Lawsuit: Adjourned RaiTheGuy v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 29

[ameslap]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court order the Department of Commerce to suspend any ongoing mystery box auctions and cease to approve any new mystery box auctions until the conclusion of this case.

The question is undecided on if the DOC is allowing fraudulent mystery box auctions and if DOC employees are engaging in unlawful activities as it relates to these auctions. This emergency injunction will prevent any potential harm caused if these arguments are indeed true.

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


RaiTheGuy (represented by Justice Compass Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Commerce
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On March 24, 2025 at 2:47 PM MST, an auction was posted by lukeyyy_MC with the title “Filthy Rich Mystery Box”. Like any reasonable person, the plaintiff saw the title and the starting bid amount and thought this could be his chance to break through and realize financial stability or come into items of high value. When the plaintiff saw a message from a Department of Commerce Employee stating that he wished he could have participated, followed by another DOC employee expressing interest in winning the box, the plaintiff knew that he had to win. Any reasonable person would have thought that if members of the DOC thought that the box was valuable, then it surely was, especially given the fact that DOC has to look within the contents and approve the box. What happened after the plaintiff won was, to say the least, a sad mark on not only himself but on the DOC as well. The starting bid alone was worth 6,441.59% of the contents, and the plaintiff’s winning bid was worth 8,417.15% of the contents value. The DOC not only approved the auction, but assisted in driving up the price. This spits in the face of the law, the DOC’s own policy, and every consumer that uses the marketplace.

I. PARTIES​

1. RaiTheGuy (Plaintiff)
2. Department of Commerce (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-009 are the items that were a part of the mystery box.
2. RaiTheGuy wins the auction for a price of $65,100. (P-006)
3. RaiTheGuy paid for and received the mystery box from LukeyyyMC_. (P-007)
4. Both .Lucky_waq and YeetPappa knew the contents of the mystery box. (P-002)
5. The Department of Commerce approved the auction for posting. (P-004 & P-005)
6. 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-009).
7. Some items in the mystery box have no record in the CPI in 2024 and 2025 (P-009, P-010 through P-013)
8. A DOC Employee commented “kinda sad I can’t bid on these” in the auction chat. (P-002)
9. Another DOC employee .Lucky_waq commented “I WAN5 THIS” (P-002)
10. The Department of Commerce has a policy that states among other items: “A mystery box may not be auctioned off without receiving a screenshot of its contents in order to prevent auctioneer fraud”. (P-003)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. The Department of Commerce did not follow through on their own written policy. Evidence shows that the Department approves mystery box auctions to prevent auctioneer fraud. This policy requires auctioneers to submit the contents of the box for approval. The only way the Department can truly know whether or not a potential auction can be fraudulent is if they know the starting bid amount and the approximate value of the contents within. Furthermore, the policy does not specify that the Department shall ONLY approve the contents, so a reasonable person will read this and assume that the department will approve the whole auction, this MUST include the starting bid amount as well. Additionally, the employees of the Department commented on the auction without a bid, violating Auction Rules of holding general conversation within a bid channel.

2. The Department of Commerce violated the Commercial Standards Act by not doing their duty under Section 4, subsection 5 “The Department of Commerce is charged with investigating commerce-related white-collar crimes.” By not doing their duty under the law, they allowed a mystery box to filter through their system and fraud the plaintiff out of $65,100.

3. By commenting on their desire to win or participate in the auction, the Department violated Section 8 of the Commercial Standards Act by participating in Third-Party Misrepresentation. The Department knew the contents of the box and showed displeasure at not being able to participate, recklessly aiding the auctioneer by driving the price up indirectly. When people see that the person who approves the auction wants to bid on an item, they will think it is worth more than the starting bid.

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. $20,000 in Punitive Damages - For the outrageous practice of allowing fraudulent auctions and for breaking the law they are to uphold.
3. $25,530 in Legal Fees - 30% of the total monetary damages.
4. The Department of Commerce ceases the allowance of mystery boxes in the marketplace until they implement a policy that protects consumers from fraud that is approved by this court.

Witness List:​

lukeyyyMC_ - Auctioneer
YeetPappa - DOC Employee
.Lucky_waq - DOC Employee
xSyncx - DOC Secretary

Evidence:​

Spoiler: P-001 - The Auction Listing

Spoiler: P-002 - YeetPappa and .Lucky_waq commenting on the mystery box

Spoiler: P-003 - The Department of Commerce policy on mystery boxes

Spoiler: P-004 - YeetPappa confirming the mystery box policy

Spoiler: P-005 - Contents of the mystery box

Spoiler: P-006 - Plaintiff’s winning bid amount

Spoiler: P-007 - Plaintiff’s confirmation of payment and receiving the mystery box

Spoiler: P-008 - Plaintiff’s comments after receiving the mystery box.

Spoiler: P-009 - Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the items found within the Mystery Box, along with the quantity of those items within the mystery box

CPI Matching Link

Spoiler: P-010 - The February 2025 CPI Report

February 2025 CPI Link

Spoiler: P-011 - The January 2025 CPI Report

January 2025 CPI Link

Spoiler: P-012 - The December 2024 CPI Report

December 2024 CPI Link

Spoiler: P-013 - The February 2024 CPI Report

February 2024 CPI Link

Spoiler: P-014 - Auction Rules

Requests for Information:​

The plaintiff requests the following information:
1. The ticket created by lukeyyMC_ for the mystery box auction, done via FOI request to the DOJ.
2. All private communication between DOC employees and lukeyyMC_ that mention or relates to “mystery box”.
3. Any documentation that the DOC has on mystery box auction rules and methodology to determine if a mystery box should not be approved.

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.

Spoiler: RaiTheGuy Representation Confirmation

 

[Matthew100x]

Writ of Summons

@Freeze_Line is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of RaiTheGuy v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 29.

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.

 

[Matthew100x]

Emergency Injunctions are made with the goal of preventing harm (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23). Per the Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act, "(b) Emergency - Injunctions that are issued before the court has tried a case to prevent harm." In this instance, the court will be denying the emergency injunction. The goal of preventing harm for other bidders does not presently outweigh the harm caused by shutting down the mystery box program.

