Lawsuit: Dismissed Ducky_Doge v. MGM [2024] FCR 21

Status
Not open for further replies.
Admin23

Admin23

Citizen
Commerce Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Admin23
Admin23
economist
Joined
Oct 2, 2021
Messages
156
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Ducky_Doge (Dragon Law representing)
Plaintiff

vs.

MGM (owned by coptop and operated by Lex404)
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
The Plaintiff went into the Defendant’s casino located at cbd023 and played every game in that establishment. My client played multiple games, multiple of which had much lower odds than advertised, and thus lost either every single time or much more than the odds stated, depending on the machine.

This was reported to the DoC and their investigation found that these games were in fact rigged due to the fact that the machines were empty. This means that the advertised odds were false due to the negligence of the Defendant.

I. PARTIES
1. Ducky_Doge (Plaintiff)
2. MGM (Defendant)


II. FACTS
1. The Plaintiff went into MGM’s casino located at cbd023.
2. The Plaintiff played various casino games and lost way more money than is mathematically reasonable given the advertised odds.
3. This was shown by a DoC investigation to be caused by MGM’s negligence in not restocking its machines.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant committed Fraud as defined by the Commercial Standards Act by advertising a specific percentage chance of winning and then not doing everything necessary to keep that chance of winning accurate.
2. The Defendant committed Gambling Fraud as defined by the Commercial Standards Act by advertising a specific percentage chance of winning and then not doing everything necessary to keep that chance of winning accurate.

IV. PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
1. $19,550 in Compensatory Damages for the money that the Plaintiff lost due to Fraud;
2. $25,000 in Punitive Damages for the outrageous inaction of the Defendant of running a casino and advertising false odds
3. $15,000 in Emotional Damages due to the fact that the Plaintiff was emotionally distressed because of losing more money than he expected to, due to the fraud.
4. $11,910 in Legal Fees (20% of the total)

V. EVIDENCE
docs.google.com

Ducky_Doge v. MGM Evidence

docs.google.com docs.google.com

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 14th day of February 2024
 
Before I issue summons, can you please send proof of representation?
 
IMG_2165.jpeg
 
Seal_Judiciary.png

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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the Ducky_Doge v. MGM. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
Hello i wish to ask for some time to join the case like a day or 2 due to my deport and issues with staff
 
I will be giving an extension of 48 hours from now.
 
I am here your honor and lovely law will be representing me
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Ducky_Doge
Plaintiff

v.

MGM (Lovely Law Representing)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defence Affirms that the plaintiff gambled at cbd023.
2. The Defence Disputes that the Plaintiff lost more than is mathematically reasonable. They were at a casino where risks are inherent.
3. The Defence Disputes that the negligence of MGM caused the loss of the Plaintiff, as the investigation took place a whole month after the date on which the gambling occurred (Exhibit A)(Exhibit B)(Exhibit C)(Exhibit N from the plaintiff).
II. DEFENCES
1. When gambling at a casino, players expect odds that may not favour them, whether in terms of winning or losing.
2. The defence also contends that MGM's alleged failure to restock its machines raises questions about the accuracy of an investigation conducted a month after the incident. How can it be ascertained, based on this delayed investigation, whether the machines were properly stocked on the day in question?
(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 28 day of February 2024

(Exhibit A)
Will be posted shortly due to a error with posting images.
(Exhibit B)
Will be posted shortly due to a error with posting images.
(Exhibit C)
Will be posted shortly due to a error with posting images.
 
(Exhibit A)
Wy6QxdQO6w2glvWxsKJTo6YD38D5X63KvXHSy_jYrfrdG8KPyjcFkpF6JVoIZemeck3RirW2CrQnhrcZKmdEvYrMOVG0gJ2SHLEi5v2VEaARITYA-uhoAAV7FhSHBNL9BPgsKZz6o_HIYuOL9K54rmA

(Exhibit B)
PJymhchTF8jdGB0Tyiq4IwN0ChfTzCMqY9YjEOiCi0j_AHbs_GKtvSmwjlE-DcJiJB9sTJRdm9coa4_yhLozVfO7SZSqlNY_F4PI412VsRKfHC0O7xxdrxi9qdBNrlJb85ES-0rqK7zIYtcJkxQ3Lp4

