We have addressed the matters at hand fully, twice, in posts #27 and #32, also our letter with full violations explanation and agreement quotes is posted in the thread. We are yet to hear any counter-argument other than that we should not follow our own Client agreement, so we do not have anything to add on the matter.
We are not comfortable to discuss other clients in detail for this would be a huge breach of confidentiality, but, to answer your questions - yes, all parties involved in violation received the same treatment: all orders were nullified, all deposits returned to account for refund/withdrawal and the client agreement was terminated, no further deposits are to be accepted. Unfortunately, you seem to be very quick to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions and assume that parties were treated asymmetrically for a person who "spends his life here defending brokers so that this place can be seen as a balanced."
The right to change the limit is indeed reserved for financial department should they require so, however this does not mean this right is often executed. Your perception is clearly skewed by confirmation bias as you do not see hundreds of clients who follow the client agreement properly and withdraw within regular limits or without any limits at all. That being said, no limits were applied to the OP withdrawal so this question is not relevant to the case whatsoever.
Payment processors are routinely performing selective checks for clients' compliance to KYC and AML policies. If broker, a merchant or any other involved party does not comply with KYC and AML policy, the fines are imposed or the funds are freezed, which is obviously not acceptable for us. To avoid such consequences, our company terminates the client agreement fully with clients, which includes full deposit refunds and orders nullification, who were found out to have violated the policies.
We are not quite sure what your point is: we have a transgressor in question in this thread, he was identified by our system and we are dealing with him the way the agreement he accepted describes. We are doing exactly what you suggest we should be doing.
Which brings us to the final point. Let's recap one last time: OP has entered the agreement with the company and the company has entered the agreement with OP. OP's actions are clearly defined as a violation in this mutually accepted agreement; the company's actions in such case are clearly defined as well. We do not see any arguments that would show the agreement not being followed correctly. The whole thread is based on the premise that we need to act in a way that goes against our own agreement (and put the company under potential sanctions from our payment processor partners while doing so) under the threat of bad publicity. Such premise is borderline extortion or is highly unfair at the very least.
Like I said earlier, why need to cancel all the profits that opened and closed during the time I used on my own PC?
And, why banned me from your official Telegram if you could just answer there?
And, why all the hassle of the verification?
And, why you only react when I said that I will bring this matter to FPA like in my chat with your chat agent?
And, lastly, why you clear all my trading log from my MT4 account? Scared that your scam will be exposed?