Lawsuit: Adjourned Dragonfly0001, Brustklefurry, YourLocalDiabeto V. Alexthelillion [2024] FCR 93

Status
Not open for further replies.
Towloo

Towloo

Citizen
Representative
Homeland Security Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Oakridge Resident
Statesman Popular in the Polls 4th Anniversary Change Maker
Towloo
Towloo
representative
Joined
Nov 22, 2023
Messages
360
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Dragonfly0001, Brustklefurry, YourLocalDiabeto
Plaintiffs


V


Alexthelillion
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The plaintiff complains against the defendant as follows:

Throughout multiple instances, the defendant has harassed the plaintiffs and caused many damages through no fault of my clients (P-002 + 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. The defendant even stated, “if anyone goes near your store ill kill em,” further preventing business due to the fear instilled that would prevent anyone from going, and the actual threat being carried out (P-001).

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


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

@Alexthelillion is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Dragonfly0001, Brustklefurry, YourLocalDiabeto V. Alexthelillion. 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.​
 
Im here yo
 
The defendant has retained Prestige Law Firm for this case. An answer to complaint/motion to dismiss will be posted shortly.
 
@itsBlazeX is hereby held in contempt. Given that the defendant does have representation, I will allow an additional 24 hours to post an answer to the complaint.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
@itsBlazeX is hereby held in contempt. Given that the defendant does have representation, I will allow an additional 24 hours to post an answer to the complaint.
Click to expand...
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Reconsider
Your honor, the defendant was given a 72 hour deadline to appear. That deadline was met by the defendant. However, no deadline was made to present an answer to complaint, and I believe it is unjust to hold me in contempt for a deadline that was never given to me.
 
I will overturn the contempt charge, but as a practicing lawyer, you should be timely and understand answer to complaint deadlines. Please file the answer to the complaint within the timeline given above.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Dragonfly0001, Brustklefurry, YourLocalDiabeto
Plaintiffs

v.

Alexthelillion
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defendant disputes the defendant has constantly harassed the plaintiffs.
2. The defendant disputes the defendant’s harassment caused the plaintiffs’ closing shop.
3. The defendant disputes the plaintiffs had to live in constant fear of being shot due to the harassment
4. The defendant disputes the plaintiffs were prevented from going about their daily lives

II. DEFENCES
1. While the plaintiff claims they are entitled to Compensatory Damages, Emotional Damages, Loss of Enjoyment of Redmont, and Punitive Damages, the plaintiff has not presented any evidence that supports that they are entitled to the above damages.
2. The plaintiff claims that the defendant was constantly harassing the plaintiffs. However, the defendant only murders the plaintiffs once in the video they have presented to the Court. The video makes this appear to be a one time incident, and not a repeated event.
3. While the plaintiff claims that the defendant's statement (P-001) entitles them to damages, the defendant was acting within their Constitutional right of Freedom of the Press and Media.

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 19th day of June 2024

EDIT: Put disputes in red
 
Thank you.

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 as evidence:

D-001
1718888036720.png


D-002
1718888043941.png


D-003
1718888056757.png


D-004
1718888064045.png


D-005
1718888099991.png
 
OBJECTION
Perjury
Your honor, fact 2 states "The defendant’s harassment caused the plaintiffs’ closing shop." However, these images were taken moments before they were posted, and clearly show the shop is still stocked and open. The plaintiffs have clearly lied to the Court for their own benefit, and I respectfully request you charge them with perjury.
 
The plaintiff has 24 hours to respond.
 
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
The plaintiffs have only recently been able to re-open their shop, as the attacks have since stopped. In P-001, it becomes evident that they did have to bar the doors to prevent the defendant from lockpicking in.
 
Objection overruled.
 
The defense wishes to submit the following interrogatory:
1. On what date did the plaintiffs reopen their shop, and how long was it closed?
 
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
 
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY
1) Exact dates are unknown, as the shops were constantly being closed and reopened every attack and shortly thereafter
 
Towloo said:
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY
1) Exact dates are unknown, as the shops were constantly being closed and reopened every attack and shortly thereafter
Click to expand...
OBJECTION
Ambiguous
Your honor, the defense move that this statement is struck from the record, and that the plaintiff provide a more specific answer. The plaintiff says that "Exact dates are unknown, as the shops were constantly being closed and reopened every attack and shortly thereafter." This statement suggests that they don't know the date of the attacks happening. Either the plaintiff's counsel is leaving out important details, or they are dodging the question.
 
Overruled. The defense may feel that the answer is unclear, but if the plaintiff does not know the exact dates, then that is the answer. The ambiguous objection is defined as "the question is not clear and precise enough for the witness to properly answer." You are objecting incorrectly to this answer.
 
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 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 a series of incidents. One such incident is detailed in the video labeled Exhibit P-002, but there were many others. Additionally, a specific threat made by the defendant, which prevented business from coming, is documented in Exhibit P-001. 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.

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.
 
The Defendant has 72 hours to provide their opening statement.
 
