Lawsuit: Adjourned RaiTheGuy v. lukeyyyMC_ [2025] FCR 30

Status
Not open for further replies.
ameslap

ameslap

Moderator
Moderator
Judge
Supporter
Aventura Resident
5th Anniversary Change Maker Staff Popular in the Polls
ameslap
ameslap
Judge
Joined
Jan 7, 2025
Messages
157

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


RaiTheGuy (represented by Justice Compass Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

lukeyyyMC_
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On March 24, 2025 at 2:47 PM MST, the defendant posted an auction on the marketplace titled “Filthy Rich Mystery Box”. The starting bid was $50,000. The plaintiff won the auction for a price of $65,100. Upon payment and acceptance of the mystery box, the plaintiff was absolutely crushed. The items within had a value far less than the starting bid. Even now, some of the items within the box have not had any transactions in two years, making them worthless. The defendant’s response was simple: mystery boxes are a form of gambling so it does not matter what was in the box. The plaintiff felt robbed. Lukeyyy_MC has made a living off of scamming citizens of Redmont with the hope of winning big in his Mystery Box scheme. The plaintiff had no way of knowing what the contents of the box was or what their value could be. The defendant never posted any method to his madness on the starting bid, and in doing so violated the law. Lukeyyy_MC’s disregard for the law and his fellow neighbors has caused RaiTheGuy and countless others to feel powerless and in a significantly worse spot than they were before their interactions with the defendant.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES​

1. RaiTheGuy (Plaintiff)
2. lukeyyyMC_ (Defendant)

II. FACTS​

1. LukeyyyMC_ posted the Filthy Rich Mystery Box for auction for a starting bid of $50,000. (P-001)
2. The items listed in P-002 are the items that were a part of the mystery box.
2. RaiTheGuy wins the auction for a price of $65,100. (P-005)
3. RaiTheGuy paid for and received the mystery box from LukeyyyMC_. (P-006)
4. The defendant states that mystery boxes are a form of gambling. (P-003)
5. According to the Consumer Price Index published by the Department of Commerce, the approximate value of the box between 2024 and 2025 is $764.34 (P-002).
6. Some items in the mystery box have no record in the CPI in 2024 and 2025 (P-002, P-007 through P-010).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. As the defendant is running a gambling or gaming activity, he is in violation of the Commercial Standards Act, Section 15, requiring gaming institutions to display the odds of gaming activities in a visible area adjacent to the activity. Nowhere in the auction description does it state anything close to the odds of the mystery box being worth at least the starting bid set by the defendant.

2. In addition to Section 15, the defendant is also in violation of Section 6 of the Commercial Standards Act. Fraud, per the law, is to intentionally misrepresent or omit important facts to a victim who relies on this misrepresentation. The title of the auction being “Filthy Rich Mystery Box” gives the claim that by being the winner, you will come into items that make you “filthy rich”. This is different from other mystery boxes that the defendant has put up for auction, which includes titles such as “Soldier Mystery Box”, “Art Mystery Box”, “Best Mystery Box EVER Made”, among others. The consumer relies on these titles to have a glimpse on the contents of each box and to make a determination on if they will participate in the auction.

3. The defendant is also in violation of Section 8 of the Commercial Standards Act. These items on their own face value per the CPI provided in evidence suggest that the contents would be valued at $764.34, and the auction itself started at $50,000, a 6,441.59% markup. The winning bid amount by the plaintiff caused a 8,417.15% markup in value. Market Manipulation is the act of fraudulently inflating the value of an asset of which you have responsibility for. The defendant was able to manipulate the market of each of these items by lumping them together and calling it a mystery of what is inside, either knowingly or recklessly causing the markup.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $65,100 in Compensatory Damages - Restoration of price paid for mystery box.
2. $30,000 in Punitive Damages - For the outrageous practice of not posting gaming odds, posting a fraudulent auction, and leading in market manipulation.
3. $28,530 in Legal Fees - 30% of the total monetary damages.
4. Lukeyyy_MC issues a public apology for defrauding consumers in the #economic channel of the DemocracyCraft Discord server.

Witness List:​

lukeyyyMC_ - Auctioneer and Defendant

Evidence:​

View attachment 53609
CPI Matching Link
P-003.png
View attachment 53613
View attachment 53614
View attachment 53615
February 2025 CPI Link
January 2025 CPI Link
December 2024 CPI Link
February 2024 CPI Link


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. Any requests about my qualifications can be verified by the Department of Education.

DATED: This 26 day of March 2025.

