Lawsuit: Adjourned Wasserschafe v. A29_2 [2024] DCR 34

[asexualdinosaur]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Wasserschafe (Represented by Titan Law)
Plaintiff

v.

A29_2
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
On August 10th, 2024, our client was murdered and harassed multiple times over the course of their stay at the prison.
Our client was humiliated and insulted by the actions of A29_2. In addition our client experienced psychological and emotional damage not only from the continued murdering, but as well having their ability to use the mines restricted, and their stay arbitrarily lengthened.

I. PARTIES
1. Wasserschafe ( Plaintiff )
2. A29_2 ( Defendant )

II. FACTS
1) The defendant threatened the plaintiff (Exhibit P-1)

2) The defendant murdered the plaintiff 3 times (Exhibits P-2, P-3, P-4)

4) The defendant mocked the plaintiff multiple times (Exhibits P-3, P-4)

5) The plaintiff was unable to reduce their sentence using the mines (Exhibits P-2, P-3, P-4)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1) Emotional Damages - Due to the threats, mocking, and murders
2) Loss of enjoyment - Due to being unable to use the mines and being murdered and ridiculed
3) Loss of profit - Due to being unable to use the mines the plaintiff suffered a loss of wages as a result

IV. PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
1) $1000 in Emotional Damages
2) $1000 in Loss of Enjoyment
3) $2500 in Punitive Damage (To deter heinous acts such as these in the future)
4) $500 in Loss of Profit due to extended stay
5) $5000 in Legal Fees

V. EVIDENCE

P-1

Spoiler

https://imgur.com/a/1aJRK8o

P-2

Spoiler

https://imgur.com/a/CT1X4LS

P-3

Spoiler

https://imgur.com/a/BAzZtxO

P-4

Spoiler

https://imgur.com/a/4ajonQ3

Proof of Representation:

Spoiler

https://imgur.com/a/0PKpwJk

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 12th day of August 2024

 

[Aladeen]

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

@A29_2 is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Wasserschafe v. A29_2 [2024] DCR 34. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment 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.​

 

[BruhM0ment_zip]

what do i do if i dont have a lawyer or even enough to pay for one

 

[Aladeen]

what do i do if i dont have a lawyer or even enough to pay for one

A public defender will be appointed

 

[BruhM0ment_zip]

A public defender will be appointed

so uh... does this count as a reply?

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Following the resignation of former magistrate Aladeen, I will be taking over this case.

 

[Pandaz8]

Following the resignation of former magistrate Aladeen, I will be taking over this case.

yea, thats totally not suspicious

 

[Unseatedduke1]

yea, thats totally not suspicious

Excuse you? Speak without being summoned again and you will be held in contempt.

 

[BruhM0ment_zip]

Excuse you? Speak without being summoned again and you will be held in contempt.

hiii

 

[BruhM0ment_zip]

yea, thats totally not suspicious

also wym totally not suspicious? dukes a cool guy he wouldnt do anything wrong

 

[asexualdinosaur]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1. The defense has not filed a response to the complaint within the 72 hour deadline, and has otherwise not requested an extension.
2. The defense has not disputed any of the facts of this case.

DATED: This 17th day of August 2024

 

[BruhM0ment_zip]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1. The defense has not filed a response to the complaint within the 72 hour deadline, and has otherwise not requested an extension.
2. The defense has not disputed any of the facts of this case.

DATED: This 17th day of August 2024

heyyy i did file a response idk how man
idk what to do

 

[ko531]

Your Honor,

I was talking to the defense's counsell about possible settlement. While waiting for a response they seem to have tried to blind side my client and myself by wasting my time and filing for summary judgement. If you give me the time I will have an answer to complaint by the end of the day.

We do not agree to summary judgement

 

[Unseatedduke1]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1. The defense has not filed a response to the complaint within the 72 hour deadline, and has otherwise not requested an extension.
2. The defense has not disputed any of the facts of this case.

