Lawsuit: Adjourned Dragonfly0001, Brustklefurry, YourLocalDiabeto V. CopTop_YT [2024] FCR 91

Status
Not open for further replies.
Towloo

Towloo

Citizen
Representative
Homeland Security Department
Oakridge Resident
Statesman Popular in the Polls 4th Anniversary Change Maker
Towloo
Towloo
Representative
Joined
Nov 22, 2023
Messages
346
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Dragonfly0001, Brustklefurry, YourLocalDiabeto
Plaintiffs


V


CopTop_YT
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The plaintiff complains against the defendants as follows:

Throughout multiple instances, the defendant has harassed the plaintiffs and caused many damages through no fault of my clients (P-001 + Witness testimonies). In particular, they have forced the plaintiffs to close their business, live in constant fear of being shot, and have prevented them from going about their daily lives. The defendant has achieved such a punitive feat by constantly showing up towards my clients’ lawful shop and shooting towards them. The plaintiffs have no other option other than to close all the doors, preventing any business that would have come.

I. PARTIES
1) Dragonfly0001 (Plaintiff)

2) Brustklefurry (Plaintiff)

3) YourLocalDiabeto (Plaintiff)

4) CopTop_YT (Defendant)

5) lawanoespr (Defendant)

6) Alexthelillion (Defendant)

7) _A_S_H_E_R (Witness)

8) LandoPlayzo (Witness)

II. FACTS
1) The defendant has constantly harassed the plaintiffs

2) The defendant’s harassment caused the plaintiffs’ closing shop

3) The plaintiffs had to live in constant fear of being shot due to the harassment

4) The plaintiffs were prevented from going about their daily lives

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1) The definition of Compensatory Damages as per the Legal Damages Act is, “ ‘Compensatory damages’ are the damages awarded to a person as compensation; security or protection against a loss or other financial burden.” The defendant has imposed a great financial burden upon my clients as their business has been prevented from being open due to the constant threat of another attack.

2) The definition of Emotional Damages as per the Legal Damages Act is, “Situations in which a person suffers psychological harm due to an entity's negligent or intentional actions.” The plaintiffs have certainly suffered psychological harm due to their having to live in constant fear of dying (this is very mentally straining) as well as having to physically fight against the defendant’s actions.

3) The definition of Loss of Enjoyment as per the Legal Damages Act is, “situations in which an injured party loses their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm.” My clients were completely able to sell their products and go about their daily lives before the harassment, but afterwards, they were having to defend their property against the defendant and live in fear that another attack would come, preventing them from performing daily operations.

4) The definition of Punitive Damages as per the Legal Damages Act is, “‘Punitive damages’ are damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future.” Attempting and successfully trying to kill multiple people multiple times across multiple incidents is certainly outrageous conduct. This court must award these punitive damages because if they’re not awarded, the defendant will continue with their outrageous behavior and most likely harass more innocent Redmont citizens.

IV. PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
1) $10,000 in compensatory damages for the lost business
2) $15,000 in emotional damages
3) $15,000 in loss of enjoyment
4) $20,000 in punitive damages
5) $18,000 in legal fees

V. EVIDENCE


Screen Shot 2024-06-06 at 11.22.15 AM.png
Screen Shot 2024-06-06 at 12.33.47 PM.png
 
Seal_Judiciary.png


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

@CopTop is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Dragonfly0001, Brustklefurry, YourLocalDiabeto V. CopTop_YT. 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.​
 
yo yo
 
Please submit your response to the complaint within the specified timeframe.
 
Your honor, the defendant has retained Prestige Law Firm for this case.
Screenshot 2024-06-16 214555.png
 
Thank you. Please submit your response to the complaint within the specified timeframe.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Dismiss​
Your honor, the defendant respectfully requests that this case is dismissed under Rule 5.5 Lack of Claim.

In the video that the plaintiff has provided the Court, the Defendant never appears. Damages cannot be awarded in a situation my client was evidently not even involved in. My client has no business in this case, and the claim that the plaintiff is making is frivolous. The defendant respectfully requests that this case is dismissed with prejudice, and that the plaintiff is charged with a frivolous case.
 
The plaintiff has 48 hours to respond.
 
itsBlazeX said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Dismiss​
Your honor, the defendant respectfully requests that this case is dismissed under Rule 5.5 Lack of Claim.