View attachment 53618

 

Writ of Summons

@lukeyyy11 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of RaiTheGuy v. lukeyyyMC_

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 
Present, Your Honor. Dragon Law Representing.

1743531286437.png
 
The Defence has 48 hours to submit their answer to complaint.
 

Answer to Complaint


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

RaiTheGuy
Plaintiff

v.

lukeyyyMC_
Defendant


I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

  1. The defense AFFIRMS that “LuckeyyyMC_ posted the Filthy Rich Mystery Box for auction for a starting bid of $50,000. (P-001).
  2. The defense NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that “The items listed in P-002 are the items that were a part of the mystery box.”
  3. The defense AFFIRMS that “RaiTheGuy wins the auction for a price of $65,100”
  4. The defense AFFIRMS that “RaiTheGuy paid for and received the mystery box from LukeyyyMC_”
  5. The defense AFFIRMS that “The defendant states that mystery boxes are a form of gambling”
  6. The defense DENIES that “According to the Consumer Price Index published by the Department of Commerce, the approximate value of the box between 2024 and 2025 is $764.34”
  7. The defense NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that “Some items in the mystery box have no record in the CPI in 2024 and 2025 (P-002, P-007 through P-010).”


II. DEFENSES
  1. The Defendant was not selling the mystery box as part of a gambling or gaming institution, but as an independent seller. As such, he is not required by law to publish odds under section 15 of the Commercial Standards Act.
  2. ‘Mystery Box’ sellers would be completely unable to provide odds as many items have no CPI record in 2024 and 2025, as was asserted by the Plaintiff. The Defendant and other sellers cannot be held responsible for being unable to properly gauge items value without a consistent market, as opposed to a gambling institution that deals in monetary transactions.
  3. The Commonwealth published CPI reports only covering items sold in in-game sell shops. Contrary to the Plaintiff’s assertion, this does not mean that items not listed have no value at all, but that they merely don’t have a specific market due to an unviability in those items being sold in chest shops.
  4. Collectors (or generally rare) Items don’t inherently have a monetary value, as it is entirely subjective on what people are willing to pay to add something to their ‘collection’. These could be sold for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars with the possibility that a similar opportunity will never be presented again due to the exclusivity of the items.
  5. “Filthy Rich” is a descriptor, not an indicator of the box’s contents. The title does not promise wealth, it advertises the nature of the auction itself as it was meant for high-stakes bidders willing to take a risk of $50,000 or more. This is in line with other titles used by the defendant, such as ‘Best Mystery Box EVER Made’, in which no reasonable bidder would assume guaranteed value, as a ‘Mystery Box’ is ultimately a gamble.
  6. As seen in D-001, the Defendant had his starting bid lowered by the Department of Commerce, which is definitive proof that a $50,000 starting bid was completely legal and not an overinflation of the goods inside, according to those charged with regulating the market. The Plaintiff chose to gamble, and not only to gamble for the set price, but to add an extra $15,100 unprompted and then blame it on the Defendant, accusing him of market manipulation.

III. EVIDENCE
D-001 lukeyy.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: April 3rd, 2025.

 
The court hereby enters the discovery period for 72 hours, which may be extended upon agreement from both parties.
 
Witnesses:
1. RaiTheGuy
2. lukeyyyMC_
3. DarnichoRixn (Bardiya_King)
 
Your honor, we have nothing else to submit and are ready to end discovery.
 
Discovery is now closed. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to submit their opening statement.
 

Opening Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Introduction​

Your honor, LukeyyyMC_ engaged in violations of the Commercial Standards Act by posting the “Filthy Rich Mystery Box”, and by his own comments, started a gaming activity; misrepresented the contents of the auction; and market manipulation.

On the Defenses​

1. By creating the mystery box the Defendant acted as a 1 person gambling or gaming institution. As the Commercial Standards Act does not define what is a Gaming Institution, we look to the Oxford Dictionary:
  • Gaming - the action or practice of playing gambling games.
  • Gambling - play games of chance for money; bet.
  • Institution - a well-established and familiar person, custom, or object.
A Gaming Institution can be defined - when combining the definitions - A well-established and familiar person who creates or plays gambling games.

By the Defendant’s constant listing of these mystery boxes, he has become well-established and familiar. Additionally, to suggest that a person cannot take the form of an institution in practice is not logical. A one-person institution or sole-proprietor can, should, and does exist. The defendant had a duty and obligation to post the odds that the mystery box was valued at the initial auction price.

2-4. To suggest that sellers have no idea of an item’s value is unfounded. Items within the CPI give context to what the items’ value is. Additionally, the sellers must have some idea of what the value of their items are as they are able to put an initial price-tag on these items. The defense's claim here suggests that fraud could be even more prevalent as the $50,000 initial auction price came out of thin air or some magician’s hat without any logic put into it.

