Lawsuit: Dismissed Admin23 v. The Exchange [2022] FCR 67

[Admin23]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Admin23
Plaintiff


v.

The Exchange (Formerly known as the Onyx Exchange)
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

The Exchange refused to follow through with a sale of 8 Onyx Industries stocks at a price of $3,000 and insulted, cussed at, and talked down to me during the entire process. The Exchange claimed that under Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act 4(3), the Exchange was legally not allowed to follow through with a custom purchase price for stocks. This is a false statement.


I. PARTIES
1. Admin23 - Plaintiff
2. Someone (username in DC Discord is Aezal) - Employee of the Defendant
3. Nacholebraa - Owner of, and responsible party for, the Defendant
4. The Exchange - Defendant


II. FACTS

1. magsymags DMed the Plaintiff about purchasing Onyx Industries stocks and asked the price of the 8 stocks for sale. The Plaintiff responded that the price is $3,000 for the 8 stocks.

2. The Plaintiff opened a ticket in the Exchange Discord showing the conversation between magsymags and the Plaintiff.

3. Aezal (Discord name being “Someone”) stated that the price (including commission) for the stocks would be $3,158.94 and had no problem with the transaction.

4. magsymags sent $3,000 to Nacholebraa without knowing who the money would need to go to for the process to be completed.

5. Aezal continually belittled, facepalmed, cussed at, and laughed at the Plaintiff for “legit just using [the bot] wrong” when the Plaintiff did not want to use the bot because it did not allow for what the Plaintiff wanted to do.

6. Aezal states that he will “just manually do it”, meaning he will just manually edit the numbers. This shows that it is a possibility to edit the numbers of stocks an individual owns without requiring the bot to do it, meaning what the Plaintiff wanted to do was entirely possible.

7. Aezal states:

“Custom prices where never (supposed to be) supported. Ya’ll cant just say ‘ok im gonna give u my shares at a discount.’ Aint how stocks work.”

The Plaintiff replies that they are his stocks that he can sell at his own price and there is nothing wrong with that and says: “If two people agree on a price, the transaction goes through.”

8. Aezal then explains that it is illegal for the Exchange to sell stocks at a custom price by saying:

“It’s actually illegal for us to allow you to sell stocks at a custom price.”

This is an odd statement given the willingness of Aezal to do so in paragraph 6 above. This is a direct contradiction of a previous statement, so either Aezal was willing to violate the law very readily previously, or this statement is a lie, and would constitute fraud, as defined under the Crackdown on White-Collar Crime Act 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.”

That quantifiable injury inflicted upon the Plaintiff being the lack of a sale of 8 Onyx Industries stocks for $3,000.

9. The Plaintiff pushes to get the manual transfer of stocks over to magsymags as Aezal previously explicitly stated that it was possible. Aezal then cusses at the Plaintiff and for no reason.

10. After the explanation of the situation by the Plaintiff to Nacholebraa, Aezal states that the total price of the 8 Onyx Industries stocks is $2,871.78 and that the commission is $287.17. That commission is 10% of the total sale price of stocks. $158.94 is most definitely not 10% of the stock price of $3,000. This shows a wild discrepancy and inconsistency between commission amounts. This 10% commission is confirmed in another conversation between Aladeen and Aezal. Aezal lied to the Plaintiff about the amount of commission that should be paid. The Plaintiff disagreed with the price of the stocks as that price ($2,871.78) was not agreed upon by magsymags and the Plaintiff.

11. Nacholebraa states:

“In accordance with the CLA The Exchange is able to support a customer made price for the stocks as it would be in violation of Federal Law and we do not do that sort of thing around here. … I attached the screenshot of the act of congress in specific that references our inability to make custom prices.”

Nacholebraa’s statement makes no sense as he says:

“The Exchange is able to support a customer made price for the stocks…” but then states that would violate federal law.

The law that does not allow **the Exchange** to create a custom price is the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act. Specifically, Paragraph 4(3), which states:

“(3) Securities Exchanges will be prohibited from calculating the market prices of shares in Public Companies using any factors other than the market supply of and demand for said shares. They will be responsible for updating these prices without requiring further input from the companies of which the shares grant ownership in.
(a) Securities Exchanges must provide consistent updates to the market prices of company shares. Each company listed on an exchange must have its stock price updated at least once every 30 days.
(b) Legal entities holding more than 20% of the stock in any public company must report their holdings to the Department of Education and Commerce.”

