist reviews the application and grants approval independently, without consulting senior economists. However, in cases where the requested amount is significantly high, as in this instance, approval typically escalates to upper management, including the Deputy Secretary and the Secretary.


Your Honor I apologize for the delay, I was involved in a car crash last night and did not have time to post my response to the question.
Click to expand...
Given your prompt response and circumstances rather unfortunately out of control, the charge against you is repealed. I wish you a speedy recovery, should any serious injuries been sustained.

We shall now finally move to closing statements. The Plaintiff is afforded 48 hours to post their closing statement. Failure to submit on time without a request for extension will result in a contempt of court charge.
 
Your honor, may I have an additional 10 hours? The past few days IRL have been extremely busy/difficult.
 
ameslap said:
Your honor, may I have an additional 10 hours? The past few days IRL have been extremely busy/difficult.
Click to expand...
Granted. No further extensions will be tolerated. You have an additional 10 hours from the original deadline.
 

Closing Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honor, the Defendant engaged in violations of the Commercial Standards Act regarding Sections 15, 6, and 8. The evidence and witness testimony has pointed to this time and time again. Now, in the Answer to the Complaint, the Defense only points to a single fact that is in contention, denying that the items within the CPI is worth $764.34

I. Section 15 - Gaming Institution’s Duties​

“Gaming institutions are required to display the odds of gaming machines and activities in a visible area adjacent to the machine/activity.”

First, what constitutes a gaming institution and a gaming activity? We have already proposed that a gaming institution be “a well-established and familiar person who creates or plays gambling games”. We also have presented evidence that mystery box auctions constitute a gaming/gambling activity, in the form of the Defendant’s own words (P-003). The Defendant’s counsel will try to paint a different picture, but we already know how the Defendant themself feels on the matter.

The Defendant should also be considered a gaming institution as their testimony included them not knowing how many mystery box auctions they have conducted. They are well-established as a one-person institution that conducts mystery box auctions.

We are not here to argue what the odds of a mystery box auction should be. We are here today to argue that the Defendant violated the Commercial Standards Act by not posting any odds at all. If the Defendant is a gaming institution and mystery boxes are gaming/gambling activities then the Defendant was required to post the odds of the activity.

II. Section 6 - Fraud​

We argue that the Defendant committed fraud in multiple ways. The first being in the name of the mystery box being “Filthy Rich Mystery Box”. The Defense has tried to claim that the name isn’t a descriptor of the box itself, but instead as a descriptor of the bidders of the box. This is not logical on any front. First, in every other instance of the Defendant posting a mystery box, the box was obviously a descriptor of the box, not the bidders. As we have already stated, a similar box auctioned by the Defendant was titled the “Best Mystery Box EVER Made”. This is obviously a descriptor of the box, not those that are bidding on it. Secondly, a title is meant to entice people to come and bid, not request a certain type of bidder. To suggest anything other than the Defendant tried to paint this outrageous mystery box as containing items that make you “filthy rich” is absurd.
The second instance of fraud, also covers the third violation of the Commercial Standards Act: the price of the mystery box.

III. Section 8 - Market Manipulation​

The Defense has already made the bold assumption that securities fraud only occurs on stocks. However, Market Manipulation does not only narrow the fraud to stocks. In fact, Market Manipulation is “the act of fraudulently inflating or deflating the value or a company or asset of which you have a responsibility for.” The assets within the box were priced, per the Consumer Price Index at a mere $764.34. The mystery boxes initial bid amount: $50,000. A 6,6441.59% markup in price.

When pressed during testimony, the Defendant admitted to wanting the initial price to be $500,000. Or in other words: creating an even bigger fraudulent mystery box. When asked how the Defendant came up with the $500,000 bid request, if they used CPI, Discord Marketplace, or any other marketplace to gauge the price of the items, the Defendant said “Nothing in particular. No I did not use those things.” The Defendant wanted to make this worthless mystery box as expensive as possible in the hopes of him becoming Filthy Rich. This did not account for any type of market or content analysis. Now the DOC did come in and request the bid amount to be lowered before approval, and why was that? Because they also know that the Defendant was committing fraud. Even with the $50,000 approved bid, the Defendant still committed fraud. The DOC employee testified that they don’t have a formal or standard process for approving mystery boxes. The DOC employee then decided $50,000 due to collectable items within the box. Now, one key point the DOC employee testified on was, when asked if it was possible the collectible in question was actually worth $50,000, “Maybe, the value is in the eye of the beholder. Its not up to me” and when pressed on if bidders can see the items within the mystery box prior to bidding, to have that “eye of the beholder” mentality, the DOC employee testified: "No". These bidders, and the Plaintiff who won, never got to gauge for themselves if the items were valuable. The DOC gives broad decision making on mystery boxes to the auctioneers, and the Defendant took advantage of this to overvalue junk items for $65,100.