Collectible (or generally rare) items are able to be sought after on a single transaction basis outside of the CPI if needed, however a mystery box transaction where the buyer cannot view the items beforehand eliminates whatever value the supposedly collectible/rare items may have had; this is because the collectible item's value comes from the collector seeking it out, and someone who is not a collector would not value the item highly at all. Regardless, the Defendant knows the items in this mystery box were not highly valued at all, as if they were, he would assuredly auction off the item itself, not put it in a mystery box. Furthermore, what constitutes a rare item? Netherite ingots are hard to come by, but does this make them rare? Even the nature of an item's limited cycle in the market does not constitute it being rare. The CPI has no mention of Oak Fences between March 2024 and Today, does this mean it is rare or collectible? Should Oak Fences be considered expensive, collectible items? This would suggest that someone could put any price on a mystery box because of 1 “rare” item mixed in with items that are worthless.

5. The defense points to an idea that the title is a descriptor. But a descriptor of what? The box being auctioned. The defense is claiming that the descriptor does not go to the box itself, but to the potential bidders. To point to the defense's own comments of a similar mystery box titled “Best Mystery Box EVER Made”, are we to believe that the title here suggests that it is describing the bidders of the auction as the “Best Mystery Box EVER Made”? Of course not. Titles describe the item being sold, not the bidders it wishes to bring in.

6. The Defendant chose to price the mystery box, not the DOC. The Plaintiff did decide to gamble, but only because the title and the starting bid of the auction - without any odds that the value of the initial bid is worth the items within - manipulated him into thinking it was something of value, which it was not.

 
The Defence has 72 hours to submit their opening statement.
 
Your honour, Angryhamdog has gone on an unexpected leave of absence, and the defence would like to request a 48-hour extension on opening statements to assign a new lawyer and familiarise themselves with the case.
 
Kaiserin_ said:
Your honour, Angryhamdog has gone on an unexpected leave of absence, and the defence would like to request a 48-hour extension on opening statements to assign a new lawyer and familiarise themselves with the case.
Click to expand...
Granted.
 

Opening Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

May it please the Court,
Your Honor, opposing counsel, citizens of Redmont, the claims made by the Plaintiff are incorrect and today we will go over why this is the case.

On the first claim for relief
The plaintiff claims that the Defendant has acted in violation of Section 15 of the Commercial Standards Act. Section 15 of the Commercial Standards Act says: “(1) Gaming institutions are required to display the odds of gaming machines and activities in a visible area adjacent to the machine/activity.”
The plaintiff claims that the Defendant is in violation of this section, by not stating “anything close to the odds of the mystery box being worth at least the starting bid set by the defendant.” However, this does not make any logical sense. There are no “odds” of the mystery box being worth at least the starting bid. Firstly there is no set value for what a mystery box is “worth” but even if there was, this would be a single predetermined value for a particular mystery box, as the contents of the box have to be submitted to the DOC for approval. The “value” if such a thing existed would therefore be either more or less with complete certainty, which shows that a single auction for a single mystery box is not a gaming machine or activity. The Defendant's previous comments in this regard do not change the reality of the world we live in, nor do they change the law and the intentions of the law.

On the second claim for relief
The title of the auction is simply a title of the item which the auctioneer is free to choose. It’s not a
misrepresentation, and no important material facts have been omitted. The Plaintiff brings up the example of the mystery box titled “Best Mystery Box EVER Made” as being different and according to the plaintiff not problematic, however this is an even more egregious case of the same thing that is happening with the name “Filthy Rich Mystery Box”. Using words with positive associations to advertise an item is common practice, which is defended under the Commercial Standards Act by explicitly being exempt from advertisement fraud. Claiming that advertising puffery results in fraud being committed goes completely against the intent of the Commercial Standards Act which clearly intends to exempt it.

On the third claim for relief
The plaintiff claims that the Defendant has acted in violation of Section 8 of the Commercial Standards Act. However, Section 8 of the Commercial Standards Act is completely unrelated and inapplicable to the alleged facts of this case. Section 8 of the Commercial Standards Act reads: “8 - Securities Fraud
(1) The Act of fraudulent security trade practices. There are several types of securities fraud:” and continues to list types of security fraud, one of which is Market Manipulation. Section 8 of the Commercial Standards Act defines Market Manipulation as follows: “The act of fraudulently inflating or deflating the value of a company or asset of which you have a responsibility for. Any public company which values its own total market value over $500,000 is expected to have a publicly available, detailed explanation, of how they reached that evaluation. Failure to do so may be considered evidence in a market manipulation case.”