Nowhere does it say that the Exchange cannot transfer stocks from one person to another with both party’s approval. It does not say that two individuals cannot create a custom purchase price for a stock and then have the Exchange transfer it by showing consent from both parties. The law simply states that the Exchange may not create a price for a stock, which was never asked of the Exchange.

12. Nacholebraa states that it was the Plaintiff who was being disrespectful to Aezal when the Plaintiff was reacting to Aezal’s demeaning behavior. This was Nacholebraa’s basis to arbitrarily close down a ticket requesting a perfectly legal sale of stocks and forced the sale to be done through the bot which is not what either magsymags or the Plaintiff had wanted.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The Exchange lying to the Plaintiff three times.

First was that it was illegal for the sale with custom prices to be facilitated.

Second was that the commission was $158.94 and not $300 (10% of $3,000), which was later changed to 10% (287.17) when the total price of stocks were lowered by Aezal from the agreed upon $3,000 down to $2871.76.

Third was the reiteration of the fact that the Exchange supposedly cannot facilitate the transfer of stocks at a custom price agreed to by two parties because it is illegal.

2. The forcing of the sale to be done through the bot due to arbitrary reasons, is forcing a transfer of goods at a different price than was agreed upon. It was already explicitly stated that the transfer was possible by Aezal before he deemed that it was illegal, when, in fact, it was and is most definitely not illegal.

3. The Plaintiff responded to Aezal’s blatant disrespect and belittling by being assertive in the facts of the situation and Nacholebraa understood that to be disrespect to Aezal. Aezal did not earn the respect of the Plaintiff, and lost a lot of it due to the continual lies and being cussed at and being laughed at by Aezal. Nacholebraa decided to take the side of Aezal and financially hurt both the Plaintiff and magsymags due to this arbitrary enforcement of the requirement of “respect” while no respect was given to the Plaintiff.

4. The three previous claims caused the Plaintiff to lose out on a deal that was already agreed upon.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. $30,000 in punitive damages from the Exchange (or Nacholebraa if it is not possible to extract a payment from the Exchange)

2. A public and sincere apology from Aezal for belittling and cussing at and laughing at the Plaintiff.

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

Exhibit 4

Exhibit 5

Exhibit 6

Exhibit 7

Exhibit 8

Exhibit 9

Exhibit 10

There are more attachments and they will be submitted in another message as this one has met the 10 image limit.


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 7th day of September 2022.

 

[Admin23]

Exhibit 11

Exhibit 12 (Red text is added by me to signify what the link is for)

Exhibit 13

Exhibit 14
The law in the screenshot is the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act 4(3)

Exhibit 15 (a screenshot of the same law shown in Exhibit 14)

Exhibit 16

Exhibit 17

Exhibit 18 (proof of the commission being 10%, weeks before the Plaintiff’s was opened)

 

[dygyee]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
The defendant, or representative of the defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the Admin23 v. The Exchange [2022] FCR 67 . Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[Nacho]

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

Admin23
Plaintiff


v.

The Exchange (Formerly known as the Onyx Exchange)
Defendant


MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint, in this case, is dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Exchange (TE) is a privately owned and operated securities exchange. TE states within its terms and services (TOS) that services can be canceled at any time with or without notice. The Exchanges TOS is posted publicly and for full public display within #info within TE's main discord. The exact verbiage of this policy is as follows;

"We may remove or modify any service submitted at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice. Requests for service to be canceled or modified will be undertaken only at our discretion. We may terminate your access to all or any part of our services at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice."

2. The plaintiff has filed false accusations against TE regarding a monetary exchange between a private trader (Mags) and TE. No monetary exchange occurred during this transaction (the one before the court) between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding this private trader.

3. TE in this instance is merely protecting itself from possible litigation for violating a clearly written act of congress (CLA) in reference to the pricing of securities. As notated below;

(3) Securities Exchanges will be prohibited from calculating the market prices of shares in Public Companies using any factors other than the market supply of and demand for said shares. They will be responsible for updating these prices without requiring further input from the companies of which the shares grant ownership in.

By allowing a custom price of the stock or in this case honoring a private transaction TE would be committing a crime in accordance with the CLA.