DATED: This 17th day of August 2024

Denied. Mr. Ko please file shortly.

 

[ko531]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT


Wasserschafe
Plaintiff

v.

A29_2
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defense affirms A29 made the statement in P-1 but we deny it was a threat

2. The defense affirms that the defendant murdered the plaintiff 3 times (Exhibits P-2, P-3, P-4)

3. The defense denies that the defendant "mocked" the plaintiff multiple times (Exhibits P-3, P-4)

4.The defense denies that the plaintiff was unable to reduce their sentence using the mines (Exhibits P-2, P-3, P-4)


II. Defense

The Plaintiff makes a nice story when filing this lawsuit but most of it is untrue. A29 did kill the plaintiff 3 times but all the murders were in self defense. This is shown by the fact the Plaintiff never used /complaint on A29. if A29 was causing the plaintiff so much harm then why did they not report it? This is because they couldnt report it as they initiated the violence not A29.

Another reason to believe A29 was acting in self defense is the fact that about the same time, Wasserschafe was killing another player Tyler_Reddick45 about a dozen times. Wasserschafe was already acting violately during the events of this case. A29 is now being sued unlike Tyler_Reddock45 because he had the courage to stand up for himself. If Tyler_Reddick45 fought back then there might be a good chance he would be getting sued over A29.

When seeing what A29 said now knowing it was self defense you can see the statements arent threats or mockery. Some of the statements are geuine concern about whether Wasserschafe would stop attacking A29, Some statements were just annoyance from A29 ends while the statements shown in P-3 werent even about the plaintiff.

(all evidence for the claims made will be posted in discovery)

 

[Unseatedduke1]

We will now enter a 3-day discovery period. The plaintiff will have 72 hours to submit their opening statement immediately following the discovery phase. After the plaintiff's opening is filed, the defendant will have 72 hours to submit their opening statement.

 

[ko531]

The defense wishes to enter the following into discovery

Spoiler: D-1

Spoiler: D-2

Spoiler: D-3

Spoiler: D-4

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Denied. Mr. Ko please file shortly.

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

1) Ko had plenty of time to respond to these claims and chose not to.

Ko initially reached out to me 8/15/2024 5:54pm CST with a hand-wave in a private DM,
and a minute later -- 5:55pm CST in #legal alerting to me that there were "legal matters"
they needed to discuss with me.

8/16/2024 7:07pm CST Ko directly messages me they need to talk to me about this case, linking directly to it.

It is only then on 8/17/2024 1:42pm CST Ko even makes it aware to the court that they may be apart of this case, and boldly claims I "went behind his back."


START 22:17 8/13/2024
Ko reaches out about 'legal matters' 17:55 8/15/2024
Ko links to the case 19:07 8/16/2024
EXPIRE 22:17 8/16/2024

Initial response to the court 13:42 8/17/2024

Ko had days to respond and simply chose not to. Failing to make the court aware of their representation, and
failing to appear within the generous 72 hour time-frame, and an additional 15 hours before the court even sees a response.

I am aware in the past that the court has been generous with these time-frames allotting extra time for 'busy lawyers' as it were; However, I contest that in this circumstance Ko failed to represent their client by choosing to not respond to these claims. Ko additionally acknowledges that they have spoken about this case prior to addressing the claims in their initial response.

2) Ko seems to believe that I have 'went behind his back'

I don't deny that Ko attempted to 'settle', but that fact does not permit them extra time, nor does filing a response deny them of any rights to 'settle'. If Ko needed an extension they were fully within their rights to file for one.


The public defenders inability to be an effective counsel to their client, should not exceed my clients rights
to a 'fair' and 'speedy' trial as afforded to them by the Constitution.

DATED: This 18th day of August 2024

 

[asexualdinosaur]

OBJECTION
RELEVANCE

`D-4` contains a group of murders that happened prior to either Tyler_Reddick45 or Wasserschafe being jailed, this has no bearing on the case.