When we take both the title and description of Section 8, as well as the full definition of Market Manipulation into account, rather than the short outtake which the Plaintiff quoted in their Complaint, it becomes clear that this is completely inapplicable to the case at hand. Section 8 is a section regarding securities fraud and the case at hand has nothing at all to do with security trading. The intent of Market Manipulation was to cover those cases where values of companies or assets are inflated or deflated in order to increase or decrease the value of Securities and this has nothing at all to do with sale prices of regular auctions, items or goods.

 
gribble19 said:
which shows that a single auction for a single mystery box is not a gaming machine or activity.
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Perjury

Both the Complaint and the Answer to the Complaint agree that mystery boxes are a form of gambling, which in itself is a gaming activity. (Proof: Fact #4 of the Complaint and Fact #5 of the Answer).

 
ameslap said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Perjury

Both the Complaint and the Answer to the Complaint agree that mystery boxes are a form of gambling, which in itself is a gaming activity. (Proof: Fact #4 of the Complaint and Fact #5 of the Answer).

Click to expand...
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION - PERJURY

Both the Complaint and the Answer to the Complaint agree that the Defendant has at one point in time stated that mystery boxes are a form of gambling. This is what is said in Fact #5 of the Answer, which the Plaintiff brought forward as proof for this perjury objection. Fact #5 of the Answer reads: "The defense AFFIRMS that “The defendant states that mystery boxes are a form of gambling”". This however does not mean that both the Complaint and Answer to the Complaint agree that mystery boxes are in fact a gaming machine or activity. What is stated in Fact #5 of the answer is not in contradiction with the quote that the Plaintiff alleges constitutes perjury. It is perfectly possible for it to both be true that the Defendant has at one point stated that mystery boxes are a form of gambling, and that mystery boxes are in fact not a form of gambling. It is important to note that the initial statement that mystery boxes are a form of gambling was not made under oath or in a court. Similarly, it would not constitute perjury if someone were to state under oath "I once said that the sky was green, but the sky is in fact blue." This statement is completely logically sound and does not contradict itself.

Furthermore, Perjury objections are defined in this court's guide to objections as "When a witness intentionally lies or misrepresents facts under oath. ..." Defendant's counsel is not a witness to this case and a perjury objection is therefore not applicable to the Opening Statement. However, even if it were, the quote given would not constitute perjury as explained in the first paragraph.
 
ameslap said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Perjury

Both the Complaint and the Answer to the Complaint agree that mystery boxes are a form of gambling, which in itself is a gaming activity. (Proof: Fact #4 of the Complaint and Fact #5 of the Answer).

Click to expand...
Overruled. Both statements can be true and intent was not proven.

Witness summons will follow.
 

Writ of Summons

@lukeyyy11, @MasterAshim, and @Bardiya_King are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of RaiTheGuy v. lukeyyyMC_ [2025] FCR 30.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 
Present, your honor
 
juniperfig said:

Writ of Summons

@lukeyyy11, @MasterAshim, and @Bardiya_King are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of RaiTheGuy v. lukeyyyMC_ [2025] FCR 30.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

Click to expand...
I, RaiTheGuy07, am present
 
Present, your honor
 
Thank you all.

Plaintiff, you have 24 hours to submit your questions for your witness (lukeyyy11).
 
@lukeyyy11
  1. How many mystery box auctions have you put on the marketplace in the past?
  2. What was the original amount you requested the mystery box’s starting bid amount be when you created the ticket with the DOC?
  3. Are the items listed in P-002 the same items that you auctioned in the Filthy Rich Mystery Box?
  4. How did you come across the items that you put into the Filthy Rich Mystery Box?
  5. How did you decide the initial starting bid amount for the mystery box?
  6. Why didn’t you sell the rare or valuable items on their own to collectors?
I may have follow up questions.
 
  1. I don't know the exact amount.
  2. 500k
  3. Yes
  4. Some I bought, some I had collected over time.
  5. I was told what to put it up for by the DOC.
  6. Because I didn't want to.
 
lukeyyy11 said:
500k
Click to expand...
What made you come to the $500,000 initial bid amount? Did you use things like CPI, Discord Marketplace, or any other marketplace?
 
Nothing in particular. No I did not use those things.
 
No further questions, Your Honor.
 
Defence, you have 24 hours to submit your cross-examination of the witness (lukeyyy11).
 
juniperfig said:
Defence, you have 24 hours to submit your cross-examination of the witness (lukeyyy11).
Click to expand...
Your honor, given that it has been close to 48 hours and there has not been any movement from the Defense or request for extension, we ask that this case move forward with the additional witness testimony.
 
