Your Honor,
This court has previously ruled against granting damages requested by Plaintiffs on the basis that the requests were not sufficiently justified. This occurred in:
- Fluffywaafelz v. ko531 (2024) CV 03
https://www.cityrp.org/threads/fluffywaafelz-v-ko531-2024-cv-03.103/, where the court stated that "the Plaintiff did not provide any evidence or case to support... the "mental stress" claim." and "the Plaintiff failed to sufficiently justify why punitive damages should be placed upon the Defendant or to justify a $501 valuation."
- Partially in Nanicholls v Azalea Isles (2025) CV 01
https://www.cityrp.org/threads/nanicholls-v-azalea-isles-2025-cv-01.140/, where although the Plaintiff lost the case, the court specifically addressed failure to prove damages in its verdict, "The Plaintiff has not proven that the Defendant otherwise caused reputational damage to them."
- Azalea Isles v. Galavance (2025) CR 03
https://www.cityrp.org/threads/azalea-isles-v-galavance-2025-cr-03.139/, in which the court later clarified in the courtroom "Aside from legal fees, in requesting these counter-damages, the Defendant asked for it on the basis of reputational harm and "other damages" incurred as a result of "malicious prosecution." Based on the current facts of the case, and as you can see in the ruling, no evidence has been offered and little argumentation has been given as to why this case would have been maliciously prosecuted." found here
https://discord.com/channels/1162047422327967766/1231778372615671909/1347325797278421084
Given the court has previously denied damages due to lack of justification, I am calling these witnesses to address damages. Witnesses are not required to have directly witnessed an event, or even necessarily have knowledge of its occurrence. They can testify to external facts that support a case. This precedent was set in Azalea Isles v. Krix (2024) CR 01
https://www.cityrp.org/threads/azalea-isles-v-krix-2024-cr-01.30/, where RandomIntruder and Welsh_Mongoose (now Fergie_Foo) were called as witnesses to speak on probabilities.
Oliver Spy is the sitting Minister of Justice and a fellow lawyer. He will be asked to testify on the fees that another lawyer, such as himself, might charge in a civil case, and to testify as to the supply of lawyers in existence. Oliver Spy's testimony will allow me to cement the necessity of our requested special damages through addressing how few lawyers exist and what he might personally charge for a civil case, demonstrating that the special damages for legal fees are not overinflated but are in fact an accurate representation of what my client has or will incurred.
Nanicholls Nanicholls is a business owner and Member of Parliament who is also likely familiar with the restriction supply places on legal options, and how that influences the price. As a business owner and an individual who has leveled up to the maximum in several trades, he is also qualified to testify to how damaging it would be to lose complete access to one's funds, and the damages one might incur in missed opportunities, inability to level up to a level that can create useful or necessary goods, and so on. Nanicholls' testimony will address both the special damages, by addressing the restriction on the number of lawyers, and the compensatory damages, by proving harm and loss suffered by the Plaintiff.
Nopuu Catenjoyer is the Minister of Social Services, and thus would be expected to have a general knowledge of all the trades. Nopuu Catenjoyer would be asked to testify to the cost of leveling up these trades, and the potential difficulty in advancing without having access to funds. This would speak directly to, once again, proven harm, as the Plaintiff has been directly harmed by being unable to advance in any trade, buy any good, or engage in most of the economy to the extent he would be able to had his funds never been frozen.