 

[ko531]

OBJECTION
RELEVANCE

`D-4` contains a group of murders that happened prior to either Tyler_Reddick45 or Wasserschafe being jailed, this has no bearing on the case.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

No Evidence has bee provided to show when Wasswershcafe was or wasnt in jail so its impossible for the defense to know this timeline. But this evidence is relevant as it shows the frame of mind the plaintiff was in as he was already acting violently just minutes prior to any confrontation with the defendent.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

The Plaintiff is entering the following into discovery.

Spoiler: P-5

Spoiler: P-6

Spoiler: P-7

Spoiler: P-8

Spoiler: P-9

Spoiler: P-10

Spoiler: P-11

 

[ko531]

The defense wishes to enter the following into discovery

Spoiler: D-5

 

[Unseatedduke1]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

1) Ko had plenty of time to respond to these claims and chose not to.

Ko initially reached out to me 8/15/2024 5:54pm CST with a hand-wave in a private DM,
and a minute later -- 5:55pm CST in #legal alerting to me that there were "legal matters"
they needed to discuss with me.

8/16/2024 7:07pm CST Ko directly messages me they need to talk to me about this case, linking directly to it.

It is only then on 8/17/2024 1:42pm CST Ko even makes it aware to the court that they may be apart of this case, and boldly claims I "went behind his back."


START 22:17 8/13/2024
Ko reaches out about 'legal matters' 17:55 8/15/2024
Ko links to the case 19:07 8/16/2024
EXPIRE 22:17 8/16/2024

Initial response to the court 13:42 8/17/2024

Ko had days to respond and simply chose not to. Failing to make the court aware of their representation, and
failing to appear within the generous 72 hour time-frame, and an additional 15 hours before the court even sees a response.

I am aware in the past that the court has been generous with these time-frames allotting extra time for 'busy lawyers' as it were; However, I contest that in this circumstance Ko failed to represent their client by choosing to not respond to these claims. Ko additionally acknowledges that they have spoken about this case prior to addressing the claims in their initial response.

2) Ko seems to believe that I have 'went behind his back'

I don't deny that Ko attempted to 'settle', but that fact does not permit them extra time, nor does filing a response deny them of any rights to 'settle'. If Ko needed an extension they were fully within their rights to file for one.


The public defenders inability to be an effective counsel to their client, should not exceed my clients rights
to a 'fair' and 'speedy' trial as afforded to them by the Constitution.

DATED: This 18th day of August 2024

Denied.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

OBJECTION
RELEVANCE

`D-4` contains a group of murders that happened prior to either Tyler_Reddick45 or Wasserschafe being jailed, this has no bearing on the case.

Overruled.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

We will now enter a 3-day discovery period. The plaintiff will have 72 hours to submit their opening statement immediately following the discovery phase. After the plaintiff's opening is filed, the defendant will have 72 hours to submit their opening statement.

I’d like to remind the Plaintiff that their opening statement deadline is tonight.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

I’d like to remind the Plaintiff that their opening statement deadline is tonight.

I would like to request a 48 hour extension, I've had and have some surprised obligations come up. I will be able to provide a statement after this time. This was the earliest moment I've had to respond, I apologize for the short-notice.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

OPENING STATEMENT

Good day, your Honour.

The defendant has disrespected the plaintiff in a manner most foul. In addition to demeaning comments, causing dread, and murder,
the defendant had restricted the plaintiffs ability to use the mines, and in turn prevented them from achieving wages they otherwise
would have been entitled too, if not for the defenses actions. Today I will make it clear that the defense acted in malice, and
with no regard for the plaintiffs well being.

1. Timeline - I will show that the defendant was responsible for harm against the plaintiff. To establish a timeline P-5 shows the first altercation that happened within the prison at 5:47 (P-5). The plaintiff asserts that this killing was in self-defense, as they did in the evidence. P-4 & D-5 show the end of the timeline where A29_2 kills the plaintiff, and insults them with comments such as, "Simpleton" and "Single celled" (P-4 & D-5).