In the video that the plaintiff has provided the Court, the Defendant never appears. Damages cannot be awarded in a situation my client was evidently not even involved in. My client has no business in this case, and the claim that the plaintiff is making is frivolous. The defendant respectfully requests that this case is dismissed with prejudice, and that the plaintiff is charged with a frivolous case.
Click to expand...
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

I oppose the motion to dismiss, as witness testimonies are vital evidence that must be considered. While the video footage is limited (The filmer's storage restrained further filming), witness accounts can provide crucial supplementary evidence. Hearing the testimonies of my clients, witnesses, and the defendant will allow the court to thoroughly evaluate the evidence and determine whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed.

Dismissing the case now would deprive the court of the opportunity to carefully consider all relevant evidence. I respectfully request that the court deny the motion to dismiss in order to allow us to present the witness testimonies.

Thank you, Your Honor.
 
Last edited:
Your honor, I seem to have forgotten the following and request to edit it into my previous message:

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO MOTION TO DISMISS
 
The Motion to Dismiss is denied. This decision is straightforward: the motion was filed on the basis of a lack of evidence implicating the defendant. I believe discovery is necessary to determine the validity of the claims. This ruling does not prevent the defense from filing another motion to dismiss at a later stage.

We will now move into a 7 Day Discovery period. Should both sides agree, discovery can be ended early.

During this time any evidence or witnesses need to be asked/submitted. We will not be allowing new evidence or witnesses to be submitted during the course of the trial.
 
The Defendant wishes to submit the following interrogatory:
1. How exactly did the Defendant cause harm to the Plaintiffs?
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY

1) The defendant caused harm exactly by constantly harassing the plaintiffs via shooting at their property.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WITNESS LISTS

The plaintiffs wish to call Dragonfly0001 to the stand

The plaintiffs wish to call Brustklefurry to the stand

The plaintiffs wish to call YourLocalDiabeto to the stand

The plaintiffs wish to call _A_S_H_E_R to the stand

The plaintiffs wish to call LandoPlayzo to the stand
 
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure
Your honor, several witnesses have appeared before they were summoned. The defendant also move that their statements be struck.
 
The defendant wishes to submit the following interrogatory:
2. How is each witness connected to this event?
 
itsBlazeX said:
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure
Your honor, several witnesses have appeared before they were summoned. The defendant also move that their statements be struck.
Click to expand...
Sustained and struck. Let me remind witnesses not to speak until summoned.
 
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure
Your honor, Court rule 4.8 states "Answers to Interrogatories must be made within 48 hours of being asked." The last interrogatory was asked over 48 hours ago, and the plaintiff has not responded. The defense respectfully requests you hold them in contempt, and order the plaintiff to provide an answer to the interrogatory.
 
itsBlazeX said:
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure
Your honor, Court rule 4.8 states "Answers to Interrogatories must be made within 48 hours of being asked." The last interrogatory was asked over 48 hours ago, and the plaintiff has not responded. The defense respectfully requests you hold them in contempt, and order the plaintiff to provide an answer to the interrogatory.
Click to expand...
Your honor, I sincerely apologize for not responding to the interrogatory. This is completely my mistake and we will answer the interrogatory momentarily. I understand if you decide to charge me with contempt of court, but I just ask that you don't given that I unintentionally made this mistake without malice.
 
Objection sustained. I won’t be holding you in contempt this time, but don’t let it happen again. Please answer the question in the next hour.
 
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY
2) The witnesses (Including the plaintiffs) directly observed some instances of threats/attacks that the defendant (and accomplices) launched onto the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs' store.
 
Given Discovery is now over, we will be moving onto Opening Statements.

The Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide their Opening Statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Dismiss​
Your honor, the defendant respectfully requests that this case is dismissed under Rule 5.5 Lack of Claim.

In the video that the plaintiff has provided the Court, the Defendant never appears. Damages cannot be awarded in a situation my client was evidently not even involved in. My client has no business in this case, and the claim that the plaintiff is making is frivolous. The defendant respectfully requests that this case is dismissed with prejudice, and that the plaintiff is charged with a frivolous case.

