Lawsuit: Adjourned Dragonfly0001, Brustklefurry, YourLocalDiabeto V. lawanoespr [2024] FCR 92

[Towloo]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Dragonfly0001, Brustklefurry, YourLocalDiabeto
Plaintiffs


V


lawanoespr
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-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

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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

@lawanoesepr is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Dragonfly0001, Brustklefurry, YourLocalDiabeto V. lawanoespr. 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.​

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

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

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Rule 5.5 Lack of Claim - The Prosecution claims that the Plaintiffs was not able to keep the store in operation during the purported 'attacks'. However, as we can observe in Exhibit P-001, the shop in question was a chest-shop, which is capable of nearly full autonomy. The Plaintiffs were more than capable of leaving the area without engaging nor closing their shop to avoid conflict. The Plaintiffs also claims that they could not continue their daily activities, however they were fully capable of leaving the shop open while continuing their business in the private section of the building. Furthermore the Plaintiffs made little to no effort to de-escalate nor request intervention by Homeland Security Officers. Instead the Plaintiff chose to engage these so called assailants, resulting in an escalation.

Even further, the Defendant directly only murdered the Plaintiff Dragonfly0001 twice during the incident, and was not engaged during the rest of the incident. The Plaintiffs were fully capable of leaving the shop open and continuing their daily activities.

2. Rule 5.7 Failure to Include Party - The Plaintiffs over-named the Defendants (this trial is for lawanoesespr alone) and failed to join the name of the purported business that suffered.

DATED: This 19th day of June 2024

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The plaintiff has 48 hours to respond.

 

[Towloo]

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

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Rule 5.5 Lack of Claim - The Prosecution claims that the Plaintiffs was not able to keep the store in operation during the purported 'attacks'. However, as we can observe in Exhibit P-001, the shop in question was a chest-shop, which is capable of nearly full autonomy. The Plaintiffs were more than capable of leaving the area without engaging nor closing their shop to avoid conflict. The Plaintiffs also claims that they could not continue their daily activities, however they were fully capable of leaving the shop open while continuing their business in the private section of the building. Furthermore the Plaintiffs made little to no effort to de-escalate nor request intervention by Homeland Security Officers. Instead the Plaintiff chose to engage these so called assailants, resulting in an escalation.

Even further, the Defendant directly only murdered the Plaintiff Dragonfly0001 twice during the incident, and was not engaged during the rest of the incident. The Plaintiffs were fully capable of leaving the shop open and continuing their daily activities.

2. Rule 5.7 Failure to Include Party - The Plaintiffs over-named the Defendants (this trial is for lawanoesespr alone) and failed to join the name of the purported business that suffered.

DATED: This 19th day of June 2024

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

The Plaintiffs respectfully request that the court denies the Motion to Dismiss, as there appear to be some misunderstandings by the defense on key points.

Firstly, the video evidence shows the plaintiffs had to bar the doors to prevent the defendant and accomplices from entering, which also prevented lawful customers from entering. This was not an isolated event; multiple incidents occurred, as detailed in witness testimonies. These incidents significantly disrupted the plaintiffs' daily lives and caused substantial economic impact. Due to the continuous nature of these events, the plaintiffs were unable to secure intervention from Homeland Security officers, as they had to actively defend the store at all times. Witness testimonies are essential to fully understand what transpired that day, and it is important to note that the defendant's actions were not limited to harming the plaintiffs on only two occasions.

Secondly, the business that suffered is jointly owned. Dismissing the case on a minor technicality related to ownership would be unfair. To ensure justice and simplicity, it is crucial that the case proceeds without dismissal.

In conclusion, the plaintiffs respectfully urge the court to deny the motion to dismiss and allow the case to proceed so that all relevant facts and testimonies can be properly considered.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The Motion to Dismiss is denied. The lack of claim was filed against an alleged lack of evidence to support the claim. The claim in question is supported by the facts of the complaint and the attached evidence. Dismissing this case before discovery would prevent further evidence from coming to light. Much of what was stated in the motion to dismiss under Rule 5.5 seems to place blame on the plaintiffs for circumstances that may not be their fault. For example, while a chest shop can operate autonomously, the plaintiffs would still need to refill the chest with items and may wish to be present to greet customers. This is just one aspect that warrants evaluation during the trial. As for Rule 5.7, the business is jointly owned, and the owners are properly listed, so there is no sufficient reason to dismiss the case on this ground. This does not prevent the plaintiff from refiling a motion to dismiss after discovery.

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.

 

[Towloo]

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

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Given Discovery is now over, we will be moving onto Opening Statements.
The Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide their Opening Statement.

 

[Towloo]

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 incidents. One such incident is detailed in the video labeled Exhibit P-001, but there were many others. 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.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The Defendant has 72 hours to provide their opening statement.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Your Honour,

The Defense requests a 24 hour extension due to having recently travelled, in order to appropriately and sufficiently represent the Defendants interests.