As the Defence has not submitted any questions for cross-examination, we shall begin direct examination of the Defence's witnesses. Defence, you have 48 hours to submit your questions for your witnesses.
 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Your Honor, it has now been 7 days, 16 hours, and counting and no word from the defense. It appears to the Plaintiff that the Defense has no interest in defending this case anymore, otherwise they would have given any sort of response or movement on this case. Within the past week they have been active in other ways both on the server, in discord, and on the forums. For this reason we are requesting Default Judgement.

1745966229897.png


1745966294926.png


1745966350087.png

 
ameslap said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Your Honor, it has now been 7 days, 16 hours, and counting and no word from the defense. It appears to the Plaintiff that the Defense has no interest in defending this case anymore, otherwise they would have given any sort of response or movement on this case. Within the past week they have been active in other ways both on the server, in discord, and on the forums. For this reason we are requesting Default Judgement.

View attachment 54687

View attachment 54688

View attachment 54689

Click to expand...
I will hold off on responding to this until the 48 hours have passed for witness questions.
 
@MasterAshim
1. When bidding on the mystery box, were you aware that the value the items inside would have to you could be less than 50k?

@Bardiya_King
1. Were you a DOC employee at the time of the "Filthy Rich Mystery Box" auction?
2. Is the screenshot D-001 a screenshot from a DOC ticket?
3. Was this ticket regarding the "Filthy Rich Mystery Box"?
4. Were you the first one in this ticket to suggest the starting bid amount of $50k?
5. Was the starting bid amount of $50k for the "Filthy Rich Mystery Box" officially approved by the DOC?

The Defense may want to ask follow-up questions.
 
juniperfig said:
I will hold off on responding to this until the 48 hours have passed for witness questions.
Click to expand...
Your honor, the plaintiff respectfully would still like a ruling on this motion.

The Plaintiff would like to point out that while the Defense was able to provide questions (10 minutes before the deadline and with no excuse or reasoning for their lack of interest in this case), they chose not to pursue this case for 15 days (last we heard from the Defense before just now was April 16). In the interest of a speedy trial, which has now not happened for the Plaintiff, we are still requesting the Default Judgement.
 
ameslap said:
Your honor, the plaintiff respectfully would still like a ruling on this motion.

The Plaintiff would like to point out that while the Defense was able to provide questions (10 minutes before the deadline and with no excuse or reasoning for their lack of interest in this case), they chose not to pursue this case for 15 days (last we heard from the Defense before just now was April 16). In the interest of a speedy trial, which has now not happened for the Plaintiff, we are still requesting the Default Judgement.
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor, the Court already stated that they would rule on the motion after the 48 hours had passed. The Plaintiff bringing their motion up once again is wholly unnecessary. The Plaintiff has spoken out of turn and has not submitted a motion, objection or otherwise relevant message. Furthermore, the Plaintiff is using this unprompted and unnecessary message to wrongfully attempt to influence and convince the Court to grant their motion by arguing for it and bringing up arguments in favor of it. This violates court procedure and policy and the Defense therefore respectfully requests that the message be struck and that the message not be considered by the Court. By attempting to wrongfully influence and convince the judge on the motion the Plaintiff is interfering with the orderly administration of justice and thus the Defense also respectfully requests the Plaintiff be held in Contempt of Court in line with the description of Contempt of Court given in this Court's rules and procedure.

 
gribble19 said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor, the Court already stated that they would rule on the motion after the 48 hours had passed. The Plaintiff bringing their motion up once again is wholly unnecessary. The Plaintiff has spoken out of turn and has not submitted a motion, objection or otherwise relevant message. Furthermore, the Plaintiff is using this unprompted and unnecessary message to wrongfully attempt to influence and convince the Court to grant their motion by arguing for it and bringing up arguments in favor of it. This violates court procedure and policy and the Defense therefore respectfully requests that the message be struck and that the message not be considered by the Court. By attempting to wrongfully influence and convince the judge on the motion the Plaintiff is interfering with the orderly administration of justice and thus the Defense also respectfully requests the Plaintiff be held in Contempt of Court in line with the description of Contempt of Court given in this Court's rules and procedure.

Click to expand...

Response


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO THE OBJECTION

The Plaintiff was not bringing up their motion again, but clarifying that even though the Defense became active, we would still request a ruling be made on the motion. I am happy to strike the comments made if the court wishes it.

On the request for Contempt of Court: Per Rule 1.4, the Plaintiff has not been previously warned or refused an order, directive, or decision.

