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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
MegaMinerM said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.



MegaMinerM said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.



MegaMinerM said:
2. In your opinion, did any of your actions violate existing regulations, procedures, or laws?
Click to expand...

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.



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

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.

 
ameslap said:

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.

 
MegaMinerM said:

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.

Click to expand...
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.
 

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.

 

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.

 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top