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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
Granted
 
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