(Exhibit C)
5Q-qyUcgksFymy4OgsqIPUgKKRdeV--tbs8cz91EkL_gqa_LplPT0HrfAEgOJAnO0_wadUTZTV49T_1-uagsFNEzKynMKePmk9YHqlCdlKt7w_OEeXSbmYfwxTKabwcQ-ByuSHMsuPEs0nH5Inu3wHM
 
Thank you. We will now be entering the Discovery Phase. The Plaintiff and the Defendant have 7 days to submit any evidence and a list of witnesses.
 
The Plaintiff will call Mask3D_WOLF as a witness.
 
Additionally, the Plaintiff would like to attach these items to prove that the DoC investigation started on January 9th, the day that the Plaintiff gambled at MGM’s casino. Exhibit N shows the end of the investigation — not the beginning.

Exhibit O
1709849634200.jpeg


Exhibit P
1709849707072.jpeg


Exhibit Q
1709849893394.jpeg
 
The Defences wish to call

Louder_Leo - Private check of the casino
Lex404 - Manger of MGM
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your Honor, the Defense respectfully requests the complete transcript of the communication contained within the Department of Commerce (DOC) ticket. Presently, there is a lack of evidence provided by the plaintiff confirming any statement from the DOC indicating the outcome of the investigation regarding the accuracy of the casino's odds.

DATED: This 8th day of March 2024
 
Last edited:
The Motion to Compel is denied. We will now move onto Opening Statements. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide an Opening Statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT



Good morning, your Honor.


This case brought before you is one of fraud.

My client went to MGM’s casino and played multiple times on multiple machines, My client lost far more than is statistically reasonable. An investigation into MGM’s casino was initiated on the same day my client played, and what the investigator found was that the owner of the casino had not refilled the machines.

Luxor has a light above each of its machines and has signage that explicitly tells you not to play if the light indicates that the machine is empty. That is an example of a casino that is not negligent.

Opposing counsel stated that when going into a casino, one is under the assumption that they may lose money and risks are inherent. This is absolutely true. However, this is no justification for not restocking the machines and keeping customers under the assumption that they are full. Not restocking machines turn a possible loss into a guaranteed loss for customers.

My client was not informed that these machines were empty by any signage or any system to ensure customers are informed of machines being empty. This is negligent fraud.

This means that the Plaintiff had no way of knowing that the odds of winning would be slim to none. The difference between the actual odds due to the machines being empty and the advertised odds is where we get into fraud.

This fraud cheats its customers out of money and is tantamount to theft.


DATED: This 19th day of March, 2024
 
The Defendant has 72 hours to post an Opening Statement.
 
Your honour I will be taking over this case as dodrio3 has resigned from Lovely Law firm. Please allow an 48 hour extension to familiarize myself with the case.
 
Extension is granted.
 
Your honor, I know its a real shame to ask this. But I have been informed of a internet issue in my vicinity. I request 12 hour extension from the deadline time given. The answer is prepared and ready.

If this extension gets declined, I shall post this as soon as my internet gets back (hopefully before deadline)
 
Your Honor, if opposing counsel has time to post an extension request for a future internet outage when the answer is already written and prepared, he should have posted the answer.

Opposing counsel is already past the deadline of 11:05 AM (EST) March 26.
 
The request for an extension is hereby denied, as you were already over the deadline by the time you asked. Witness summons will be issued shortly.
 
Seal_Judiciary.png

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

@Mask3D_WOLF is required to appear as a witness before the court in the case of the Ducky_Doge v. MGM. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a charge of Contempt of Court.​
 
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Your honor, it is pure injustice to deny a already ready statement to be not presented, just for irl issues like internet. I used my last ounces of mobile data / roaming data or whatever u call it, to post this message and keep the court informed. I would have run out of internet anyways middle the process of typing the lawsuit. Thats why I just asked for an extension as I had no available electricity or wifi acess or not any backup tools so. Hence, in the name of a fair trial I request a chance to post this (as I had a genuine issue.)
These type of issues have been seen in the courts before and precedent says that irl/ geniune issues have been excused by court. I have no reason to delay a deadline for a statement which is already ready.