4. The plaintiff is also accusing TE of doing $30,000 in punitive damages, which is a short hop and a long leap without showing any evidence to prove that TE did in fact do damages to the plaintiff. TE again as mentioned previously is simply enforcing its TOS by canceling / not permitting a service to occur in our own understanding of the CLA. Should the courts allow for this case to go forward it would set a dangerous precedent that companies will have to openly and blindly do things that could be against the law all because the customer wanted a service done. We still firmly believe that should the plaintiff not wish to not agree with the TOS then it is within their own understanding they will no longer use our services.

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 7th day of September 2022

 

[dygyee]

If the Plaintiff would like to post a rebuttal, they have 48 hours to do so. If the Plaintiff would not like to post a rebuttal, I ask that they state that to the court within the allotted time.

 

[Admin23]

I would like to post a rebuttal however do not have one prepared at this time. It will be submitted within 48 hours of September 7th, 8:07 AM, EST (deadline being September 9th, 8:07 AM, EST).

 

[Admin23]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REBUTTAL TO MOTION TO DISMISS


In response to the first paragraph:

The Exchange states within its terms and services that services can be canceled at any time with or without notice.

This is, indeed, the case as screenshots of the TOS taken on September 7th, 4:13 AM EST prove. (Exhibit 19).

The relevant part in the Terms of Service states:

"We may remove or modify any service submitted at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice. Requests for service to be canceled or modified will be undertaken only at our discretion. We may terminate your access to all or any part of our services at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice."

As the TOS also states:

“Changes to this policy can occur at any time and without notice.”

This change to the terms effectively took place via an online conversation between Aezal and magsymags and the Plaintiff on September 7th, 11:14 PM EST. (Exhibit 7)

The agreement given by Aezal stated:

“@mags just send nacho the 158.94 and i’ll just manually do it if ya’ll dont wanna just copy paste the buy and sell commands.”

A whole $3,000 was sent to Nacholebraa. This means that magsymags upheld their end of the bargain and Aezal should have simply processed the transaction. If the process went through, a refund of $2,841.06 would have had to be given back to magsymags. The transaction did not go through so the refund amount should be $3,000. Still nothing has been refunded. This is blatant theft from magsymags.

This agreement between Aezal, magsymags, and the Plaintiff varied the terms of service. They are allowable to be changed at any time, and this constitutes a change.

The Exchange is well within its rights to change the terms at any time and that is perfectly fine. However, what the Exchange cannot do is vary the terms via an agreement and then steal $3,000, and then vary the terms again to cover up stealing the $3,000 (by closing the ticket and cancelling the service agreed to by Aezal).

It is poor practice to not include a date of last edit for the Terms of Service. The Exchange knows this because they have that very thing on their Privacy Policy document. (Exhibit 21)


In response to the second paragraph:

“The plaintiff has filed false accusations against TE regarding a monetary exchange between a private trader (Mags) and TE. No monetary exchange occurred during this transaction (the one before the court) between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding this private trader.”

This is an interesting sleight of hand. See, what opposing counsel is attempting to do is say that the monetary exchange between magsymags and the Exchange (not an “alleged” monetary exchange) has nothing to do with me and I cannot use it as an argument. This is factually incorrect as the $3,000 that was sent to Nacholebraa (acting on behalf of the Exchange) (Exhibit 20) was supposed to be the Plaintiff’s money and the Exchange stole money 1. From magsymags because he did not receive the service that he paid for, and 2. From the Plaintiff as that $3,000 was supposed to be for the Plaintiff and it was not transferred to the Plaintiff.

Within the second paragraph of the motion to dismiss, opposing counsel has essentially admitted that there was money received by magsymags and also admitted that there was no financial interaction between the Exchange and the Plaintiff. That is exactly why we are here. The Exchange stole $3,000 from the Plaintiff, and the Exchange stole $3,000 worth of stocks from magsymags. Opposing counsel does not deny the fact that money was received from magsymags.

magsymags’ part of the agreement was fulfilled. Aezal said if Mags sent the money to Nacho, he would do it manually. Aezal did not process the transaction although they did receive the money from Mags, as the Exchange does not deny the monetary exchange between the Exchange and magsymags.