 
  1. When bidding on the mystery box, were you aware that the value the items inside would have to you could be less than 50k?
I was not aware that the value of the items could be less than 50k. I thought the value of the items would be 50k, and that the seller would get a profit from the increased prices from the bids.

Forgive me for the delay in response, I've been very behind on school work, and just a lot to deal with right now. Thank you for understanding
 
MasterAshim said:
  1. When bidding on the mystery box, were you aware that the value the items inside would have to you could be less than 50k?
I was not aware that the value of the items could be less than 50k. I thought the value of the items would be 50k, and that the seller would get a profit from the increased prices from the bids.

Forgive me for the delay in response, I've been very behind on school work, and just a lot to deal with right now. Thank you for understanding
Click to expand...
@MasterAshim

2. Did you DM BigPappa140: "would you reccomend me to buy the fiflty reich mystery box? "

3. Did BigPappa140 respond to the DM mentioned in question 2 with: "Can't answer that" "Not getting attacked by the doc for a mystery box" "Lmao"

4. Did you, following the DMs referenced in question 2 and 3, DM BigPappa140: "f*** man" "I just don't wanna lose 50k to shit items"

The Defense may want to ask follow-up questions.
 
gribble19 said:
@MasterAshim

2. Did you DM BigPappa140: "would you reccomend me to buy the fiflty reich mystery box? "

3. Did BigPappa140 respond to the DM mentioned in question 2 with: "Can't answer that" "Not getting attacked by the doc for a mystery box" "Lmao"

4. Did you, following the DMs referenced in question 2 and 3, DM BigPappa140: "f*** man" "I just don't wanna lose 50k to shit items"

The Defense may want to ask follow-up questions.
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Assumes facts not in evidence

The Defense has never presented any evidence (during discovery or otherwise) in reference to the DMs in question.

We ask that they not be allowed to ask questions about private DMs that may or may not have occurred.

 
ameslap said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Assumes facts not in evidence

The Defense has never presented any evidence (during discovery or otherwise) in reference to the DMs in question.

We ask that they not be allowed to ask questions about private DMs that may or may not have occurred.

Click to expand...

Response


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honor, an Objection - Assumes Facts Not In Evidence is for those cases where "a question presumes something as true that has not been established by evidence." The questions to which the Plaintiff is objecting are not presuming that anything is true. The questions are asking whether or not a certain thing happened, this in no way presumes that the thing has happened. The Defense is free to ask questions about whether or not something has occurred.

 
gribble19 said:
@MasterAshim
1. When bidding on the mystery box, were you aware that the value the items inside would have to you could be less than 50k?

@Bardiya_King
1. Were you a DOC employee at the time of the "Filthy Rich Mystery Box" auction?
2. Is the screenshot D-001 a screenshot from a DOC ticket?
3. Was this ticket regarding the "Filthy Rich Mystery Box"?
4. Were you the first one in this ticket to suggest the starting bid amount of $50k?
5. Was the starting bid amount of $50k for the "Filthy Rich Mystery Box" officially approved by the DOC?

The Defense may want to ask follow-up questions.
Click to expand...
1: Yes
2: Yes
3: Yes, it was the approval request ticket
4: From what I recall, I was the first person to say so in the official ticket, but not in the notes
5: Yes, as seen in evidence D-001, following their question "do you accept?" I said yes

EDIT: Sorry for the late response, I was busy over the past few days
 
I will be taking over this case following the (Frmr.) Honourable Judge juniperfig's untimely resignation. All deadlines will remain in effect, please allow me some time to review the case at hand.
 
ameslap said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Your Honor, it has now been 7 days, 16 hours, and counting and no word from the defense. It appears to the Plaintiff that the Defense has no interest in defending this case anymore, otherwise they would have given any sort of response or movement on this case. Within the past week they have been active in other ways both on the server, in discord, and on the forums. For this reason we are requesting Default Judgement.

View attachment 54687

View attachment 54688

View attachment 54689

Click to expand...
Denied. The Defense has since resumed activity. However, let the Defense be warned, breaching the timelines further will result in heavy sanctions.

gribble19 said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor, the Court already stated that they would rule on the motion after the 48 hours had passed. The Plaintiff bringing their motion up once again is wholly unnecessary. The Plaintiff has spoken out of turn and has not submitted a motion, objection or otherwise relevant message. Furthermore, the Plaintiff is using this unprompted and unnecessary message to wrongfully attempt to influence and convince the Court to grant their motion by arguing for it and bringing up arguments in favor of it. This violates court procedure and policy and the Defense therefore respectfully requests that the message be struck and that the message not be considered by the Court. By attempting to wrongfully influence and convince the judge on the motion the Plaintiff is interfering with the orderly administration of justice and thus the Defense also respectfully requests the Plaintiff be held in Contempt of Court in line with the description of Contempt of Court given in this Court's rules and procedure.