 

[ameslap]

Declaration to Amend Complaint (per Rule 3.3)​

Your Honor, the plaintiff wishes to amend the complaint to clarify that YeetPappa is not the DOC Secretary, but rather an employee of the DOC. In Discord his roles are "Secretary", "DOC", "DPA" and within the context of the situation I made the mistake of thinking that he was the Secretary of the DOC.

Declaration to Add Witness (per Rule 4.9)​

With this new revelation, the Plaintiff wishes to add xSyncx, the true DOC Secretary, as a witness while keeping YeetPappa, .Lucky_waq, and lukeyyyMC_ on the list as well. If you would like that amended in the complaint, I am happy to comply.

 

[Matthew100x]

Denied only because we're presently not in discovery. Your request is noted, please request again during discovery.

 

[Freeze_Line]

The Commonwealth is present.

 

[Matthew100x]

The Commonwealth is present.

Kindly file a nAnswer to the Complaint within the next 48 hours.

 

[Freeze_Line]

Your Honor, I am requesting a 24-hour extension, as the assigned prosecutor has not been responding.

 

[Matthew100x]

Granted.

 

[MegaMinerM]

Answer to Complaint

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

RAITHEGUY
Plaintiff

v.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defendant affirms that the auction for the Mystery Box was approved by the Department of Commerce, in accordance with existing policy requiring content verification.
2. The Defendant affirms that certain Department employees made comments within the auction channel, but denies that such comments were official endorsements or had any binding influence on the auction itself.
3. The Defendant denies that the Plaintiff was misled, defrauded, or economically harmed as a result of any action or inaction by the Department.
4. The Defendant denies any violation of the Commercial Standards Act or relevant precedent and affirms that all conduct was lawful, appropriate, and within the Department's remit.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Department of Commerce fulfilled its legal obligations under Section 4 of the Commercial Standards Act. The Department is tasked with regulating commerce and ensuring compliance—not with evaluating market value or providing consumer protection against speculative transactions. Internal policy requires only that mystery box contents exist and be deliverable, a requirement that was met.

2. Under Section 8 of the Commercial Standards Act, misrepresentation requires knowingly making a false claim that causes another party to suffer loss. No Department employee made any such claim. The informal comments in question were clearly personal and non-binding. At no point did the Department guarantee value or profitability, nor did it present any information likely to induce reliance.

3. The Plaintiff voluntarily chose to bid $65,100 on a mystery box, an inherently speculative product where contents are unknown and no guarantee of value exists. The principle of caveat emptor (buyer beware) is fully applicable. Any dissatisfaction with the outcome is the natural risk of participating in such auctions—not the fault of the regulating authority.

4. The Department’s job is to make sure the contents of mystery boxes exist not to judge whether something is “worth it” or priced fairly at the end of the auction. Mystery boxes are, by nature, unpredictable. People take part in them knowing they might win big or get less than they hoped for. It would be unreasonable to expect the Department to step in every time someone regrets their bid. There's simply no legal or practical basis for the Department to interfere with how people value and price their own listings, in addition to the fact that one (including the Department of Commerce) can not know what the final and winning bid of an auction will be and thus claims of said bid being unfair is completely in the bidders fault.

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 1st Day of April 2025

 

[Matthew100x]

We shall now be moving towards Discovery. Discovery will end in 72 hours. Discovery can be voluntarily ended or extended with both parties agreeing to do so. Please remember the following rules:

Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use)​

All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission. Material must have been included within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible and the argument can be voided by the presiding judge.

Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol)​

A party may submit a list for witnesses at any time before the end of discovery. In order for a witness to be called during witness testimony, they must be announced under this rule, during discovery. Any witness may be objected to according to the objections laid out within rule 6.3.

Failure to adhere to the timelines of this rule may subject that party to a contempt of court charge at the presiding judge’s decision. The presiding judge shall include a warning regarding the timeline when summoning the witness.

 

[ameslap]

Motion

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

The Plaintiff moves to compel the following information from the Defense, as per the Complaint:
1. All private communication between DOC employees and lukeyyyMC_ that mentions or relates to “mystery box”.

2. Any documentation that the DOC has on mystery box auction rules and methodology to determine if a mystery box should or should not be approved. This should include currently used documentation and documentation that was used at the time of the mystery box auction in question.

 

[Matthew100x]

Motion

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

The Plaintiff moves to compel the following information from the Defense, as per the Complaint:
1. All private communication between DOC employees and lukeyyyMC_ that mentions or relates to “mystery box”.

2. Any documentation that the DOC has on mystery box auction rules and methodology to determine if a mystery box should or should not be approved. This should include currently used documentation and documentation that was used at the time of the mystery box auction in question.

Granted.

 

[Matthew100x]

@MegaMinerM you are hereby directed to provide the discovery material requested in this motion to compel.

 

[Matthew100x]

I'm sorry @MegaMinerM. I must not have made myself clear when I said you are hereby directed to provide the discovery material. You are to provide the compelled material to the court by the end of discovery. Failure to do so will result in a contempt of court charge. Additionally, I will give the DOJ a contempt of court charge for every hour the documents are not produced.

 

[ameslap]

Your Honor, we request an extension to discovery as we are still waiting for our FOI request that was made on 4/1 in regards to the ticket created per the original complaint.

 

[Matthew100x]

The end of discovery has arrived. We are awaiting material from the defendant. The DoJ is hereby charged with Contempt of Court. Every hour hereafter will result in a Contempt of Court charge as long as we continue to not receive the discovery. In 8 hours if this Court has not received the discovery, or at the very least an explanation for why it has not been given, I will be summoning the President to explain why his DoJ is refusing to comply with normal court proceedings. We will not continue to trial until we get the discovery.

 

[Freeze_Line]

The DOJ is still in the process of getting the requested information.

 

[Matthew100x]

The DOJ is still in the process of getting the requested information.

Given that the defendant needs more time and the plaintiff requested an extension, I will be granting a 72 hour extension of discovery. No new contempt of court charges will be lodged against the defendant given the extension of discovery and the new deadline.

 

[MegaMinerM]

Motion

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

The Plaintiff moves to compel the following information from the Defense, as per the Complaint:
1. All private communication between DOC employees and lukeyyyMC_ that mentions or relates to “mystery box”.

2. Any documentation that the DOC has on mystery box auction rules and methodology to determine if a mystery box should or should not be approved. This should include currently used documentation and documentation that was used at the time of the mystery box auction in question.