Thats all your honor, hope you give a fair chance to my client as well.
Neemfy said:
The request for an extension is hereby denied, as you were already over the deadline by the time you asked. Witness summons will be issued shortly.
Click to expand...
 
I am present, your honor.
 
Bibsfi4a said:
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Your honor, it is pure injustice to deny a already ready statement to be not presented, just for irl issues like internet. I used my last ounces of mobile data / roaming data or whatever u call it, to post this message and keep the court informed. I would have run out of internet anyways middle the process of typing the lawsuit. Thats why I just asked for an extension as I had no available electricity or wifi acess or not any backup tools so. Hence, in the name of a fair trial I request a chance to post this (as I had a genuine issue.)
These type of issues have been seen in the courts before and precedent says that irl/ geniune issues have been excused by court. I have no reason to delay a deadline for a statement which is already ready.

Thats all your honor, hope you give a fair chance to my client as well.
Click to expand...
The Motion to Reconsider is accepted. You have 24 hours to post your Opening Statement. Witness questions from the plaintiff may be asked after it is posted.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT.

Your honor, a fair judgement can only be made, if proper evidence is provided, which is just and fair. But in this Opening statement, I am going to question the legality of the evidence provided and am going to interpret this so called “fraud” in another way.

Ducky_Doge v. MGM Evidence
(For reference purposes)

Rebuttal of Allegations
Your honor, as we can see, the above google document contains all the Exhibit. In this first part of the rebuttal, lets talk about Exhibit A to Exhibit M (meaning all the exhibits between A to M). Exhibit A to Q, refer to the set of transactions made, supposedly (or allegedly) to buy the sticks from the chest shops mentioned in Exhibit I to Exhibit M. But your honor, this is simply a case of lack of evidence!! There is no way to prove that the transactions done in Exhibit A to H, are transactions done to buy sticks from the chest shops (Exhibit I to M). Your honor, there is no video proof that this money was used to buy the sticks of that chest shops (Exhibit I to M.) This money transactions could have been used to purchase sticks from another chest shop with the same name MGM or from an older chest shop from the casino named “MGM.” What I mean is, there is no way to determine (unless video proof is provided) that this money was used to buy sticks from the same chest shops as shown in Exhibit I to M. It could have been bought from an older version of the chest shop, where the odds would differ!!

Suppose, this money was used to buy sticks or gamble in an older version of the chest shop which maybe had 20% odds to win, or 10% odds to win, unlike the newer 33% odds to win; which would explain the losses incurred by the plaintiff. The main reason for losses was NOT rigging, but rather because they intentionally (or unintentionally) bid on a chest shop named MGM with lower odds and misunderstood this whole situation. If the Plaintiff wants to dispute my argument, they need to provide a video proof; that they used this money to buy sticks from the same chest shop (which had 33% odds, and so on, etc.)

In my opinion, this is all a misunderstanding and the plaintiff gambled on a chest shop with differing odds, rather than that on the image or exhibits shown.

Legal Concerns Regarding Exhibit N​

Next, lets question the legality of Exhibit N. Your honor, no need to explain a lot. This is quite understandable. This is a cropped image of the conversation which is NOT acceptable in court!! Admin23 asks, “Did you find anything wrong with the odds of the machine?” The screenshot ends here. Never do we see any DOC employee affirming that these were rigged. How can we make a judgement without DOC employee confirming the rig claim by the plaintiff? Without the confirmation of the DOC employee, (not blaming / calling anyone) but this may prove to be a big conspiracy against my client or a complete photo edit? Maybe bought form another chest shop / older shop? I just want to say that without the confirmation of any DOC employee, multiple possibilities open up, and the ultimate one is that, this cropped image cannot be taken into consideration (or in this case, it is irrelevant without DOC employee affirming the rig claim.)


Interpreting Fraud.

An intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation; and the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission.

Above is the legal definition of fraud.

