No double standard, becuase if 'the authority' was in agreement with me, they would share the same perspcetives and values - and act accordingly. No duoble standard.

Accordingly to your subjectively opened case? Then, of course, it is a double standard if someone more influential than you opposed and sanctioned a person you denounced, when you explicitly mention that person and put them in a bad light, but at the same time would like your view to be supported by the same influential person.
The influential person is obviously to be brought over to your side with moral arguments.

The person you are targeting is in the spotlight because you have turned that light on. Whether this person appears to others as unsympathetic or sympathetic, it is inappropriate to make moral value judgements based on gossip (nothing else is) because the person in the spotlight did not ask for it. She is not on trial. You don't have the mandate to stage one. The story of the guy whose vapor was stolen (etc. etc.), his complaints of financial loss and the crowning immorality of the cats being left alone are manipulative attempts to create a discredit.

If you want to claim actual damages, you can use legal means, send a bill or file a lawsuit, if the bill is not paid, it will eventually go to court. If you don't want to do that or wish to settle in some other way, that's what you do. But what you don't do, and there is a broad consensus on this, is blacken people's names, spread unpleasant things about them, just because you yourself were unable to bring the matter to a satisfactory resolution.

What mature person needs to post their conflicting issues on a blog and want to be vindicated for the misdeeds someone else has done to them?

To make it clear: I don't care about the woman either, I don't care because I don't need to care. I am not an official jury and we are not in court here.
For my part, I therefore chalk it up to gossip.

How do you like it when the influential person now imposes sanctions on you instead? How would you like it if you were named on that person's blog and considered persona non grata?

Tell me, in what way were you specifically harmed by the woman, how exactly do you quantify your financial loss of your account in detail? The statement that people "raid the reward pool" is as vague as it is popular. Saying that people gain strategic advantages that are considered unfair in your eyes, well, that happens, doesn't it? People ingratiating themselves, flattering themselves etc. is far from being a crime, but of course you are free to find it distasteful. I do find it bad taste too.

I think you are imagining too much about your ability to give people a psychological profile. This preoccupation with the psychological abysses basically says more about you than it does about others. Maybe for your part you like being profiled? That you are analysed? I don't know, but I don't think people who are strangers to each other want to read that about themselves.

Couldn't you just have discussed in private with the woman? Would it be too much of an effort to come to terms with her, if she really bugs you so hard? And if she did so herself, to place you in the light, is it sensible to do the very same thing? Would there even be the possibility to enjoy a private conversation and changing the course of communication altogether?
Well, if the two of you, on the other hand, love to shine lights onto yourself, then be it. It's only hard to tell if that is so.

It is different with public figures who have deliberately placed themselves there as representatives of the many. They are rightly the focus of criticism if they want to legislate and influence the personal lives of all.

For the rest of your answers I may need some more time.