1. All communication between the DoC and its employees and lukeyyyMC_ that mentions or relates to “mystery box” has been attached below.

2. When this auction took place, the marketplace rule was just DOC sights the contents of the box in case of any contest from buyer. The ticket is then left open until a short period following the delivery of the box. The DOC role in mystery boxes was just to verify the contents if they buyer wanted to double check they were consistent with those promised by the auctioneer. The DOC had no role in valuing the box at the time of this auction.

 

[ameslap]

Your honor, a couple of points and clarifications:

1. We are still waiting for our FOI request to process from a week ago (seems to be a staff issue from what the DOJ has communicated to me in the request), unless the defense is saying that the attachment provided in their submission yesterday is the ticket at hand.
2. We would also ask that in response to their submission to #2 that they provide the proof/screenshot of the written policy during the time if they have it in writing somewhere.
3. In response to their submission for request #1, the auctioneer has posted multiple "mystery box" auctions in the past (see proof below), we did not request only communication that related to this mystery box but all communication that mentioned any "mystery box" between the DOC and the Auctioneer as per the Motion to Compel.

Spoiler: Proof of Multiple Mystery Box Listings

Until we can get these clarifications/additional discovery items we request that this case does not move forward as what comes from the discovery could impact how we approach the rest of this case.

In addition, we are making the following declarations:

Declaration to Amend Complaint (per Rule 3.3)​

The plaintiff wishes to amend the complaint to clarify that YeetPappa is not the DOC Secretary, but rather an employee of the DOC. In Discord his roles are "Secretary", "DOC", "DPA" and within the context of the situation I made the mistake of thinking that he was the Secretary of the DOC.

Declaration to Add Witness (per Rule 4.9)​

With this new revelation, the Plaintiff wishes to add xSyncx, the true DOC Secretary, as a witness while keeping YeetPappa, .Lucky_waq, and lukeyyyMC_ on the list as well. If you would like that amended in the complaint, I am happy to comply.

Declaration of New Evidence During Discovery​

Spoiler: P-015 - DOC Employee Comments on The Mystery Box

Spoiler: P-016 - DOC Employee Comments in relation to mystery boxes

Spoiler: P-017 - New Mystery Box Policy Introduced on 3/28/2025

 

[Matthew100x]

1. We are still waiting for our FOI request to process from a week ago (seems to be a staff issue from what the DOJ has communicated to me in the request), unless the defense is saying that the attachment provided in their submission yesterday is the ticket at hand.

Is this something that is already being requested? Do I need to sign a motion to compel?

2. We would also ask that in response to their submission to #2 that they provide the proof/screenshot of the written policy during the time if they have it in writing somewhere.

Can you make this request a motion to compel?

3. In response to their submission for request #1, the auctioneer has posted multiple "mystery box" auctions in the past (see proof below), we did not request only communication that related to this mystery box but all communication that mentioned any "mystery box" between the DOC and the Auctioneer as per the Motion to Compel.

Denied. This exceeds the scope of this case.

The plaintiff wishes to amend the complaint to clarify that YeetPappa is not the DOC Secretary, but rather an employee of the DOC. In Discord his roles are "Secretary", "DOC", "DPA" and within the context of the situation I made the mistake of thinking that he was the Secretary of the DOC.

Granted.

With this new revelation, the Plaintiff wishes to add xSyncx, the true DOC Secretary, as a witness while keeping YeetPappa, .Lucky_waq, and lukeyyyMC_ on the list as well. If you would like that amended in the complaint, I am happy to comply.

Granted.

 

[ameslap]

Is this something that is already being requested? Do I need to sign a motion to compel?

It was requested on 4/1, and the AG has moved it to the staff to reproduce and the staff has not yet produced it. I'm willing to wait 12 more hours as I know at a minimum End has had internet issues.

Can you make this request a motion to compel?

The Original Motion to Compel stated the Documentation related to this already, but I can make this another motion if the court pleases.

Denied. This exceeds the scope of this case.

Motion to Reconsider:

It is relevant to this case as it will show a pattern of how the DOC has interacted with the auctioneer in question, thus aiding in any discovery of third-party misrepresentation and how the policy is practiced vs written when it comes to Mystery Boxes.

 

[Matthew100x]

It was requested on 4/1, and the AG has moved it to the staff to reproduce and the staff has not yet produced it. I'm willing to wait 12 more hours as I know at a minimum End has had internet issues.

Counselor, as far as I see you got the evidence that you're looking for. You say that you have an FOI out. I understand that in some issues that you'll need discovery and I was happy to grant a motion to compel. Now I am asking you to please explain why we are delaying the case for an FOI. In my view the FOI should have either been included in the original motion to compel, or you should have waited for its results before launching this case.

The Original Motion to Compel stated the Documentation related to this already, but I can make this another motion if the court pleases.

I asked for this to be a motion to compel. You did not do that. The time for discovery is now over so I will be denying this. I will note that the policy stated by the defendant under the motion to compel is, for all intents and purposes, true. You do not need a screenshot, the defendant has submitted this policy in accordance to Rule 4.7, and failure to be truthful is grounds for perjury.

Motion to Reconsider:

It is relevant to this case as it will show a pattern of how the DOC has interacted with the auctioneer in question, thus aiding in any discovery of third-party misrepresentation and how the policy is practiced vs written when it comes to Mystery Boxes.

Denied. I am not seeing how this helps your case. Material must be relevant to the case for me to grant a Rule 4.7 request.

---

Can the plaintiff's counsel either submit their FOI evidence or submit a small brief (no longer then 10 sentences) explaining why they need this FOI in the next 48 hours?

 

[ameslap]

Your honor, it has been confirmed to us that the evidence submitted by the defense is the ticket that was in the FOI.

We are ready to end discovery and we thank you for your patience.

 

[Matthew100x]

We will now move to opening statements. The plaintiff shall have 72 hours to post their opening statement. When the plaintiff posts their opening statement (or fails too after 72 hours), the defendant shall have 72 hours to post their opening statement.

 

[ameslap]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

Introduction
The case before you today is just one instance of the Government’s lack of duty to its citizens in monitoring the marketplace for fraud and abuse. When the Plaintiff sought to bid on the mystery box in question, he did so because of the title, the starting bid amount, the approval of the DOC to post in the first place, and because members of the DOC who had knowledge of the contents of said box wanted to also partake in the bidding but could not. The DOC not only violated their own rules, but also the law.