So as stated above multiple times, we can derive that without any solid proof we cannot be sure that the sticks were bought from the chest shops which had same odds as mentioned in the images, and could have been bought from any other older version of chest shop, or from a chest shop on another floor of the mentioned casino (these all are theoretical / actual situations which can happen due to no video proof).

So, Your honor,
Fraud can be viewed as a intentional or careless act by the plaintiff, in which they distort or leave out vital details about the transactions and discussions in question. This misrepresentation leads to a misunderstanding on the plaintiffs part, who rightly depends on these misrepresented details. Consequently, the plaintiff suffers losses or damages. However, it's important to emphasize that these losses do not directly result from any misconduct or manipulation by our client, but rather from the plaintiff's own misinterpretation or misjudgment of the situation (buying from a older chest shop version with differing odds)

By presenting fraud in this light, we divert attention from any supposed wrongdoing by our client and instead emphasize the plaintiff's own actions and obligations in the issue.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 29th day of March 2024
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

Your honor, due to the above statements provided, I request the courts to strike the below image as well as Exhibit O to Exhibit Q (above) from the court records due to being vague and irrelevant. No answer is given by the DOC employee, and that means it is not admissible or relevant proof of my client rigging the bids. This will just create more confusion so unless the plaintiff provides a proof with a DOC employee (with relevant facts) claiming that the casino was rigged, these exhibits should be striken from court records on grounds of being vague and irrelevant to the court case. These images just tells us that a complaint was filed for an investigation. This is not a image which supports the plaintiffs statement of rigging or fraud by my clients casino (again due to no DOC employee answer.)

Also thank you for bearing with me, regarding the opening statement.
1711730458783.png
 
Your honor, also a request that you modify your order, so that the plaintiff asks the question from the witness after you deny or accept the above motion to strike.
 
Bibsfi4a said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

Your honor, due to the above statements provided, I request the courts to strike the below image as well as Exhibit O to Exhibit Q (above) from the court records due to being vague and irrelevant. No answer is given by the DOC employee, and that means it is not admissible or relevant proof of my client rigging the bids. This will just create more confusion so unless the plaintiff provides a proof with a DOC employee (with relevant facts) claiming that the casino was rigged, these exhibits should be striken from court records on grounds of being vague and irrelevant to the court case. These images just tells us that a complaint was filed for an investigation. This is not a image which supports the plaintiffs statement of rigging or fraud by my clients casino (again due to no DOC employee answer.)

Also thank you for bearing with me, regarding the opening statement.
View attachment 42542
Click to expand...

Your Honor, the entire point of bringing Mask3D_WOLF as a witness is to clarify and elaborate on the discussion shown in the exhibits opposing counsel mentioned. This is a silly motion.
 
Your Honor, I will have severely limited discord and forum access for the next week or so. I would request that questions be brought to me after this time period. Thank you.
 
The Motion to Strike is denied, as Mask3D_WOLF is present and can elaborate.

Would both sides be okay with a 1 week recess until the witness is able to effectively answer any questions?
 
This is acceptable to the Plaintiff.
 
I thank you very much, Your Honor, plaintiff, and defense. I am ready for questioning.
 
The Plaintiff has 72 hours to ask any questions to the witness.
 
Question for Masked:

In your position as investigator, what did your investigation into MGM, regarding the report of fraud/gambling fraud, conclude?
 
I had inconclusive results due to another employee’s actions.
 
Admin23 said:
Could you elaborate on what you did find in the investigation?
Click to expand...
I was unable to conduct the investigation due to that other person’s actions and funds for the investigation never being approved.
 
Your honor, 72 hours have passed since the plaintiff was given the right to ask questions. Can we now proceed?
 
Due to Justice Neemfy's resignation I will be presiding over the remainder of this case.

The Defense now has 48 hours to cross examine the witness.
 
Your honor, may we get 72 hours, like the plaintiff got?
We are also talking with the client, regarding some questions.
 
You may, you have an additional 24 added to the original timeline.
 
We only have 1 question to ask to Mask3dWolf.

Is there any evidence that shows that the casino was rigged?
 
Your Honor, the Plaintiff would like to drop this case.
 
Very well then, this case is hereby dismissed by request of the Plaintiff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top