Click to expand...
Sustained. A clear timeline was set out by the courts. This statement was entirely unwarranted as a result. Should the timeline have exceeded 48 hours, this statement may be deemed as reasonable. However, since it was not, this statement is unreasonable and can only be taken as speaking out of turn at best.

As such, the Plaintiff's counsel is hereby warned for the first and final time not to repeat this. The statement will be struck from the record to preserve the integrity of the case.

ameslap said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Assumes facts not in evidence

The Defense has never presented any evidence (during discovery or otherwise) in reference to the DMs in question.

We ask that they not be allowed to ask questions about private DMs that may or may not have occurred.

Click to expand...
Overruled.
Given the wording of the contested questions, I find that the hypothetical nature of the questions cause it to lean more towards confirming whether the questioned actions did take place or not, rather than assuming they did.


gribble19 said:
@MasterAshim

2. Did you DM BigPappa140: "would you reccomend me to buy the fiflty reich mystery box? "

3. Did BigPappa140 respond to the DM mentioned in question 2 with: "Can't answer that" "Not getting attacked by the doc for a mystery box" "Lmao"

4. Did you, following the DMs referenced in question 2 and 3, DM BigPappa140: "f*** man" "I just don't wanna lose 50k to shit items"

The Defense may want to ask follow-up questions.
Click to expand...
Given that the witness has failed to respond within the timeframe of 48 hours, they are hereby held in contempt.


Bardiya_King said:
1: Yes
2: Yes
3: Yes, it was the approval request ticket
4: From what I recall, I was the first person to say so in the official ticket, but not in the notes
5: Yes, as seen in evidence D-001, following their question "do you accept?" I said yes

EDIT: Sorry for the late response, I was busy over the past few days
Click to expand...
As 48 hours have passed, the time for witness testimonies is over. Court will be proceeding to closing statements. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to file a closing statement. Failure to meet the deadline will be met with appropriate punishment. Please request an extension if necessary.
 
Dr_Eksplosive said:
Given that the witness has failed to respond within the timeframe of 48 hours, they are hereby held in contempt.

As 48 hours have passed, the time for witness testimonies is over. Court will be proceeding to closing statements. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to file a closing statement. Failure to meet the deadline will be met with appropriate punishment. Please request an extension if necessary.
Click to expand...

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor, while it is true that witness RaiTheGuy did not respond to the questions asked within the timeframe of 48 hours, the Defendant would like to remind the Court of the fact that there was a pending Objection filed against those very questions that the witness did not respond to. The Defendant finds it reasonable to suspect that the witness was awaiting the Court's ruling on this objection before answering the questions asked. It is reasonable to assume that the witness was unsure whether or not they were supposed to answer questions that they expected may be struck by the courts. The Court's ruling on the objection was given in the very same post as their decision to hold the witness in contempt and to take away the ability of the witness to respond to the questions asked. The Defendant respectfully requests the Court reconsider the contempt charge and allow the witness time to respond to the questions now that it is clear to all parties that the objection was overruled and that the questions are valid and should therefore be answered by the witness.

 
gribble19 said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor, while it is true that witness RaiTheGuy did not respond to the questions asked within the timeframe of 48 hours, the Defendant would like to remind the Court of the fact that there was a pending Objection filed against those very questions that the witness did not respond to. The Defendant finds it reasonable to suspect that the witness was awaiting the Court's ruling on this objection before answering the questions asked. It is reasonable to assume that the witness was unsure whether or not they were supposed to answer questions that they expected may be struck by the courts. The Court's ruling on the objection was given in the very same post as their decision to hold the witness in contempt and to take away the ability of the witness to respond to the questions asked. The Defendant respectfully requests the Court reconsider the contempt charge and allow the witness time to respond to the questions now that it is clear to all parties that the objection was overruled and that the questions are valid and should therefore be answered by the witness.

Click to expand...
I will allow the Plaintiff to post a response if they choose to do so within 48 hours. Previous deadlines for closing statements are hereby null.
 
Your honor, I apologize for not answering in the time required. I was under the assumption that I should wait to answer until the ruling on the objection was given.