2. Initial Attack - The plaintiff was targeted and attacked by the defendant. As shown in P-1 & D-2, A29_2 tells the plaintiff they will,
"make you have to do real self defense". This was a threat made, and followed up by later. P-2 & P-9 show that
A29_2 made first contact with the plaintiff and killed them, this clearly indicates that the defendant was the aggressor. Shortly after, P-3, P-4, P-10, & P-11 show that the defendant was taunting the plaintiff in various ways.

3. Preceding Attacks - P-10 shows that the defendant was slain by the plaintiff after being killed by them previously. The plaintiff maintains that this was an act of self-defense, after of which, the defense calls the plaintiff a "Fool", produces an item they should not have, and again threatens the plaintiff with the produced item "[16 Black Hole]", saying "OH", "Your so right", "Maybe the officers should let you out!"; clearly showing intent to use aforementioned item, and again attack the plaintiff, of which we can see they followed through in killing the plaintiff moments later. And after that they kill the plaintiff again, and then start to barrage them with insults demeaning their intelligence, humanity, and also cause existential dread with their comments about the plaintiffs mortality.

ON LEGAL PRECEDENT

Lawsuit: Adjourned Post in thread 'Ko531 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 114'

Aug 10, 2024

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT

Answer to Complaint

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth would like to enter into the court the following pleas:

1. AFFIRM On August 5th (KO531) was wanted and arrested for 66 counts of murder
2. AFFIRM On August 5th Hellsideburnton filed an arrest warrant against (KO531)
3. AFFIRM The warrant was granted and (KO531) was arrested
4. AFFIRM UnseatedDuke without being asked or prompted added a "Solitary Confinement Order/Injunction" which prevents (KO531) from using the prison mine
5. AFFIRM Mask3d_WOLF blocked off (KO531's)...

• MrFluffy2U94

As seen in this recent case involving defenses public defender, we can see they were falsely confined to solitary confinement.
In return for this they were awarded significantly higher than we're asking for in emotional damages, and punitive.

We believe this establishes basis for punishment for false solitary confinement, and we allege that's exactly what the defense has de facto forced upon the plaintiff.

Act of Congress Thread 'Legal Damages Act.'

Jan 22, 2023

A
BILL
To

Define the different forms of damages.

The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:

1 - Short Title and Enactment
(1) This Act may be cited as the 'Legal Damages Act.', ‘Damages Law’ or ‘The Law of Damages’
(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage.
(3) This Act has been authored by: Matthew100x
(4) This Act has been proposed by: bibsfi4a
(5) This Act has been co-sponsored...

• Bibsfi4a
• Replies: 5
• Forum: Miscellaneous Laws

As the basis for emotional, and loss of enjoyment damages.


ON DEFENSES CLAIMS

1. Defenses first point begs the question of why the Plaintiff didn't use complaint, and the answer is clear after careful review
of the evidence.

(a) P-6 & D-5, both go to show that the defendant had an advanced knowledge of how the self-defense system works.This is shown when the defendant says "you hit people with a pickaxe" -
"enough damage to allow self defense to activate" - "meaning you can get killed without consequences". The plaintiff alleges that the defendant exploited this knowledge unknown to the plaintiff, in order to start fights and then get away with
falsely claiming self-defense with protections from the system.

2. Defenses second point suggests that Tyler_Reddick45 may have been a potential target if they had 'fought back'

(a) The defense has opted to bring to light events before the plaintiff or Tyler_Reddick45 was in jail at all. From the evidence provided in D-4 Tyler_Reddick45 was killed at 5:41,5:42, and 5:43. P-7 shows that Tyler_Reddick45 was not in prison until at 5:44, and P-8 will show that Tyler_Reddick45 notes that the plaintiff is not in prison yet at 5:45, and P-9 will show that Tyler_Reddick45 was release at 5:50, 5 minutes inside of prison. With all the evidence provided, this clearly shows Tyler_Reddick45's ability to access, utilize, and benefit from, the mines to reduce their sentence, in a way that the plaintiff was not afforded
by the defendants actions (D-4, P-7, P-8, P-9).

