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

ameslap

ameslap

Citizen
Supporter
5th Anniversary
ameslap
ameslap
Attorney
Joined
Jan 7, 2025
Messages
31

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.
Click to expand...

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:​

P-001.png
P-002.png
P-003.webp
P-004.png
P-005.webp
P-006.png
P-007.png
P-008.png
CPI Matching Link
February 2025 CPI Link
January 2025 CPI Link
December 2024 CPI Link
February 2024 CPI Link
P-014.png


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.

Copy of RepresentationAgreement.png

 
Last edited:

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.

 

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.
 
Denied only because we're presently not in discovery. Your request is noted, please request again during discovery.
 
The Commonwealth is present.
 
Your Honor, I am requesting a 24-hour extension, as the assigned prosecutor has not been responding.
 
Granted.
 

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

 
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.
 

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.

 
ameslap said:

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.

Click to expand...

Granted.
 
@MegaMinerM you are hereby directed to provide the discovery material requested in this motion to compel.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
The DOJ is still in the process of getting the requested information.
 
Freeze_Line said:
The DOJ is still in the process of getting the requested information.
Click to expand...
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.
 
ameslap said:

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.

Click to expand...
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.
 

Attachments

  • Communication DoC.webp
    Communication DoC.webp
    75.5 KB · Views: 66
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.
Mysterybox-Proof.png


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​

P-015.png
P-016.png
P-017.png
 
ameslap said:
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.
Click to expand...
Is this something that is already being requested? Do I need to sign a motion to compel?


ameslap said:
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.
Click to expand...
Can you make this request a motion to compel?

ameslap said:
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.
Click to expand...
Denied. This exceeds the scope of this case.

ameslap said:
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.
Click to expand...
Granted.

ameslap said:
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.
Click to expand...
Granted.
 
Matthew100x said:
Is this something that is already being requested? Do I need to sign a motion to compel?
Click to expand...
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.

Matthew100x said:
Can you make this request a motion to compel?
Click to expand...
The Original Motion to Compel stated the Documentation related to this already, but I can make this another motion if the court pleases.

Matthew100x said:
Denied. This exceeds the scope of this case.
Click to expand...
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.
 
ameslap said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

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

ameslap said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 

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).


 
Your honour, may I file an amicus brief regarding a piece of evidence in which I was quoted?
 
jwyh said:
Your honour, may I file an amicus brief regarding a piece of evidence in which I was quoted?
Click to expand...

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.

1744388557660.png

 

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.

 
jwyh said:
Your honour, may I file an amicus brief regarding a piece of evidence in which I was quoted?
Click to expand...
ameslap said:

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.

View attachment 54141

Click to expand...

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.
 

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.

 
Present, your honor.
 
Present
 
Matthew100x said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
xSyncx said:
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.
Click to expand...
ameslap said:
For the auction in question, what caused the original approval of the mystery box to be delayed after giving initial approval?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
ameslap said:
For the auction in question, what caused the original approval of the mystery box to be delayed after giving initial approval?
Click to expand...
Just a reminder that I still need a response on this one @xSyncx
xSyncx said:
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'
Click to expand...
If you do not check the value of the boxes, how do you ensure that fraud is not taking place?
xSyncx said:
Yes, they made subjective comments about it/
Click to expand...
Do you believe that comments made by government employees/officials carry weight, especially if those comments were made in the place they oversee?


bigpappa140 said:
Yes, I make comments in most auctions I see go through
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
1744908823116.png


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.
 
@bigpappa140, please answer the follow-up question as quickly as possible so we can move to cross-examination.
 
I am present your honor, sorry lad ive been busy
 
lukeyyy11 said:
I am present your honor, sorry lad ive been busy
Click to expand...
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.
 
ameslap said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.”
Click to expand...

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.
 
bigpappa140 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

 
You're objecting to the answer to your question to your witness?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top