Your honor, I respectfully request a 2 day extension. Do due to unforeseen circumstances and personal reasons, I needed to travel from home and will be away for 2 days. Thank you for understanding.
 
itsBlazeX said:
Your honor, I respectfully request a 2 day extension. Do due to unforeseen circumstances and personal reasons, I needed to travel from home and will be away for 2 days. Thank you for understanding.
Click to expand...
Granted
 
Brustkile said:
Present your honour
Click to expand...
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure
Your honor, the Plaintiff was not prompted to speak. The random interjection from the Plaintiff is disruptive to the courtroom.
 
itsBlazeX said:
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure
Your honor, the Plaintiff was not prompted to speak. The random interjection from the Plaintiff is disruptive to the courtroom.
Click to expand...
Sustained and struck. Please don't speak unless summoned.
 
May it please the Court,

Your honor, I will keep this short given the simplicity of this case. This case is nothing more than a simple murder. The plaintiff has claimed that their business was injured as a result of the Defendant's actions, but has done nothing to prove this. This can be said about all of the plaintiff's claims. The only thing this video shows, is a simple murder incident, and nothing more.

The plaintiff claims the defendant has constantly harassed the plaintiffs, the defendant’s harassment caused the plaintiffs’ closing shop, the plaintiffs had to live in constant fear of being shot due to the harassment, and the plaintiffs were prevented from going about their daily lives. These facts all have one thing in common. There is no evidence to prove they are true! The plaintiff has already stretched the truth about the validity of these facts in an attempt to convince the Court that these facts are indeed true. There is just one issue with this. If there is no evidence to support them, they cannot be considered a fact, and cannot impact the outcome of this case. I hope the Court can see the lack of evidence, and how shallow the plaintiff's argument is throughout the remainder of this trial.

Thank you.
 
Thank you. I will issue witness summons shortly.
 
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. Alexthelillion. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a Contempt of Court charge.​
 
@Brustkile , @Yourlocaldiabeto , @LandoPlayzo Are all held in contempt.

@Towloo You may begin questioning the witnesses. Please direct your questions to either both witnesses or one at a 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.
 
As I've said before, I don't have discord so respectfully can you find another witness?
 
LandoPlayzo said:
As I've said before, I don't have discord so respectfully can you find another witness?
Click to expand...
No, you have a forums account, so you will answer the questions asked of you. If you don't, you will be held in contempt. Please do not speak again unless it is to answer the questions asked of you.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES

1) [To _A_S_H_E_R and LandoPlayzo] How many violent incidents against the plaintiffs/their store have you witnessed the defendant participate in?

2) [To DragonFly0001] How many violent incidents against you/your store have you experienced the defendant participate in?
 
Towloo said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES

1) [To _A_S_H_E_R and LandoPlayzo] How many violent incidents against the plaintiffs/their store have you witnessed the defendant participate in?

2) [To DragonFly0001] How many violent incidents against you/your store have you experienced the defendant participate in?
Click to expand...
I've seen one your honor.
 
Towloo said:
2) [To DragonFly0001] How many violent incidents against you/your store have you experienced the defendant participate in?
Click to expand...
Three; The first one was the one shown in the video; and I have found a longer version, The second was worst than the first, causing me to "rage quit", and the third was the least, and was done by only by Alexthelillion, as the others were carried out with other members of a gang known as the "1008ers", a group of cringe mafia wannabes who all have watched too much of the godfather and kill random ppl for fun
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES

1) [To Dragonfly0001] In total, about how long was your store closed due to the defendant’s actions?

2) [To _A_S_H_E_R and LandoPlayzo] Was each incident witnessed similar to the one seen in P-002?
 
IN THE FEDERA COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES

1) [To Dragonfly0001] How much time in total did you have to spend defending c597?
 
No further questions, your honor
 
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.
 
Dragonfly said:
I'd probably say like 5 hours, but id run out of ammo and sanity and log off to play terraria or someting idk
Click to expand...
OBJECTION
Nothing Pending

Witness added on extra details
 
Dragonfly said:
Three; The first one was the one shown in the video; and I have found a longer version, The second was worst than the first, causing me to "rage quit", and the third was the least, and was done by only by Alexthelillion, as the others were carried out with other members of a gang known as the "1008ers", a group of cringe mafia wannabes who all have watched too much of the godfather and kill random ppl for fun
Click to expand...
OBJECTION
Nothing Pending

Witness was asked to provide a number
 
Towloo said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES

1) [To Dragonfly0001] In total, about how long was your store closed due to the defendant’s actions?

2) [To _A_S_H_E_R and LandoPlayzo] Was each incident witnessed similar to the one seen in P-002?
Click to expand...
OBJECTION
Incompetent

Q1 - Assuming that as a tenant this person does not have ownership over the shop, as evidenced by witness testimony, this witness is incompetent to answer this question as it is not their store
 
Dragonfly said:
idk bro its not my shop Im just a tenant 💀🙏
Click to expand...
MOTION TO STRIKE

Witness was incompetent to answer question and therefore, assuming the previous objection is sustained, this answer should be struck from the record
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The defense apologizes for the late response, there has recently been a change of lawyers, the defense has no questions at this time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top