On the Facts
1. The Government denies that such comments made by their own employees were official endorsements on the auction. Then why comment at all? Additionally, the moment the employee mentions that they have seen the contents or that their work involves looking at tickets of the mystery boxes, they are acting in their capacity as employees. If they were not acting as employees and wanted the contents of the box, then they should have bid on the boxes. To think that someone can say they are acting or not acting on behalf of their employer whenever it is convenient for the Government does not mean that it is true. Their role is always set to DOC, so they are always acting on behalf of the DOC.

2. Again, actions caused by the DOC employees inflated the hype around the mystery box. Any reasonable person would believe that if DOC employees are interested in the box that they know the contents of, then it must be a good value.

3. The facts of this case are simple: The Government broke the law by allowing the mystery box and influencing the results of the very same box. This is a violation of the Commercial Standards Act.

On the Defenses
1. Per Section 4, the DOC is charged with monitoring the marketplace for fraud. To do so they create rules that accomplish that charge. Part of the auction rules states that you cannot hold general conversation within a bid channel (P-014). Additionally, mystery boxes have additional rules in place that are to ensure that the mystery box is approved by the DOC to prevent fraud (P-003). By DOC employees commenting on the mystery box in the first place, and by allowing a fraudulent box to be placed on the market, the DOC broke the rules that they implemented to be in compliance with Section 4. The DOC must know this as well. Shortly after this auction concluded and this case was filed, the DOC changed their rules (P-017). The only reason they would need to do this is because the rules that they implemented were ineffective or not enforced.

2. How are we to take the words of any Government employee if we cannot take the words of these ones? As members of the DOC they have the duty to regulate the marketplace, and make comments within the marketplace that they are charged with. This wasn’t some comment made in a general chat, or even had any disclaimer that they were not acting in their role at the time. Your honor, if you were to walk into a courtroom, make a comment on a case, and then claim that it was a personal comment, there are good chances that you would be investigated and asked to resign. The same principle is applied here. DOC Employees entered the marketplace they oversee, made comments, and are now trying to back track because of the consequence of their actions.

3. Buyer Beware does not apply to fraudulent auctions that the regulating authority approved knowing that it was grossly misrepresenting the actual value.

4. The Government claims that they have no say in the price of the auction, just that they confirm the contents exist. But they clearly do. Evidence submitted by the Defense shows that the auctioneer wanted to start the bidding at $500,000. The DOC even made comments that the value was not even worth $50,000. They then forced the auctioneer to lower the starting amount before approval was made. So here we see multiple things happening: 1) The DOC does have input on the price of the auction. 2) The DOC said that the items within the box were not even worth what ended up being the starting bid amount. And 3) The DOC still approved the auction. The Defense cannot claim one thing when the evidence points to another and should be borderline perjury.

In Summary
The DOC knew the items within the box were not of value, and still approved it with a much higher price than the item's value. They then went into the marketplace and influenced the auction bidding with their comments. Then they changed their own rules because they knew that their practices were not inline with regulating the marketing as per Section 4. Finally, they show the victim of their own negligence and fraud disrespect and an unwillingness to do what is right (P-016).

 

[jwyh]

Your honour, may I file an amicus brief regarding a piece of evidence in which I was quoted?

 

[ameslap]

Your honour, may I file an amicus brief regarding a piece of evidence in which I was quoted?

Objection

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

Discovery has passed and we are already on opening statements. If either party wished to hear from jwyh they would have called them as a witness, which did not occur.

Additionally, they have been sitting on this information for days and are only now speaking up when they had chance while discovery was still ongoing.

Spoiler: Proof

 

[MegaMinerM]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

May it please the court,

The plaintiff claims that there was financial harm as a result of the Department of Commerce's alleged failure to fulfill its obligations regarding the authorization and supervision of a mystery box auction. We humbly contend that the DOC acted in accordance with its established policies and procedures and that these allegations are baseless.

In marketplace auctions, the DOC's main responsibility is to make sure that listings adhere to fairness and transparency guidelines. As required by its policy to prevent auctioneer fraud, the DOC requested and obtained a screenshot of the contents of the Mystery Box auction from the auctioneer. This step was taken to safeguard prospective bidders and confirm the auction's legitimacy.

It is important to understand that the DOC does not determine or have any influence over the initial bid amounts; the auctioneer sets these. An auction's department approval indicates that the listing satisfies formalities; it does not imply that the item is valuable or that the buyer will make money, especially since the final bid and its worth compared to the items is in no way in the hands of the DOC.

The remarks made by DOC staff members in the auction chat were statements of personal interest and did not amount to formal endorsements or attempts to influence the auction's outcome. No specific DOC policies or auction rules were broken by these remarks, which were made in a public setting.

The plaintiff's claim that the DOC violated the Commercial Standards Act is unfounded. The department carried out its duties by confirming that the auction complied with established guidelines.

In summary, the Department of Commerce handled the aforementioned auction in a proper and within-the-bounds manner. Since the claims against the DOC are not supported by the relevant facts or regulations, we humbly ask that the Court dismiss them.

Thank you.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honour, may I file an amicus brief regarding a piece of evidence in which I was quoted?

Objection

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

Discovery has passed and we are already on opening statements. If either party wished to hear from jwyh they would have called them as a witness, which did not occur.

Additionally, they have been sitting on this information for days and are only now speaking up when they had chance while discovery was still ongoing.

Spoiler: Proof

View attachment 54141

I am not accepting an Amicus Brief during the trial phase of a case. I am asserting my authority under Rule 1.2 and rejecting this and any other requests to submit an Amicus Brief for this Federal Court case.

 

[Matthew100x]

Writ of Summons

@lukeyyyMC_, @bigpappa140, @.Lucky_waq, and @xSyncx are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of RaiTheGuy v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 29.

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.

 

[bigpappa140]

Present, your honor.

 

[xSyncx]

Present

 

[ameslap]

Writ of Summons

@lukeyyyMC_, @bigpappa140, @.Lucky_waq, and @xSyncx are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of RaiTheGuy v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 29.

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.

Your honor, out of respect for a speedy trail and noting that 72 hours have passed, we request you hold those that have not appeared in contempt of court until they do appear.

We also request that we begin witness examination with those that are present at this time and come back around to those that are not later.