 

[Brustkile]

Present your honour

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Your Honour,

The Defense requests a 24 hour extension due to having recently travelled, in order to appropriately and sufficiently represent the Defendants interests.

Granted

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honour,

This case is nothing but the culmination of hearsay and incompetence. The plaintiff erroneously claims that my client attempted to intentionally disrupt the Plaintiff's business, but has failed to provide any evidence of this beyond a video which displayed the Defendant committing murder twice. The Defense would like to remind the court that Murder is a summary offense, and as such, having failed to provide any evidence of conspiracy. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence of the storefront being closed (whereas the video suggests the store was a seperate annex of the building where combat did not take place)

This case is nothing but a cash grab aimed to debilitate my plaintiff by prosecuting him for inflated charges for which he has already suffered punishment. I recommend that all charges levied against the Defendant be ignored.

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

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Rule 5.5 Lack of Claim - The Prosecution claims that the Plaintiff was unable to keep their store in operation during the attacks. They have provided no evidence to confirm this. The Plaintiff claims they were forced into combat. They have shown no attempt to de-escalate nor leave the building to avoid damage to the business. An arguement may be made the witness testimonies could provide grounding, but witnesses are inherently biased as all humans are, especially the Plaintiffs, and as such, they can not offer the groundbreaking evidence that the Plaintiff needed to submit during Discovery to properly establish their claims.

By having failed to provide any evidence to support the claims for relief, the Defense moves that this case be dismissed with prejudice to avoid such outrageous lawsuits being filed against my client.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The plaintiff has 48 hours to respond to the motion.

 

[Towloo]

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

The Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Defendant's Motion is predicated on a misunderstanding of the facts and a misapplication of the relevant legal principles. In support of this request, Plaintiffs state as follows.

The Defendant claims that the Plaintiffs have provided no evidence to support their claim. This is incorrect. The Plaintiffs have submitted substantial evidence, including video footage, showing that the Plaintiffs had to take defensive actions, such as barring the doors, to prevent the Defendant and their accomplices from entering and causing further harm. This evidence corroborates the Plaintiffs' claims of significant disruption to their business operations.

The Defendant argues that witness testimonies are inherently biased and thus unreliable. However, witness testimonies are a crucial part of the legal process, offering detailed and firsthand accounts of the events in question. The Plaintiffs' witnesses will provide consistent and corroborative testimonies that substantiate the continuous nature of the Defendant's disruptive actions. These testimonies should not be dismissed without a thorough evaluation during the trial.

The Defendant's assertion that the Plaintiffs made no attempt to de-escalate or leave the premises is not only factually incorrect but also irrelevant. The Plaintiffs were compelled to defend their property and their safety in the face of persistent threats. The law does not require victims to abandon their property to avoid conflict. The actions taken by the Plaintiffs were reasonable and necessary under the circumstances to protect their business and themselves.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. However, the Plaintiffs have clearly articulated a viable claim, supported by substantial evidence and witness testimonies. The Plaintiffs' complaint sufficiently alleges facts that, if proven, would entitle them to relief.

In conclusion, the Plaintiffs have presented substantial and credible evidence to support their claims. The arguments raised by the Defendant in their Motion to Dismiss are either factually incorrect or legally insufficient. Therefore, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and allows the case to proceed to a full hearing on the merits.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Based on my decision in FCR 91 regarding a motion to dismiss, I will deny this motion. Dismissing a case prematurely, especially one with legal merit, before hearing from witnesses would be premature. Witnesses could potentially provide crucial insights necessary to determine the balance of probabilities.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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. lawanoespr. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a Contempt of Court charge.​

 

[_A_S_H_E_R]

I am present.

 

[Dragonfly]

Present

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The witnesses who failed to appear are hereby held in contempt.

@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.

 

[Towloo]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES

1) [To _A_S_H_E_R] How many violent incidents that the defendant participated in against the plaintiffs have you witnessed?

2) [To Dragonfly0001] How many violent incidents have you experienced that the defendant was involved in?

 

[Dragonfly]

2) [To Dragonfly0001] How many violent incidents have you experienced that the defendant was involved in?

2

 

[Towloo]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES

1) [To Dragonfly0001] How much time in total did you spend defending c597?

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

The witnesses who failed to appear are hereby held in contempt.

@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.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honour,

The witness A_S_H_E_R has failed to respond to the Prosecution's questions.

The witnesses Brustklefurry, YourLocalDiabeto and LandoPlayzo have failed to respond to the summons.

The Defense moves that the witnesses statements be struck and that they be removed from the witness list. The Defense further moves that they be charged with contempt of court.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honour,

The witness A_S_H_E_R has failed to respond to the Prosecution's questions.

The witnesses Brustklefurry, YourLocalDiabeto and LandoPlayzo have failed to respond to the summons.

The Defense moves that the witnesses statements be struck and that they be removed from the witness list. The Defense further moves that they be charged with contempt of court.

Sustained. I will not be striking any statement from the record from the witness. I will charge A_S_H_E_R with contempt for failing to appear.