3. Defense suggests the comments made were not threats or mockery.

(a) As we see from the above evidence (1. - Initial Attack & 2. - Preceding Attacks) It is made abundantly clear that
the plaintiff was being mocked and threatened without a doubt.

4. Defense suggests A29_2's comments in P-3 were not about the plaintiff

(a) With the introduction of evidence explained in (2. - Preceding Attacks) it's made clear that these comments were indeed about the plaintiff, as highlighted in P-9, Tyler_Reddick45 is released at 5:50, where P-11 happens 2 minutes later, 5:52.


With all of this in mind, the defense has failed to provide sufficient evidence for their claims, and and even going so far as to misrepresent the evidence to the court.

 

[ko531]

ON LEGAL PRECEDENT

Lawsuit: Adjourned Post in thread 'Ko531 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 114'

Aug 10, 2024

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT

Answer to Complaint

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth would like to enter into the court the following pleas:

1. AFFIRM On August 5th (KO531) was wanted and arrested for 66 counts of murder
2. AFFIRM On August 5th Hellsideburnton filed an arrest warrant against (KO531)
3. AFFIRM The warrant was granted and (KO531) was arrested
4. AFFIRM UnseatedDuke without being asked or prompted added a "Solitary Confinement Order/Injunction" which prevents (KO531) from using the prison mine
5. AFFIRM Mask3d_WOLF blocked off (KO531's)...

• MrFluffy2U94

As seen in this recent case involving defenses public defender, we can see they were falsely confined to solitary confinement.
In return for this they were awarded significantly higher than we're asking for in emotional damages, and punitive.

We believe this establishes basis for punishment for false solitary confinement, and we allege that's exactly what the defense has de facto forced upon the plaintiff.

OBJECTION
Perjury

FCR 114 was found in favor of the defense and I was rewarded nothing. They are quoting precedent that is entirely incorrect. Clearly they read the case to know what it is about but they are completely wrong when talking about the after math.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Sustained.

 

[ko531]

OPENING STATEMENTS

This case is nothing more then a poor attempt at revenge. The plaintiff in this case is upset that they were killed but failed to mention that they were the ones starting the conflict. The plaintiff attacked the defendant and is now crying mommy since he was killed. This case should not be rewarded in any shape or form.

As shown whether in jail or not the plaintiff was already attacking violently towards a different player. It is not at all hard connection to make that maybe if he was attacking violent shortly before then he may be continuing the behavior.

The plaintiff in their opening statement talks about how the defendant had an "advanced knowledge" of the combat system. This is not "advanced knowledge". Most of the normal player base understands how this works. They argue that the defendant use this knowledge to start fights with the plaintiff. Did the defendant grab a hold of his keyboard in order to do this? No player can force another player against their will to start combat.

You can clearly see that A29 was not starting this combat by the annoyance coming off of this comments when talking about this. He isnt laughing or making fun of the plaintiff. He is purely just annoyed and angery which is shown by the name calling. He is upset by the attempted attacks by the plaintiff.

Many things are wrong with this case in front of the court. The plaintiff's arguments have zero evidence. They alleged that A29 abused the combat system to kill the plaintiff without repercussion yet have nothing to prove this. They also don't explain how he abused the combat system only that he did. Again did A29 take control of his keyboard? The Plaintiffs entire argument is founded on baseless claims with nothing supporting it. They are filling the holes and flaws left by the evidence with story telling. But at the end of the day this civil case comes down to the chance of probability. Ask yourself what is more probable to happen. Someone abusing the combat system to kill another inmate or someone defending themselves to an inmate who was already acting violately.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Without any witnesses, we will proceed to closing statements. The plaintiff has 72 hours to submit theirs, followed by 72 hours for the defendant to respond after the plaintiff's submission.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

CLOSING STATEMENTS

The defense makes many assertions, but has otherwise yet to provide evidence for the claims they have made. In addition, the defense has made many attempts to mislead the court during this case, and now resorting to ad hominem attacks.