 

[Matthew100x]

The other two witnesses were summoned ingame and did not show. As a result, both lukeyyyMC_ and .Lucky_waq will be charged with contempt of court. @ameslap you can ask your questions for the next 48 hours. For the witnesses, please try to respond to the plaintiff's (@ameslap as plaintiff's counsel) questions within 24 hours.

 

[ameslap]

YeetPappa / @bigpappa140

1. Did you know the contents of the mystery box prior to it being posted?
2. How long have you been employed by the Department of Commerce?
3. Does the Department of Commerce oversee the auction marketplace?
4. Did you make statements in the auction in question?
5. When do you “clock in” for your work at the DOC?

@xSyncx

1. Per P-003, the DOC approves each mystery box to prevent auctioneer fraud, correct?
2. Per your own comments, the DOC, at the time, did not check the value of the mystery boxes, correct?
3. For the auction in question, what caused the original approval of the mystery box to be delayed after giving initial approval?
4. Do you agree that employees of the DOC made multiple comments, both during and after the auction ended, in regards to the “Filthy Rich Mystery Box”?
5. What are the work shifts for employees of the DOC?

Your honor, I would like to reserve the ability to ask follow up questions.

 

[xSyncx]

1. Yes, the DOC requires approval of mystery boxes to validate its contents before auction, so that the auctioneer doesnt switch out the items if they aren't happy with the price.
2. Not at that time. I don't have an original copy of the rules but I think it was 'submit contents for approval'? or maybe just 'approval'
3. Yes, they made subjective comments about it/
4. DOC work is entirely commission based with some delegation of work, but it is mostly self driven.

 

[bigpappa140]

1. I personally did not review the ticket but I knew per current protocol that I have access to it
2. Close to maybe over a month
3. Yes, we do.
4. Yes, I make comments in most auctions I see go through
5. I am always on the job in DOC, the moment I open the democracycraft discord.

 

[ameslap]

1. Yes, the DOC requires approval of mystery boxes to validate its contents before auction, so that the auctioneer doesnt switch out the items if they aren't happy with the price.
2. Not at that time. I don't have an original copy of the rules but I think it was 'submit contents for approval'? or maybe just 'approval'
3. Yes, they made subjective comments about it/
4. DOC work is entirely commission based with some delegation of work, but it is mostly self driven.

For the auction in question, what caused the original approval of the mystery box to be delayed after giving initial approval?

Did you have a response for this question? @xSyncx

I will be posting all follow up questions later tonight or tomorrow, I’m dealing with a sick family member at the moment I apologize.

 

[ameslap]

Follow Up Questions @xSyncx and @bigpappa140, I apologize for the small delay, I have been dealing with a sick family member for the past 24 hours.

For the auction in question, what caused the original approval of the mystery box to be delayed after giving initial approval?

Just a reminder that I still need a response on this one @xSyncx

Not at that time. I don't have an original copy of the rules but I think it was 'submit contents for approval'? or maybe just 'approval'

If you do not check the value of the boxes, how do you ensure that fraud is not taking place?

Yes, they made subjective comments about it/

Do you believe that comments made by government employees/officials carry weight, especially if those comments were made in the place they oversee?

Yes, I make comments in most auctions I see go through

What are the auction rules in regards to non-bidding comments at the time of this auction? Do DOC employees also follow those same rules? Additionally, do you believe that comments from government employees carry weight?

 

[xSyncx]

mb must've missed that one

For the auction in question, what caused the original approval of the mystery box to be delayed after giving initial approval?
If you're referring to the negotiation of the buy price - we did not regulate starting prices at the time - although I believe some discretion was used by the Deputy Secretary to limit the price, without fully placing a restriction. We haven't had high-price boxes requested like this since I've been in the DOC (~6 months) and there was no DOC precedent surrounding it. I was offline during the whole ordeal (no input from me in the ticket prior to posting).

If you do not check the value of the boxes, how do you ensure that fraud is not taking place?
Auctioneer fraud in the DOC rules generally surrounds issues of non-delivery. Now we focus on value to. This was not detailed in the rules, but was mentioned in similar mystery box threads.

Do you believe that comments made by government employees/officials carry weight, especially if those comments were made in the place they oversee?
I do. I find it wholly inappropriate that DOC employees were making comments about boxes, especially when its known that they have seen what is inside. The employees were reprimanded and given warnings.

 

[Matthew100x]

@bigpappa140, please answer the follow-up question as quickly as possible so we can move to cross-examination.

 

[lukeyyy11]

I am present your honor, sorry lad ive been busy

 

[Matthew100x]

I am present your honor, sorry lad ive been busy

It is too late unfortunately. We have already summoned you and you failed to respond in a timely manner. The plaintiff already got their chance to ask their questions and you were not there for them. Please do not speak in this channel again.

 

[bigpappa140]

Follow Up Questions @xSyncx and @bigpappa140, I apologize for the small delay, I have been dealing with a sick family member for the past 24 hours.

Just a reminder that I still need a response on this one @xSyncx

If you do not check the value of the boxes, how do you ensure that fraud is not taking place?

Do you believe that comments made by government employees/officials carry weight, especially if those comments were made in the place they oversee?



What are the auction rules in regards to non-bidding comments at the time of this auction? Do DOC employees also follow those same rules? Additionally, do you believe that comments from government employees carry weight?

There aren’t any enforced rules that outright prohibit non-bidding comments in auctions. It’s pretty common, and unless the comment breaks the guidelines, like being negative about the price, rarity, value, or trying to advertise something, it’s not considered against the law. A direct quote from the guidelines is:

“Such acts would be: (a) commenting negatively on the starting price, (b) commenting negatively on the rarity or lack thereof, (c) commenting negatively on the utilitarian value or lack thereof, (d) advertising one’s own bid or business on another’s channel; or (e) holding general conversation within a bid channel.”

The conversation in question doesn’t fit any of those categories. It wasn’t negative, off-topic, or disruptive.


DOC Employees are players like anyone else, and they follow the same laws. Having a government tag doesn’t make someone exempt from rules.


And finally, do I believe government employees' comments carry more weight? No, A title doesn't equal trust or truth. Plenty of people with ranks or roles are respected because of who they are, not what they are. If I trust someone, it's because of their character, not their job title. And plenty of government individuals, despite their many titles, are disliked or untrusted.

