Lawsuit: Adjourned dygyee v. Rockefeller Casino [2022] DCR 48

[dygyee]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


dygyee
Plaintiff

v.

Rockefeller
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF


I. PARTIES
1. dygyee (Plaintiff)
2. Rockefeller (Defendant) (It's a company)
3. Assailant (Owner of Rockefeller)

II. FACTS
1. dygyee decided to gamble at the Rockefeller Casino, and played the $50 dollar slot machine 22 times.
2. dygyee gambled on this machine thinking the odds were 4/9 to win $150.
3. After a DEC investigation it was determined that the odds were originally 2/9 until those 5 books were gone, and then it became 0/9/
4. The casino lied about their odds, and by the end it was impossible to win.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. dygyee spent over $1000 at the casino while trying to win at something that was impossible to win.
2. Because the casino lied in order to get dygyee to gamble, dygyee is entitled to his money back.
3. False odds were being displayed.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $1,100 (Money spent on the slot machine with false odds)
2. $367 (The expected value that dygyee would have won if the odds were real)
3. $250 (Legal fee)
(A total of $1,717)

Exhibit 1: Proof of gambling.

Exhibit 2: Proof of Casino's odds as well as proof of gambling

Exhibit 3: Proof of Fail/Success rate. (Each Stick is 1 roll, each sugar cane is 1 fail)

Exhibit 4: Proof of false odds (Book is win, sugar cane is lose)

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 8th day of October 2022

 

[Aladeen]

Is there any proof of the existence of the DEC investigation?

 

[dygyee]

There is a current case in the Federal Court, Commonwealth wealth of Redmont v. Rockefeller Casino that has posted about this DEC investigation. However I have also obtained permission from DEC secretary Trentrick_Lamar to use the results of this DEC investigation in any lawsuit as needed.

 

[Banana]

I will be taking over this case for the remainder of its duration, at the request of the presiding magistrate.

 

[Banana]

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

The Defendant is required to appear before the District Court in the case of dygyee v. Rockefeller Casino [2022] DCR 48.

Failure to appear within 48 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.​

 

[dygyee]

Your honor, it appears that the Defendant has failed to appear before court within the allotted time.

 

[Banana]

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
dygyee v. Rockefeller [2022] DCR 48

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Defendant set up a casino with signs displaying odds stated at 4/9 for a particular machine.
2. The Plaintiff played this machine with $1,100, and the belief that the odds were 4/9.
3. The odds were not actually 4/9, as proven by a DEC investigation.
4. The Defendant thus is liable for the losses incurred by the Plaintiff as a result of the Plaintiff’s gambling.

II. DEFENSE’S POSITION
1. The Defendant did not appear in court.

III. COURT’S OPINION
1. In the case Commonwealth v. Rockefeller [2022] FCR 82, Rockefeller was found to be criminally guilty of fraud with relation to the machine in question.
2. This conviction makes the company liable for losses as a result of the fraudulent labelling.
3. With this in mind, it is clear to the court that the Plaintiff has legal standing to receive their money returned as it was lost at no fault of the Plaintiff’s.
4. While the money the Plaintiff spent at the casino is owed to them by the Defendant, the expected winnings cannot be. This is because the outcome of winning any given time is in theory entirely random, and so cannot be calculated for certain. It is possible that the Plaintiff would have won every single spin, or just one singular time, even if the machine were completely fair.
5. If the court were to grant the expected winnings to the Plaintiff as a result of fraud, it would essentially be asking the court to award money that might or might not be owed. In a just system of law, only that which is proven to be owed can be reasonably awarded by the court.
6. Had the outcome been entirely predictable, it would be possible to award the specific damages, however as this type of casino game is inherently a game of random chance, the Defendant cannot be held liable for any possible winnings.

IV. VERDICT
I hereby rule in favor of the Plaintiff.
I will grant a modified prayer for relief. I order that the Defendant be fined $1,350, and the Plaintiff be unfined the same amount by the DOJ.

The Court thanks both parties for their time. This case is now adjourned.