Your honor, the plaintiff has yet to provide proof of any injury. You said it yourself, "I believe discovery is necessary to determine the validity of the claims." Discovery has concluded, and the plaintiff has provided no further evidence. There is no evidence to support their claim other than biased witnesses. The defense respectfully requests that this case is dismissed with prejudice.
 
The plaintiff has 48 hours to respond.
 
itsBlazeX said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Dismiss​
Your honor, the defendant respectfully requests that this case is dismissed under Rule 5.5 Lack of Claim.

In the video that the plaintiff has provided the Court, the Defendant never appears. Damages cannot be awarded in a situation my client was evidently not even involved in. My client has no business in this case, and the claim that the plaintiff is making is frivolous. The defendant respectfully requests that this case is dismissed with prejudice, and that the plaintiff is charged with a frivolous case.

Your honor, the plaintiff has yet to provide proof of any injury. You said it yourself, "I believe discovery is necessary to determine the validity of the claims." Discovery has concluded, and the plaintiff has provided no further evidence. There is no evidence to support their claim other than biased witnesses. The defense respectfully requests that this case is dismissed with prejudice.
Click to expand...
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO MOTION TO DISMISS

The Plaintiffs vehemently oppose the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Defendant's arguments are both premature and unfounded, and we are confident that moving to witness testimonies will unequivocally establish the Defendant's liability.

The Defendant’s motion ignores the pivotal role of witness testimonies in this case. These testimonies are critical in demonstrating the Defendant's involvement and liability. The Plaintiffs have identified multiple credible witnesses who can directly attest to the Defendant’s actions and their impact across several incidents. Their testimonies, which have yet to be heard, will provide irrefutable evidence of the Defendant's culpability.

The Defendant's reliance on the absence of their appearance in the video is a red herring. The video does not capture the entirety of the events across multiple incidents, and key happenings attributable to the Defendant occur outside its frame. The witness testimonies will bridge these gaps and conclusively link the Defendant to the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs in each incident.

The Plaintiffs have the unequivocal right to present their case, including all pertinent evidence and witness testimonies. Dismissing the case at this juncture would be a grave injustice, precluding the Court from considering the full spectrum of evidence that definitively implicates the Defendant in multiple incidents.

In conclusion, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss. It is imperative that we proceed to witness testimonies, where the full extent of the Defendant’s liability across multiple incidents will be unequivocally established.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

I stand before you today to seek justice for the plaintiffs, individuals like us who have endured relentless harassment and profound suffering at the hands of the defendant. This case centers on a deliberate and malicious campaign that has disrupted lives, repeatedly forced the temporary closure of a thriving business, and instilled an ever-present fear for safety in my clients.

The plaintiffs, dedicated business owners, have endured repeated and egregious acts of harassment from the defendant. Witness testimonies will show that the defendant's actions have been calculated and persistent, driving my clients to temporarily shut down their business multiple times due to the series of critical incidents detailed in the video. They have lived in a state of constant fear of being shot, a fear grounded in the defendant’s menacing behavior.

Your Honor, you will hear from five credible witnesses, including the plaintiffs, who will testify to the defendant’s actions. These testimonies will provide a detailed and compelling account of the repeated terror and disruption caused by the defendant. The plaintiffs' gun store, once a place of commerce, has been transformed into a fortress of fear, with doors closed intermittently during and after each attack to prevent any potential threat.

The defense may argue that the absence of the defendant in video footage absolves them of responsibility. However, I will demonstrate that the video, labeled as Exhibit P-001, does not capture the full scope of the defendant's actions. Multiple critical incidents occur outside the frame, but they are vividly etched in the memories of those who witnessed them. These witness testimonies will fill in the gaps and provide irrefutable evidence of the defendant's culpability.

Your Honor, as the proceedings continue, you will see the overwhelming impact of the defendant's repeated actions as described by the witnesses. I ask that you carefully consider the testimonies and the evidence presented, and deliver a judgment that holds the defendant accountable for the harm they have caused.

Thank you.
 
I apologies for the delay I will rule on the motion to dismiss shortly.
 
itsBlazeX said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Dismiss​
Your honor, the defendant respectfully requests that this case is dismissed under Rule 5.5 Lack of Claim.

In the video that the plaintiff has provided the Court, the Defendant never appears. Damages cannot be awarded in a situation my client was evidently not even involved in. My client has no business in this case, and the claim that the plaintiff is making is frivolous. The defendant respectfully requests that this case is dismissed with prejudice, and that the plaintiff is charged with a frivolous case.