In response to the third paragraph:

“3. TE in this instance is merely protecting itself from possible litigation for violating a clearly written act of congress (CLA) in reference to the pricing of securities. As notated below;

(3) Securities Exchanges will be prohibited from calculating the market prices of shares in Public Companies using any factors other than the market supply of and demand for said shares. They will be responsible for updating these prices without requiring further input from the companies of which the shares grant ownership in.”

Within that law. It states that:

“Securities Exchanges will be prohibited from calculating the market prices of shares in Public Companies using any factors other than the market supply of and demand for said shares.”

The Plaintiff was supply, and magsymags was demand. The Plaintiff and magsymags were in arms-length negotiation and had no previous relationship and together agreed upon the price of $3,000 for 8 Onyx Industries shares. That is supply and demand. Any price that the Exchange sets beyond what is established by supply and demand (such as the agreement between magsymags and the Plaintiff to exchange 8 Onyx Industries shares for $3,000) is illegal.

The claim that the Exchange is merely protecting itself by using this law is nonsense. They are actively violating the exact same law that they are supposedly so careful to abide by. Whatever price the Exchange forces people to use is market manipulation and is not using supply and demand to price the stocks.

The Exchange cancelled the service stated by Aezal on September 7, 11:14 PM EST in order to steal $3,000. They are also manipulating market prices (presumably for the Exchange’s gain) by forcing prices on participants in the Exchange via something other than supply and demand. That is illegal.


In response to the fourth paragraph.

“4. The plaintiff is also accusing TE of doing $30,000 in punitive damages, which is a short hop and a long leap without showing any evidence to prove that TE did in fact do damages to the plaintiff. TE again as mentioned previously is simply enforcing its TOS by canceling / not permitting a service to occur in our own understanding of the CLA. Should the courts allow for this case to go forward it would set a dangerous precedent that companies will have to openly and blindly do things that could be against the law all because the customer wanted a service done. We still firmly believe that should the plaintiff not wish to not agree with the TOS then it is within their own understanding they will no longer use our services.”

First, the Exchange stole $3,000 from the Plaintiff. Second, the Exchange stole $3,000 worth of stocks from magsymags by not processing the transaction as Aezal had agreed, even when money had already been sent to Nacholebraa to process the transaction. No investigation as to what happened to the money took place. Nacholebraa simply forced the Plaintiff to close the ticket and thus stole money from magsymags and had a smile on his face while doing so (Exhibit 17). Third, the Exchange lied to the Plaintiff three times. At least two of those constitute fraud under the Crack Down on White Collar Crime Act. Fourth, the Exchange is blatantly violating the law they claim so fervently to uphold by manipulating the market and forcing people to purchase and sell stocks for some other price than has been deemed by supply and demand, which is in direct violation of the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act 4(3).

The aim of punitive damages is to punish the Defendant for their wrongdoing and deter others from engaging in similar wrongful conduct.

This type of damage may include:

Civil penalties for any profits or gains obtained by the defendant from the illegal transaction

Additional monetary payment paid by the defendant to the plaintiff on top of the other damages


The court typically applies this type of damages to cases where the defendant has engaged or acted outrageously or maliciously. Thus, in theory, this damage would set an example for others not to follow.

This is perfectly reasonable ask of the court given the outrageous behavior shown by the Exchange, Nacholebraa, and Aezal. This is to keep other Securities Exchanges, and the Exchange themselves from participating in this behavior.

Exhibit 19

Exhibit 20

Exhibit 21

DATED: This 8th day of September, 2022

 

[dygyee]

Before I rule on the motion to dismiss, @Nacho did you pay magsymsgs their $3,000 back or no, and if you did, please send proof with a time stamp. You have 24 hours to answer.

 

[Admin23]

Your Honor, I asked magsymags and he told me that it had still not been refunded as of 10:12 PM EST.

I do not mean to speak out of line however the more information the court has, the better.

 

[dygyee]

Admin, thank you for the extra information, but please don’t speak out of turn. This is your warning. In the future please ask the presiding judge if you may present more information.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

The private trader Mags did in fact deposit funds into their Exchange Account. On September 5th. TE has not touched or modified these funds as no request has been made by the private trader. I have attached the following screenshots of the transcript of 'Support-0192' which is the original registration of the private trader Mags, which they did in fact deposit funds into their account. TE understands these funds to be used through the buying and selling of stocks through the broker bot. See 'Capture 1' & 'Capture 2' for these logs.