The defense insists that my client was acting with malice and murder, but this is far from the truth. With the evidence provided we can see that the plaintiff from the moment they were in danger were asking for help. They were in no way the aggressor toward the defendant, and it's obvious from the evidence and explanation that A29 threatened the plaintiff and followed through on that threat.

ON DEFENSES CLAIMS

During their opening statement the defense suggests that 'you can clearly see that A29 was not starting this combat', this is wildly incorrect. As I pointed out in my opening statement (2. Initial Attack) A29 clearly threatens the plaintiff, and followed through (P-1,D-2,P-2,P-9).

For whatever reason the plaintiff was unable to submit a complaint against the defendant, this is easily explained by the defendant themselves in the evidence provided (P-6,D-5). A29 makes it clear that if you do 'enough damage to allow self-defense to activate', 'you can get killed without consequence.' Defense claims this is common knowledge and it very well may be. Yet my client was indeed unaware, and A29 must have exploited this system by doing just enough damage as to not 'allow self-defense to activate' in an attempt to trick the plaintiff. This isn't a stretch, the defendant was all but gloating about it during these comments.

The assertion that the plaintiffs 'state of mind' had anything to do with this is ridiculous. The plaintiff has always stood by it being self-defense even during the events while trying to seek help. A29 as previously noted threatened and then followed through on that attack. In addition, none of this fighting had anything to do with the defendant. The plaintiff showed no signs of harboring ill will against the defendant. As shown in my opening statements and above it is obvious that the plaintiffs 'state of mind' for all the defense has proclaimed of its utility, is irrelevant to this case. The plaintiffs state of mind, was anxious and hopelessness, as they sought out help and were met with threats, violence, and mockery.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Your honour,

The defence has not filed their closing statements within the deadline. We ask the case move forward.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Case is in recess pending verdict.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT ​

Wasserschafe v. A29_2 [2024] DCR 34

I. PROSECUTION'S POSITION
1. The prosecution contended that the defendant, A29_2, engaged in a pattern of harassment and violence against the plaintiff, Wasserschafe. The prosecution presented evidence of threats, repeated murders, and mockery aimed at the plaintiff, which resulted in significant emotional and psychological distress. The prosecution argued that these actions not only violated the plaintiff's rights but also inflicted severe harm, justifying claims for emotional damages, loss of enjoyment, and loss of profit.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The defendant, A29_2, denied the allegations, arguing that the claims made by the plaintiff were exaggerated and lacked substantial evidence. The defense asserted that there was no credible proof of the alleged murders, threats, or mockery and that any actions taken were misinterpreted. The defendant sought dismissal of the claims, contending that the plaintiff had not demonstrated the requisite burden of proof for the allegations made.

III. THE COURT OPINION

1. This ruling is based on the evidence presented by both parties and on matters that are generally recognized by the public.

2. The court conducted a thorough review of all evidence and exhibits submitted by both the plaintiff and the defense.

3. Upon examination, the court determined that the evidence provided by the plaintiff was insufficient. The exhibits presented did not substantiate claims of emotional damages, loss of enjoyment, or punitive damages. Rather, they primarily documented instances of random acts of violence that did not convincingly connect to the plaintiff's alleged emotional suffering. The plaintiff's counsel referenced incorrect legal precedents and did not supply any witness testimony or other legal standards to adequately demonstrate the claimed damages.

4. Applying the standard of Balance of Probabilities, the court concluded that it is unlikely that the alleged murders resulted in any emotional distress or loss of enjoyment for the plaintiff. According to the law in the Commonwealth of Redmont, "Loss of enjoyment damages may be established through witness testimony, reasonable person standards, or any other methods the presiding Judge finds compelling." The evidence presented did not meet this threshold of persuasiveness.

IV. DECISION
In the matter of DCR 34, the court rules in favor of the defense.

The District Court thanks all involved.