Your honor, the plaintiff has yet to provide proof of any injury. You said it yourself, "I believe discovery is necessary to determine the validity of the claims." Discovery has concluded, and the plaintiff has provided no further evidence. There is no evidence to support their claim other than biased witnesses. The defense respectfully requests that this case is dismissed with prejudice.
Click to expand...
After deliberation, I have decided to deny the motion to dismiss. The key consideration was whether witness evidence could provide enough insight to determine if the claims meet the requirements and are undeniably true. Witness testimony may indeed provide sufficient insight to alter the direction of any case.

The Defendant has 72 hours to provide their opening statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your honor, this is a ridiculous case. The plaintiff is accusing my client harassing them and impacting their business. This case is frivolous, and my client shouldn't be expected to pay a dime in this lawsuit.

Let's begin with the video that the plaintiff has provided to the Court. In this video, my client never appears once. This evidence is irrelevant, and I wonder why it was even entered as evidence in the first place. Given the evidence doesn't support their claim in any way, the plaintiff is now turning to the word of biased witnesses. There is no concrete proof of the plaintiffs being harassed. Additionally, the plaintiff flat out lied to the Court about closing their shop, which is still accessible today. The plaintiffs have shown no evidence of their lives being impacted. This case is frivolous, and should not have made it past discovery. The defense respectfully asks that the Court take into account the lack of evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim should this case make it to a verdict.

Thank you.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COUNTERCLAIM

CopTop_YT (Prestige Law Firm representing)
Counterplaintiff

v.

Dragonfly0001, Brustklefurry, YourLocalDiabeto (Dragon Law Firm representing)
Counterdefendants

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The defense is countersuing for legal fees due to the frivolous nature of this case. This is a ridiculous case, and my client should not be expected to pay a dime for hiring a lawyer in a case that has no merit.

I. PARTIES
1. CopTop_YT (Counterplaintiff)
2. Dragonfly0001 (Counterdefendant)
3. Brustklefurry (Counterdefendant)
4. YourLocalDiabeto (Counterdefendant)

II. FACTS
1. A frivolous lawsuit was filed by the plaintiff.
2. Prestige Law Firm will be billing CopTop_YT $18,000 (30% of case value) for this case.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Legal Damages Act permits the defense to collect $5,000 or 30% of the value of the case, whichever is higher, if it prevails over the plaintiff.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $18,000 in legal fees (30% of total case value).

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 July 2024
 
The Plaintiff has 72 hours to respond to the counterclaim.

After the response, we will proceed to witness testimony.
 
itsBlazeX said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COUNTERCLAIM

CopTop_YT (Prestige Law Firm representing)
Counterplaintiff

v.

Dragonfly0001, Brustklefurry, YourLocalDiabeto (Dragon Law Firm representing)
Counterdefendants

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The defense is countersuing for legal fees due to the frivolous nature of this case. This is a ridiculous case, and my client should not be expected to pay a dime for hiring a lawyer in a case that has no merit.

I. PARTIES
1. CopTop_YT (Counterplaintiff)
2. Dragonfly0001 (Counterdefendant)
3. Brustklefurry (Counterdefendant)
4. YourLocalDiabeto (Counterdefendant)

II. FACTS
1. A frivolous lawsuit was filed by the plaintiff.
2. Prestige Law Firm will be billing CopTop_YT $18,000 (30% of case value) for this case.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Legal Damages Act permits the defense to collect $5,000 or 30% of the value of the case, whichever is higher, if it prevails over the plaintiff.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $18,000 in legal fees (30% of total case value).

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 July 2024
Click to expand...
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM

CopTop_YT
Counterplaintiff

V.

Dragonfly0001, Brustklefurry, YourLocalDiabeto
Counterdefendants

ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM
1) The counterdefendants dispute fact one
2) The counterdefendants neither confirm nor deny fact two given that the defense has no knowledge of what Prestige Law will be billing the counterplaintiff

DEFENSES
1) Had the lawsuit been frivolous, the two separate motions to dismiss would've been granted, which they haven't (especially the second one).
2) Had the lawsuit been frivolous, there would've been a Sua Sponte Dismissal.
3) "(e) In the event that the plaintiff initiates legal proceedings and such proceedings are dismissed by the court or result in a judgment in favor of the defendant, the prevailing party's legal representatives shall be entitled to recover reasonable legal fees from the plaintiff, capped at $5,000 or 20% of the case's value, whichever is higher." -Legal Damages Act. This would mean that the could only get $12,000 maximum.
 