 

[ameslap]

There aren’t any enforced rules that outright prohibit non-bidding comments in auctions. It’s pretty common, and unless the comment breaks the guidelines, like being negative about the price, rarity, value, or trying to advertise something, it’s not considered against the law. A direct quote from the guidelines is:

The conversation in question doesn’t fit any of those categories. It wasn’t negative, off-topic, or disruptive.

Objection

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

The question only asked what rules on comments are.

Furthermore, the witness cannot come to a conclusion on if the comments constituted any of those rule violations, that is for the court to decide.

We request the last paragraph starting “the conversation in question…” be struck as that is when the narrative occurs.

 

[Matthew100x]

You're objecting to the answer to your question to your witness?

 

[ameslap]

You're objecting to the answer to your question to your witness?

Your honor, as strange as it may be, I am and I believe the reasoning is sound.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor, as strange as it may be, I am and I believe the reasoning is sound.

Your question was compound. I see that he answered each question individually. Then he quoted part of the auction guidelines. I am denying the objection. The defendant now has 48 hours to cross-examine.

 

[MegaMinerM]

For @bigpappa140

1. To your knowledge, did the auction format at the time violate any explicit rules or regulations?

2. In your opinion, did any of your actions violate existing regulations, procedures, or laws?

3. Was it part of your responsibilities as an Economist at the time of the auction to assess the value of items in mystery boxes?

For @xSyncx

1. Would you agree that Mystery Box auctions had previously been permitted under similar circumstances without issue?

2. Based on the information available to you at the time, did you believe the auction complied with Commerce guidelines?

3. Would you agree that the role of the Department of Commerce was to ensure procedural fairness rather than to micromanage the valuation of individual items?

Your honor, the Defense would like to reserve the ability to ask follow up questions.

 

[ameslap]

For @bigpappa140

1. To your knowledge, did the auction format at the time violate any explicit rules or regulations?

2. In your opinion, did any of your actions violate existing regulations, procedures, or laws?

3. Was it part of your responsibilities as an Economist at the time of the auction to assess the value of items in mystery boxes?

For @xSyncx

1. Would you agree that Mystery Box auctions had previously been permitted under similar circumstances without issue?

2. Based on the information available to you at the time, did you believe the auction complied with Commerce guidelines?

3. Would you agree that the role of the Department of Commerce was to ensure procedural fairness rather than to micromanage the valuation of individual items?

Your honor, the Defense would like to reserve the ability to ask follow up questions.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Questions were posted after the 48 hour deadline and the Defense did not request an extension or give any reason for the delay.

3. Was it part of your responsibilities as an Economist at the time of the auction to assess the value of items in mystery boxes?

Objection

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

The witness' job does at the DOC does not come into question, just that they had access to view the mystery box contents, which they have already shown that they do.

2. In your opinion, did any of your actions violate existing regulations, procedures, or laws?

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Calls for a Conclusion

This question is seeking an opinion rather than factual information.

2. Based on the information available to you at the time, did you believe the auction complied with Commerce guidelines?

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Calls for a Conclusion

This question is seeking an opinion rather than factual information.

 

[Matthew100x]

Objection​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Questions were posted after the 48 hour deadline and the Defense did not request an extension or give any reason for the delay.

Granted. I am getting tired of seeing unexcused absences missing deadlines. You are not so busy that you cannot post a request for extension @MegaMinerM.

The witnesses do not have to answer the question. We will now move to closing statements. The plaintiff shall have 72 hours to post their closing statement. When the plaintiff posts their closing statement (or fails too after 72 hours), the defendant shall have 72 hours to post their closing statement.

 

[MegaMinerM]

Motion

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

Your Honor, in MegaMinerM v. Blazora Corporation a late submission was allowed due to it being critical to a healthy and just verdict. The answers to the questions asked by the defendant are of high importance and likewise critical to a healthy and just verdict. The Defense humbly asks the honorable Judge to reconsider.

 

[Matthew100x]

Motion

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

Your Honor, in MegaMinerM v. Blazora Corporation a late submission was allowed due to it being critical to a healthy and just verdict. The answers to the questions asked by the defendant are of high importance and likewise critical to a healthy and just verdict. The Defense humbly asks the honorable Judge to reconsider.

Denied. The choice in application of the rules is left to the presiding judge under court rule 1.2. Response times are suggested and managed by rule 6.6. Broadly pointing to a case and stating "a late submission was allowed" is insufficient.

What case are you citing too? What is the link to the post? Was the judge's decision an application of the federal court in regards to witness statements? Regardless of the above, another Federal Court's decision for me is merely persuasive in this matter. Under court rule 1.3, applications of rule interpretation is decided by the Supreme Court, not the Federal Court. As such, due to previous tardiness in this case, I will not be granting the motion to reconsider. If the witnesses were that important to the case, you at any point within the 48 hours could have made a motion to extend, which would have been granted.

To me, this is not an issue of substantiality that is the court's error, but an error made by the government in failing to manage its time properly that caused the government to waive its right to cross-examine the witnesses.

 

[ameslap]

Closing Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Throughout the course of this trial, we have seen the Department of Commerce’s negligence in providing oversight to the marketplace, specifically when it comes to Mystery Boxes, in clear violation of the law and internal government policy.

On the Facts in Question
The Defense denies that comments made were official endorsements or had any binding influence on the auction. When pressed during testimony, the Commerce Secretary stated that government officials were making comments about the boxes and that the employees were reprimanded for their comments. Commerce Employee Bigpappa stated that they are always on the job in the DOC from the moment they open the DC discord. If their comments had no merit surrounding them, then why was there a need to reprimand them? It is because when an employee of the DOC comments on an auction of any kind, but especially in Mystery Boxes, they are speaking with the power of the DOC.

The defense denies that the Plaintiff was misled, defrauded, or economically harmed as a result of the actions made by the DOC. $65,1000 is not a small amount of funds. With the comments presented to the Plaintiff, and the approval of the mystery box with such a high dollar amount, the Plaintiff felt that they had to have the box. This was a direct result of the actions of the DOC.