2. Did you DM BigPappa140: "would you reccomend me to buy the fiflty reich mystery box? "
yes

3. Did BigPappa140 respond to the DM mentioned in question 2 with: "Can't answer that" "Not getting attacked by the doc for a mystery box" "Lmao"
yes

4. Did you, following the DMs referenced in question 2 and 3, DM BigPappa140: "f*** man" "I just don't wanna lose 50k to shit items"
yes
 
Given that the witness has answered the questions asked, the court will once again be moving to closing statements. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to file a Closing Statement, failure to do so on time will result in a contempt of court charge.
 
Dr_Eksplosive said:
Given that the witness has answered the questions asked, the court will once again be moving to closing statements. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to file a Closing Statement, failure to do so on time will result in a contempt of court charge.
Click to expand...

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, the witnesses that were just answering questions were called by the Defense and the Plaintiff has not had the opportunity to cross-examine RaiTheGuy or Bardiya_King. The Plaintiff has these questions ready to post and can do so immediately upon ruling.

 
ameslap said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, the witnesses that were just answering questions were called by the Defense and the Plaintiff has not had the opportunity to cross-examine RaiTheGuy or Bardiya_King. The Plaintiff has these questions ready to post and can do so immediately upon ruling.

Click to expand...
Sustained. You may have 24 hours to post any cross-examinations. Witnesses will be afforded 24 hours to respond, and Plaintiff shall have an additional 24 hours after questions are answered to post any follow ups. This cycle shall repeat till all questions are asked and answered.
 
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?
 
@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.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

VERDICT

RaiTheGuy v. lukeyyyMC_ [2025] FCR 30

Civil Action

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION

1. The Defendant is considered a “gaming institution” under the Commercial Standards Act by auctioning multiple mystery box auctions, which constitute gambling activities, however, they failed to disclose odds for the items, violating Section 15.

2. The Defendant committed fraud by advertising the auction as the “Filthy Rich Mystery Box,” misleading bidders into believing the contents had significant value, despite the contents being worth only 764.34 as evidenced by CPI.

3. The Defendant engaged in market manipulation in violation of Section 8 by grossly inflating the auction’s starting bid and final sale price, marking the contents up by more than 6,400 percent, without using legitimate CPI or marketplace data.

4. Witness testimony from Department of Commerce employees showed that there was no formal process for approving mystery boxes, and that the 50,000 starting bid was based largely on subjective “collector value,” allowing the Defendant to overvalue the contents for personal gain.

II. DEFENDANT’S POSITION

1. Mystery boxes are not run by a formal gaming institution, and thus Section 15 does not apply. Odds disclosure was impractical because many items lacked CPI data, making valuation impossible.

2. The auction title “Filthy Rich Mystery Box” constitutes permissible advertising exaggeration, which is exempt from false or misleading advertising under Section 19 of the CSA.

3. The Defendant did not engage in market manipulation under Section 8, as they followed all Department of Commerce policies and used a starting bid amount explicitly approved by the Department.

4. The Plaintiff knowingly bid on the auction and voluntarily assumed the risks of purchasing a mystery box, raising the winning bid to $65,100 by their own choice.

III. THE COURT’S OPINION

This Court believes that the Defendant, by conducting multiple mystery box auctions and acknowledging such auctions as gambling activities meet the threshold of a “gaming institution” under the Commercial Standards Act. The failure to disclose any odds for the items constitutes a breach of Section 15, even if there were any difficulties in calculating exact probabilities. The argument that a mystery box cannot be a gaming activity because valuation was difficult does not excuse noncompliance, especially when the Defendant operated these auctions regularly.

Moving into fraud, this Court finds that while “Filthy Rich” is arguably exaggerated, the circumstances, including the Defendant’s markup, and the Plaintiff’s inability to view items before bidding prove conduct beyond simple exaggeration. By ignoring CPI data and relying mainly on subjective value, the Defendant demonstrated an intent to mislead bidders about the actual value of the mystery box.

Even though the Department of Commerce approved the auction, witness testimony confirmed that there was no standardized process and that approval relied mainly on informal comparisons to other collectibles rather than market data. Due to the Defendant following an established process they cannot be held solely responsible for the inflated price.

The Plaintiff’s decision to bid does not exonerate the Defendant of liability. While bidders assume some risk with mystery boxes, they do not consent to violations of the law or the sale of items at fraudulent markups without proper disclosure.

IV. DECISION

The Court finds in favor of the Plaintiff and grant the following relief:

1. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff $40,000 due to their partial fault.

2. $12,000 in punitive damages for violations of Sections 15 and 6 of the Commercial Standards Act.

3. $15,600 in legal fees to the Plaintiff (representing 30 percent of the combined award).

The Federal Court thanks all involved. This Court is now Adjourned.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top