1712719404002.png



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

@Dragonfly, @Brustkile, @Yourlocaldiabeto, @_A_S_H_E_R and @LandoPlayzo is required to appear before the court in the case of Dragonfly0001, Brustklefurry, YourLocalDiabeto V. CopTop_YT. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a Contempt of Court charge.​
 
Your honor YourLocalDiabeto, LandoPlayzo, and _A_S_H_E_R have failed to appear.
 
The witnesses who failed to appear are hereby held in contempt.

@Yourlocaldiabeto, @LandoPlayzo and @_A_S_H_E_R The witnesses are hereby summoned again. Failure to appear within 48 hours will result in another contempt charge.

@Towloo You may begin questioning the witnesses. Please direct your questions to both witnesses at the same time within the next 24 hours. Witnesses, please respond within 24 hours. Any follow-up questions should also be asked within 24 hours after the witnesses' responses.
 
Your Honor if I maybe so bold to say the following statement,

@Yourlocaldiabeto has a real life job and has not been able to make the time in this circumstantial situation, @_A_S_H_E_R is in the same situation with irl work,
I can't speak for @LandoPlayzo, His whereabouts are unknown to me at this time.
 
Brustkile said:
Your Honor if I maybe so bold to say the following statement,

@Yourlocaldiabeto has a real life job and has not been able to make the time in this circumstantial situation, @_A_S_H_E_R is in the same situation with irl work,
I can't speak for @LandoPlayzo, His whereabouts are unknown to me at this time.
Click to expand...
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure
Your honor, the Court did not ask for the Plaintiff’s comment about why the witnesses have not appeared. If these witnesses have a reason for not appearing, they have had several weeks to notify the Court of that reason. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has yet again spoken out of turn. I respectfully request you hold the Plaintiff in contempt, and strike their statement from the record.
 
Brustkile said:
Your Honor if I maybe so bold to say the following statement,

@Yourlocaldiabeto has a real life job and has not been able to make the time in this circumstantial situation, @_A_S_H_E_R is in the same situation with irl work,
I can't speak for @LandoPlayzo, His whereabouts are unknown to me at this time.
Click to expand...
OBJECTION
Hearsay
Your honor, the Plaintiff is testifying about events they have not directly observed.
 
itsBlazeX said:
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure
Your honor, the Court did not ask for the Plaintiff’s comment about why the witnesses have not appeared. If these witnesses have a reason for not appearing, they have had several weeks to notify the Court of that reason. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has yet again spoken out of turn. I respectfully request you hold the Plaintiff in contempt, and strike their statement from the record.
Click to expand...
Are you for real. Did you pass the bar with a box of lucky charms
 
Brustkile said:
Are you for real. Did you pass the bar with a box of lucky charms
Click to expand...
Your honor and opposing counsel, I sincerely apologize for my client's conduct. There have been many emotions surrounding this incident which caused my client to lash out. The statements that have been made should not have been made and the plaintiff sincerely apologizes and withdraws them.
 
Brustkile said:
Are you for real. Did you pass the bar with a box of lucky charms
Click to expand...
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure
Your honor, the Plaintiff’s conduct was uncalled for, and is yet again out of turn. I move that their statement be struck, and and request that you hold them in contempt.
 
itsBlazeX said:
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure
Your honor, the Court did not ask for the Plaintiff’s comment about why the witnesses have not appeared. If these witnesses have a reason for not appearing, they have had several weeks to notify the Court of that reason. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has yet again spoken out of turn. I respectfully request you hold the Plaintiff in contempt, and strike their statement from the record.
Click to expand...
Sustained. Speak out of line again, @Brustkile, and you will be held in contempt.
 
itsBlazeX said:
OBJECTION
Hearsay
Your honor, the Plaintiff is testifying about events they have not directly observed.
Click to expand...
Overruled. Since I sustained the first objection, this really isn't necessary.
 