In 'Capture 3' and 'Capture 4' you can still see the funds are still in private trader Mag's account within The Exchange and have never left their account. For clarification, the account number is in reference to the discord ID of the user on discord.

However,

Your Honor the plaintiff has claimed that private trader mags have sent TE $3,000 for this transaction which TE did in fact ask for clarification to be made and none was provided to representatives of TE within 'Support-0193' which can be found within 'Capture 5' and 'Capture 6' - The plaintiff was insistent that private trader mags sent the $3,000 to TE which again was never confirmed by private trader mags to a representative of TE. The plaintiff did in fact ping private trader mags within 'Support-0193' for proof of the transfer of funds but clearly, the support ticket was closed before proof could be provided.

To answer your question specifically - TE has not sent any money back to the private trader mags as it's simply within their account they have not asked for the money to be sent back within a support ticket. They can request these funds at any time and the funds will be transferred back to them.

 

[dygyee]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Admin23 v. The Exchange [2022] FCR 67

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff, and magsymags agreed that Admin23 would sell 8 shares of Onyx Industries to magsymags for a price of $3,000.
2. They opened a ticket with The Exchange to transfer the shares and the $3,000.
3. The Exchange said that the total price would be $3,158.94 as there was a commission that needed to be paid as well.
4. After magsymags paid $3,000 to Nacho, the owner of The Exchange, and rude and disrespectful messages by staff for The Exchange, they were told to do it manually in game, despite the plug-in not allowing custom prices for stocks.
5. It's illegal for the Defendant to not allow the transfer of the stocks at the price that Admin23 and magsymags agreed upon because they are forcing people to use the price in game, which is market manipulation.
6. Lastly after they were turned away, the exchange stole $3,000 from magsymags because they wouldn't give it back after magsymags paid for a service they never received.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Exchange is a private company, and within the terms of service say that service can be denied or canceled at any time.
2. Even though there was no need for a reason when cancelling the services, their reason in this case was that they didn't want to violate the Corporate Law and Shareholders Protections Act or CLA.
3. There was never any monetary exchange between magsymags and The Exchange, therefore the plaintiffs allegations that The Exchange kept magymag's $3,000 is false.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. Firstly, in order for there to be a case in the first place, the Plaintiff must allege that the Defendant did something illegal that warrants the prayer(s) for relief. In this case, although the Plaintiff didn't put these alleged illegal acts committed by the Defendant in their claims for relief, which they should have, the 2 alleged illegal acts that they claim the Defendant committed are violating the CLA by forcing players to use the in-game price for stocks, and stealing $3,000 from magsymags.
2. While it is illegal to create their own market price for stocks on any other factors besides supply and demand, it is not illegal for the The Exchange to allow the transfer of stocks between 2 players if both players agree on a price, as The Exchange wouldn't be creating a price. Therefore it wouldn't have been illegal for The Exchange to provide the requested services.
3. However it also isn't illegal for them to not provide these services, and make players buy and sell stocks in game. It would be nice if the plug-in allowed you to set the price you want to buy/sell at (Meaning allow buy/sell orders), it isn't market manipulation for The Exchange to force people to buy/sell in game because they aren't manipulating the market at all.
4. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant was rude and demeaning, however through the evidence, it shows that there was some level of rudeness by both parties at some point throughout the ticket. Furthermore not being rude isn't a law, so the court can't handle someone who was rude to someone else, if this is a true issue, I recommend you contact staff.
5. Lastly when it comes to magsymag's $3,000, they are entitled to a refund, however since this case was not filed by or for magsymags, I can't award them the $3,000. If they want the $3,000 they may request a refund, anf if The Exchange won't give a refund, they may file a court case of their own.
6. On a separate note, Nacho did lie when he said "The plaintiff has filed false accusations against TE regarding a monetary exchange between a private trader (Mags) and TE. No monetary exchange occurred during this transaction (the one before the court) between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding this private trader." This statement has been proven wrong by images from the ticket of magsymags sending $3,000 to nacho.

IV. DECISION
1. Because one of the alleged crimes that the Defendant committed isn't a crime, and the other has nothing to do with the Plaintiff, but rather magsymags, the motion to dismiss has been accepted, and this case is hereby dismissed.
2. Separately because Nacho lied about there being no monetary transaction throughout the whole process, he is charged with perjury. I hereby order the DOJ to fine him the minimum amount of $1,000.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.