The Defense denies any violation of the Commercial Standards Act. Throughout the course of this trial we have put on display the violations of the law. The Commercial Standards Act Section 4, Subsection 5 was violated because the DOC approved a fraudulent Mystery Box. Again, the policy written to enforce that section was that the DOC approves the Mystery Boxes. The Defense and the DOC have tried to paint a picture that they only approve the contents of the box to ensure that they are real, but their actions speak differently. If they only approved the contents, then the original price of the auction would have been approved at $500,000, instead, the DOC commented “It’s not even worth 50k ngl” and still approved it. Then, only a few days later, the DOC realizes that they made a huge mistake and has changed their Mystery Box auction approval process. I will highlight one more time, the rules of the auction are that they DOC approved the auction, which implies the entire auction, not just the contents being sold.

Further, as already showcased early in this statement, the DOC violated Section 8 of Third-Party Misrepresentation. Even if it was not intentional, which it almost certainly was, the law explicitly applies to parties that are not aware they might be committing market manipulation. Testimony has proven that DOC employees’ comments carry weight when comments are made. This increased the price of the auction, committing Third-Party Misrepresentation.

In Closing
The Department of Commerce failed in their legal obligation to oversee the marketplace. Evidence and Witness Testimony have proven this. This was an outrageous act by the Government, that they have now tried to amend after the fact through new policy. But the new policy does not replace the harm, both monetary and in public trust, that the Government has displayed by allowing this auction to be approved and run in the manner of which occurred.

 

[MegaMinerM]

Closing Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

May it please the Court,

The Plaintiff has maintained throughout these proceedings that the Department of Commerce acted improperly in authorising and managing the Mystery Box auction. However, these assertions are not supported by evidence.

Adherence to the Rules
As part of its oversight of auctions, the DOC makes sure that listings adhere to certain procedural standards, most notably that mystery box contents are checked to avoid fraud. In this case, the DOC fulfilled its responsibilities by verifying the items' existence and deliverability after the auctioneer provided the required paperwork. The department is not required to determine starting bids or determine the market value of auction items.

Employee Remarks
The Plaintiff cites remarks made by DOC employees who indicated a personal interest in the auction. These comments were made in a public setting, were informal, and had no bearing on the outcome of the auction or official endorsements. There is no proof that these remarks violated any departmental guidelines or auction regulations.

The Bidder's Responsibility
With a $65,100 bid, the plaintiff willingly entered the auction. Regardless of the DOC's actions, the Plaintiff's own assessment and willingness to pay ultimately determined the bid amount. Individual bid choices made in an open marketplace are not subject to departmental accountability.

Claims of Legal Violations
Citing a failure to prevent fraud and allegations of third-party misrepresentation, the plaintiff alleges violations of the Commercial Standards Act. But instead of engaging in dishonest tactics, the DOC upheld its regulatory obligations and ensured procedural compliance. There is no proof that the department went beyond its authority or committed an illegal act.

In conclusion, the Department of Commerce has acted within its established guidelines and legal obligations. The Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction stems from personal bidding choices rather than any misconduct by the department. We respectfully request that the Court dismiss the claims against the DOC in their entirety.

Thank you.

 

[Matthew100x]

The Court will be entering into recess. Please expect the verdict to take at minimum a week. I have two finals this week that I need to prepare for.

 

[Matthew100x]

I want to give a quick update. I am working on the verdict. There are some more difficult legal issues that I am working through with regards to making sure the case law is more understandable. I hope to have the verdict out soon.

 

[Matthew100x]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
RaiTheGuy v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 29

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION

1. The Department of Commerce failed to enforce its own policy requiring disclosure of a mystery box’s contents before approval, enabling the auctioneer to commit fraud.
2. RaiTheGuy paid $65,100 for a mystery box whose total value, per CPI records, was only $764.34, and some items lacked any CPI record.
3. The Department’s approval of the auction, without verifying value or contents, violated its duty under Section 4(5) of the Commercial Standards Act to prevent commerce-related fraud.
4. DOC employees commented publicly expressing desire for the mystery box, which the plaintiff argues misled bidders and artificially inflated the auction value, constituting Third-Party Misrepresentation under Section 8.​

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION

1. The Department of Commerce followed all relevant policies by verifying the existence and deliverability of the mystery box contents before approving the auction.
2. Comments made by DOC employees in the auction chat were personal, non-binding, and do not amount to official endorsements or misrepresentation.
3. The plaintiff was not misled or defrauded by the Department; any loss incurred resulted from their own voluntary decision to engage in a speculative transaction.
4. The Department’s role is regulatory, not evaluative; it is not responsible for judging fair market value or preventing buyer's remorse.
5. Misrepresentation under Section 8 of the Commercial Standards Act requires a knowingly false statement that induces reliance. None occurred here.
6. The auction outcome was driven by open bidding, and the plaintiff accepted the inherent risks; caveat emptor applies.​

III. THE COURT OPINION

1. The court finds that there was an auction for a mystery box.
2. That said mystery box was listed at a starting auction of $50,000 despite the true value being significantly lower.
3. That the DOC did review the listing before allowing the auction to be posted.
4. That the employees who commented on the auction were acting within their official capacity.
5. Per the law, the DOC is charged with investigating commerce-related white-collar crimes. However, also per the law, they are to refer those findings to the DOJ.
6. The DOC was given the contents of said mystery box, knew it was well below the listed price, and approved the listing.
7. The DOC policy includes a line stating, “A mystery box may not be auctioned off without receiving a screenshot of its contents in order to prevent auctioneer fraud.”
8. A long review of the law is necessary from here:

There are a couple of problems that this court must resolve. To begin with, the claim for relief argues for a case of negligence by alleging that the defendant violated the Commercial Standards Act. Negligence is not a defined concept within our common law, nor is it enabled by statute.

However, we have begun to coalesce the elements for what is typically ascribed as negligence. We have established, as a matter of common law, what is known as a “duty of care.” A duty of care, as typically defined, is 1) an obligation; 2) that must be upheld; and 3) is set-out by either custom, norm, or by law. If a duty is not upheld, it is considered a breach, and the party who is obliged to uphold the duty can be liable for damages. This forms our basic principle for what this court will term proto-negligence.

Duty of care, as part of our concept of proto-negligence, was first established by the Supreme Court in 2021. In nnmc, the appellant-defendant appealed a default judgment against them for police misconduct. While no mention of it was made within the subsequent appeals case, the Court concluded that the appellee-plaintiff had argued that the appellant-defendant had “neglected their duty of care by refusing to investigate the situation further.” The court then concluded that the appellant-defendant had a lawful duty of care, its constitutional duty, and upheld the original verdict. (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - nnmc v. Department of Justice [2021] SCR 15).