itsBlazeX said:
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure
Your honor, the Plaintiff’s conduct was uncalled for, and is yet again out of turn. I move that their statement be struck, and and request that you hold them in contempt.
Click to expand...
Sustained. Again, if ANYONE speaks out of line, I will hold them in contempt.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
Sustained. Again, if ANYONE speaks out of line, I will hold them in contempt.
Click to expand...
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Your honor, I move that the Plaintiff is held in contempt. They have spoken out of turn several times, and dedicated their second comment to attacking the Defendant’s counsel. Their behavior was out of line, and should not be acceptable in a courtroom. I respectfully request they are held in contempt.
 
itsBlazeX said:
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Your honor, I move that the Plaintiff is held in contempt. They have spoken out of turn several times, and dedicated their second comment to attacking the Defendant’s counsel. Their behavior was out of line, and should not be acceptable in a courtroom. I respectfully request they are held in contempt.
Click to expand...

Sustained. I will hold them in contempt; you are correct, they were out of line.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES

1) [To all witnesses] What is the absolute minimum amount of violent incidents the defendant has taken part in against the plaintiffs
 
Your honor, the deadline has passed, and not a single witness has responded.
 
Towloo said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Dragonfly0001, Brustklefurry, YourLocalDiabeto
Plaintiffs


V


CopTop_YT
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The plaintiff complains against the defendants as follows:

Throughout multiple instances, the defendant has harassed the plaintiffs and caused many damages through no fault of my clients (P-001 + Witness testimonies). In particular, they have forced the plaintiffs to close their business, live in constant fear of being shot, and have prevented them from going about their daily lives. The defendant has achieved such a punitive feat by constantly showing up towards my clients’ lawful shop and shooting towards them. The plaintiffs have no other option other than to close all the doors, preventing any business that would have come.

I. PARTIES
1) Dragonfly0001 (Plaintiff)

2) Brustklefurry (Plaintiff)

3) YourLocalDiabeto (Plaintiff)

4) CopTop_YT (Defendant)

5) lawanoespr (Defendant)

6) Alexthelillion (Defendant)

7) _A_S_H_E_R (Witness)

8) LandoPlayzo (Witness)

II. FACTS
1) The defendant has constantly harassed the plaintiffs

2) The defendant’s harassment caused the plaintiffs’ closing shop

3) The plaintiffs had to live in constant fear of being shot due to the harassment

4) The plaintiffs were prevented from going about their daily lives

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1) The definition of Compensatory Damages as per the Legal Damages Act is, “ ‘Compensatory damages’ are the damages awarded to a person as compensation; security or protection against a loss or other financial burden.” The defendant has imposed a great financial burden upon my clients as their business has been prevented from being open due to the constant threat of another attack.

2) The definition of Emotional Damages as per the Legal Damages Act is, “Situations in which a person suffers psychological harm due to an entity's negligent or intentional actions.” The plaintiffs have certainly suffered psychological harm due to their having to live in constant fear of dying (this is very mentally straining) as well as having to physically fight against the defendant’s actions.

3) The definition of Loss of Enjoyment as per the Legal Damages Act is, “situations in which an injured party loses their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm.” My clients were completely able to sell their products and go about their daily lives before the harassment, but afterwards, they were having to defend their property against the defendant and live in fear that another attack would come, preventing them from performing daily operations.

4) The definition of Punitive Damages as per the Legal Damages Act is, “‘Punitive damages’ are damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future.” Attempting and successfully trying to kill multiple people multiple times across multiple incidents is certainly outrageous conduct. This court must award these punitive damages because if they’re not awarded, the defendant will continue with their outrageous behavior and most likely harass more innocent Redmont citizens.

IV. PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
1) $10,000 in compensatory damages for the lost business
2) $15,000 in emotional damages
3) $15,000 in loss of enjoyment
4) $20,000 in punitive damages
5) $18,000 in legal fees

V. EVIDENCE


View attachment 44469View attachment 44470
Click to expand...
Hi question, why am I in this. And can I stop getting fined over and over again
 
LandoPlayzo said:
Hi question, why am I in this. And can I stop getting fined over and over again
Click to expand...
You have been summoned as a witness. When a question is directed to you, please respond promptly.
 
LandoPlayzo said:
Can I respectfully ask that you find another witness? Since I don't have discord and all
Click to expand...
No. You have a forums account, so if a question is asked here, just answer it.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
@Brustkile is held in contempt for not responding.