In Conclusion​

To say that the Defendant is not liable for fraud, market manipulation, and did not uphold their duties as a gaming institution would be a massive miscarriage of justice. The Defendant has shown time and time again throughout this trial that they operate these mystery boxes as a get-rich-scheme for themselves. They do not consult any market or item analysis, do not post any odds of the gambling activities, and then overvalued these items to an extreme. The Defendant has committed violations to the Commercial Standards Act and did so in extreme measures. It is time to right this wrong. Thank you.

 
The Defense is now afforded 48 hours to file their closing statement.
 

Closing Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor, the Plaintiff’s claims and reasoning are simply incorrect.

We have gone over the alleged violations of Section 15 of the CSA in our Opening Statement and as neither the witness questioning nor the Plaintiff’s Closing Statement added any new information with regards to this, we will not cover this again. We would simply like to ask the court to consider the fairness and reasonableness of imposing a punishment on someone for not doing something correctly that was impossible to do correctly to begin with.

Similarly, the Plaintiff’s Closing Statement also does not bring up any new information regarding Section 6 of the CSA. The CSA in 6.(a) states that: “A crime classified under any sub-category of Fraud shall not be charged as Fraud for the same offense.” In this case, the Plaintiff is alleging that the Defendant used a misleading name for an auction, which would fall under Misleading Advertising, a crime that is classified as a sub-category of Fraud. The name of the auction is clearly advertising the mystery box that is for sale, and the Plaintiff alleges that describing the mystery box as a “Filthy Rich Mystery Box” may mislead potential buyers into thinking that it would make them filthy rich. Then when we look further in Section 19 of the CSA we see the following:
“(1) The following are exempt from the definitions of false & misleading advertising
(a) Advertising Puffery
…”
The CSA in Section 18 defines Advertising Puffery as “Vague, wildly exaggerated claims that no reasonable person would take seriously. For example, “the best restaurant in the world”.” This perfectly covers the title of the auction in question. It did not advertise the mystery box with a specific claim, such as “This Mystery Box will make you x amount of dollars.” Instead, according to the interpretation of the Plaintiffs, a vague and exaggerated claim was made, namely that the mystery box could make you “Filthy Rich”. Even if we follow along with the interpretation of the Plaintiffs, there was nothing illegal about the Defendant’s choice of naming their auction the way they did.

Lastly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant breached Section 8 of the CSA by engaging in Market Manipulation. Your Honor, all the Defendant has done is create an auction for an item. In other words, the Plaintiff offered to sell an item at a certain price. This by no means inflates or deflates the value of the item. If it did, one could argue that by simply bidding on the auction the Plaintiff themselves too engaged in market manipulation, by inflating the value of the mystery box from the starting bid. The Plaintiff made a conscious decision to bid on the auction, and the Plaintiff was well aware of the risks that came with it, as was made clear during witness questioning from the DM’s the Plaintiff sent to a member of the DOC in an attempt to find out whether or not they should bid on the auction. The Defendant on the other hand simply posted an auction, while adhering to all the relevant policies and using a starting value for the auction that they were told to use by a government department. During witness questioning it has become clear that a member of the DOC, in the ticket that the Defendant made in order to adhere to the policies of our government, told the Defendant to use that particular starting price and furthermore confirmed that the DOC agreed to that price. The DOC member in question has also given insight into how the DOC came to that price during witness questioning. The Plaintiff in their closing statement talks about the lack of “market or content analysis” done by the Plaintiff, but the DOC, the government entity responsible for analysing the market has themselves suggested and signed off on the very starting price which the Defendant used for the auction. If that does not ensure that the starting price is reasonable and “correct”, according to the Plaintiff, then what does?

Thank you.

 
Case is hereby in recess pending verdict. Please bear with me as this may take a while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top