Then the Federal Court in 2024 granted a form of this proto-negligence by establishing a duty of care and breach of said duty. In smokeyybunnyyy, the plaintiff sued the defendant, the Commonwealth of Redmont’s Department of Construction and Transportation, for failing to prevent fraudulent bids from a third party that artificially raised bid amounts. The defendant argued that the plaintiff entered into a valid agreement. The court disagreed.

The court held that every department within the executive branch has a duty of care to uphold its constitutional obligations. “For the Department of Construction and Transport, this includes the responsibility to conduct auctions fairly and in strict accordance with its guidelines.” The fraudulent bids placed by a third party misled the plaintiff into raising their bid causing fraudulent inducement that was not allowed under the defendant’s policy. The defendant's inability to apply its policies fairly and equally across the auctions represented a breach of its duty. (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 103).

While the court has established a duty and breach of duty as a concept, it has not in full established negligence as a common law concept. This concept is not a statutory provision; it is only found in our case law. Since that is the case, the court will sum the elements thus far: duty of care and breach of duty. However, like any case, there must be standing. Standing requires remedy (see Information - Court Rules and Procedures). Under smokeyybunnyyy, it was found that the difference in bidding was a proper form of remedy for compensatory damages. (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 103). So, we must revise our elements to include damages. Thus, negligence requires: 1) a duty of care, 2) breach of duty, and 3) damages or remedy.

In the matter at hand, the plaintiff is arguing an application of law forms the basis for which the defendant is negligent. The plaintiff does not argue that the duty is established by the constitution. This is correct because the defendant’s constitutional obligations no longer exist under the new constitution. (see Government - Constitution). Instead, a department’s obligations are defined in law under the Executive Standards Act, which is now congressional law and no longer a constitutional amendment. (see Act of Congress - Executive Standards Act). For the consistency of the common law, the duties set up by nnmc and smokeyybunnyyy still exist, but they are now duties established by Congress for the defendant to exercise. Indeed, Congress can dictate to the defendant the duties and obligations it wishes for it to fulfill, as the clause that Congress cannot give or take power from the other branches has been removed. (see Government - Constitution). It must logically follow then that all laws set out by Congress can impose a duty on the defendant. This would include the Commercial Standards Act. Therefore, it makes sense that the plaintiff argues that the defendant breached their duty by not following the Commercial Standard Act under a theory of negligence.

However, that alone does not resolve this case. Now that the Court has properly defined what it sees as negligence, it must review the law. Since a duty is statutorily created, it can be said that failing to follow the statute necessarily implies a breach, which is consistent with the common law. So now the court must review whether or not the defendant had a duty and then breached said duty.

The plaintiff argues that the defendant violated their duty by not failing to uphold Commercial Standards Act section 4(5). The law states “The Department of Commerce is charged with investigating commerce-related white-collar crimes.” (see Act of Congress - Commercial Standards Act). The plaintiff points out that the defendant’s policy is to prevent “auctioneer fraud.” This is not defined under our law; however, fraud is. Accordingly, we must apply fraud to the facts of this case.

Fraud is defined as, “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.” (see 6 - Fraud (Fraud) Act of Congress - Commercial Standards Act, see also Appeal: Denied - [2024] FCR 102 - Appeal).

In this instance, the defendant's employees made comments towards the content of the mystery about wanting to purchase the contents and that they “could not” bid on them as members of the defendant. This created an air of value and incentive for prospective buyers to make a purchase. The defendant did this in spite of knowing the contents of the mystery box was worth far less than even the minimum bid price. Thus, the court agrees that at minimum the defendant made reckless misrepresentations of the mystery box, and that this fact is important because it is central to the case.

However, the plaintiff did not rely on those misrepresentations when they were making their decision to make the purchase. Therefore, the defendant did not defraud the plaintiff.

The plaintiff will point out that the general duty of the defendant is to protect the plaintiff against fraud. However, that third-party has not yet been civilly liable for fraud. (see Lawsuit: In Session - RaiTheGuy v. lukeyyyMC_ [2025] FCR 30). The court cannot assume anything on the pending case. “[J]udicial consistency requires each case to be evaluated on its own merits at the time of its ruling.” (see Appeal: Denied - [2024] FCR 102 - Appeal). For this court to assume fraud in the event that the court in [2025] FCR 30 does not, would lead to judicial inconsistency. Thus, the court cannot adjudicate the matter on the assumption that the third-party is civilly liable for fraud.

The court also points to the plaintiff that while the defendant is in charge of investigating white-collar crime, the DOJ prosecutes the crime (see Section 4(5)(a), Act of Congress - Commercial Standards Act). So, the duty is not solely for the defendant to investigate commerce-related white-collar crimes, it is also to refer the findings of said investigation to the DOJ. The plaintiff does not show any proof that the defendant has not referred any action to the DOJ. Therefore, the plaintiff has not met its burden of proof in that the defendant breached their duty.

9. The plaintiff argues that the defendant violated Section 8 of the Commercial Standards Act, Third-Party Misrepresentation. (see Act of Congress - Commercial Standards Act. The elements are as follows: 1) the act of intentionally or recklessly aiding and abetting; 2) a party or entity; 3) in committing market manipulation.

10. Plaintiff has charged a third-party in committing market manipulation. “[J]udicial consistency requires each case to be evaluated on its own merits at the time of its ruling.” (see Appeal: Denied - [2024] FCR 102 - Appeal). That third party has not been found liable in committing market manipulation. For this court to assume market manipulation in the event that the court in [2025] FCR 30 does not, would lead to judicial inconsistency. Thus, the court cannot adjudicate the matter on the assumption that the third-party is civilly liable for market manipulation. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot meet their burden in proving third-party misrepresentation.​

IV. DECISION
The Federal Court hereby rules in favor of the Defendant.

The Federal Court thanks all parties involved. Court is now adjourned.

 

[Matthew100x]

Making a very minor addendum edit. [2024] FCR 102 was referenced in the document. The case citations for judicial consistency is correct. However, the on-going case involving the third party is [2025] FCR 30. Any references to [2024] FCR 102 as an ongoing case is an error. I will amend the verdict. Nothing else will change on this verdict.