Since no questions have been asked in the past 24 hours, we will move on.

The defense has 24 hours to ask any questions. The witnesses then have 24 hours to answer, followed by 24 hours for follow-up questions. @itsBlazeX
Click to expand...
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, I sincerely apologize for not posting further questions, as I was awaiting the response of the witness in order to properly formulate the next questions (which I assumed would come in a timely manner). I respectfully request that you put us back into the plaintiffs questioning in order to have a fair trial.
 
Overruled. Granting you extra time would result in an unfair trial, not a fair one.
 
Your Honor,

ItsBlazeX has left Redmont and has resigned from his position. I am now handling this case.

I request an additional 24 hours so that I can look over the case thoroughly and respond.
 
The defence has no questions your honor.
 
Okay.

The plaintiff has 72 hours to provide their closing statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honor,

May it please the court,

At the heart of our case is the testimony of a single witness, who courageously recounted a critical fact: there were three violent incidents involving the defendant at the plaintiffs' shop. This crucial detail highlights the significant threat and intimidation inflicted upon the plaintiffs by the defendant's actions.

This testimony vividly portrays the deliberate attempts to disrupt the plaintiffs' business operations and instill fear. Each incident described forced the plaintiffs to close their business, resulting in substantial lost revenue and financial hardship. These closures not only impacted their economic stability but also deprived the community of essential services and undermined the plaintiffs' ability to enjoy their work.

While the witness did not delve into emotional distress, the financial and operational disruptions outlined in their testimony indirectly illustrate the profound impact on the plaintiffs' lives. The fear and uncertainty caused by the defendant's menacing behavior have left a lasting mark, affecting their sense of security and well-being.

As you deliberate, I urge you to consider the comprehensive impact of these damages. They underscore the severity of the defendant's actions and the compelling need for accountability. Justice demands that those responsible for such significant harm are held accountable for their actions.

Thank you.
 
The defendant has 72 hours to provide their closing statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honor,

May it please the court,

We are here to determine the facts and deliver a just verdict. The plaintiff alleges that my client has harassed the plaintiff and impacted their business. However, the evidence does not support this claim.


The plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence that links my client to any of these claims and witnesses haven’t linked my client to any of the allegations.


In conclusion, the plaintiff has not met the burden of proof required for a conviction. The accusations are unsubstantiated, and punishing my client based on these claims would be unjust.


Thank you.
 
Court is in recess pending verdict.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

Dragonfly0001, Brustklefurry, YourLocalDiabeto V. CopTop_YT [2024] FCR 91

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The defendant has constantly harassed the plaintiffs, causing them to close their business, live in constant fear of being shot, and preventing them from going about their daily lives. The plaintiffs claim that the defendant's actions, which include showing up at their shop and shooting towards them, have caused significant emotional, financial, and personal harm.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The defendant is arguing that the video provided by the plaintiffs does not show the defendant. The defendant asserts that they were not involved in the alleged incidents and that the claims are frivolous.

III. THE COURT OPINION

  1. This ruling is based on the information presented by the parties and matters commonly known to the public.
  2. The Plaintiff’s case relies heavily on one video and witness testimony. Although the Defendant did not appear in the video, the court intended to use witness testimony to assess the balance of probabilities for this case. However, for cases that depend on witness testimony, it is crucial that witnesses appear in court and are asked well-thought-out questions to extract relevant information.
  3. In this case, one witness answered only one question, which was, “What is the absolute minimum number of violent incidents the defendant has taken part in against the plaintiffs?” The witness responded with “Three.” This provided little insight into the specifics of the situation. Key details such as whether these incidents occurred at the shop or elsewhere, or if the plaintiffs filed complaints for these incidents, were not clarified.
  4. Given the lack of detailed evidence and the inability to determine the specifics based on the balance of probabilities, the court cannot rule in favor of the Plaintiff. There is no substantial proof that the shop was closed or that the defendant attacked the plaintiffs at the shop.
  5. It is important to note that, had the case favored the plaintiff, damages could be issued as stated in the Legal Damages Act.

IV. DECISION
In the matter of FCR 91, I rule in favor of the Defendant. I will also be providing the defendant with legal fees at the expense of the plaintiffs.
  1. $5,000 in legal fees given to CopTop_YT to be paid to their attorney.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top