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

[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.