 

[Dragonfly]

1) [To Dragonfly0001] How much time in total did you spend defending c597?

I'd probably say like 5 hours, but id run out of ammo and sanity and log off to play terraria or someting idk

 

[Towloo]

No further questions, your honor

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

The Defense has no questions for the witness your honour.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The plaintiff has 72 hours to provide their closing.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COUNTERCLAIM

lawanoesepr (MikamiLaw LLC representing)
Counter Plaintiff

v.

Dragonfly0001, Brustklefurry, YourLocalDiabeto (Dragon Law Firm representing)
Counter Defendants

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Defense is countersuing for legal fees as this case is nothing more than the exaggeration of 2 murders. My client is innocent and should rightfully not have to pay for representation in this travesty of a case.

I. PARTIES
1. lawanoesepr (Counter plaintiff)
2. Dragonfly0001 (Counter defendant)
3. Brustklefurry (Counter defendant)
4. YourLocalDiabeto (Counter defendant)

II. FACTS
1. The Plaintiff filed a frivolous lawsuit in an extortion attempt of my client.
2. The Defendant was forced to seek legal representation to ensure a proper defense was conjured.

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.
2. The Plaintiff's brazen and outrageous actions to engage in frivolous legal action against the Defendant qualify Punitive Damages.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $18,000 in legal fees (30% of total case value) to cover the legal fees the Defendant will have to pay as a result of this frivolous case
2. $10,000 in punitive damages to punish the Plaintiffs for filing this frivolous lawsuit and to deter them from doing so again.

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 17th day of July 2024

 

[Towloo]

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 two 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.

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.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The defendant has 72 hours to provide their closing.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honour,

This case is nothing more than a heartless attempt to tarnish the reputation of my client using underhanded means. At the heart of this case there is really a singular witness who clarified that only 2 murders took place. The same witness then failed to provide a clear timeframe by which the so-called violent attacks occurred.

All in all, the Plaintiffs have filed a case with no merit whatsoever. They have attempted to extort my client of an exorbitant sum based on a few short moments of a video where my client is present. So called disruptions to business remain unsubstantiated and unproven claims. Meanwhile, my client has been dragged into this frivolous case against his will and forced to seek legal representation to avoid being robbed in broad daylight.

While the Prosecution may have initially provided a strong promise of revolutionary witness testimonies, they have failed to deliver this promise on all counts and has revealed their case as the heartless money grab it is. By using the courts as a method to question my client's character and charge them over $60,000 in fines, without any substantial evidence, they have sought to make a mockery of our justice system.

Therefore, the Defense recommends that the Plaintiff's be charged for the Defendant's legal fees to compensate the unnecessary need of a lawyer for this travesty of a case in the first place, as well as charge the Plaintiff's a further $10,000 in punitive damages to prevent them from undertaking such a brazen and brash endeavor and, of course, reject all prayers for relief in this frivolous case.

The Defense hopes that Your Honour can see through the thin veil of deception the Plaintiffs attempted to conjure and see this case as the heartless money grab it is, and as such mete out Justice as befitting of their position.

Thank you.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Court is in recess pending verdict.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

Dragonfly0001, Brustklefurry, YourLocalDiabeto V. lawanoespr [2024] FCR 92

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 defense asserts that this case lacks merit and is an attempt to malign the defendant through unsubstantiated claims. The sole witness has confirmed that only two murders occurred, with no clear timeframe or evidence of additional damages.

III. THE COURT OPINION

1. This ruling is based on the information presented by the parties and matters commonly known to the public.
2. Three cases were filed with the same plaintiffs against three different individuals, all with similar claims. While this case bears resemblance to FCR 91, several key differences have influenced this ruling.
3. The evidence shows that the defendant committed two murders of Plaintiff Dragonfly0001 within a span of five minutes. These acts of murder were clearly premeditated, as the defendant remained at the location specifically to kill Mr. Dragon again.
4. Witness testimony indicates that Mr. Dragon spent approximately five hours defending plot C597, which he had designated as his "home." This suggests that the plot is either his residence or place of work. In contrast, there is no substantial evidence presented for the other plaintiffs, including a lack of video evidence and witness testimony to prove any damages they may have suffered. This will be taken into account in the verdict.
5. There is insufficient evidence regarding the alleged closure of the shop, including who owns it or who was affected by its closure. This will also be considered in determining damages.
6. Regarding the balance of probabilities, it is almost certain that Mr. Dragon was specifically targeted at his place of work or residence. The repeated murders within such a short time frame, in a place that should be considered safe, warrant damages.

IV. DECISION
In the matter of FCR 92, the court rules in favor of the plaintiff with the following modified relief:

1. $5,000 awarded to Dragonfly0001 for loss of enjoyment.
2. $1,000 awarded to Dragonfly0001 for emotional damages.
3. $1,800 awarded to Towloo for legal fees.
4. No damages awarded to Brustklefurry or YourLocalDiabeto.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.