Lawsuit: In Session GnomeWhisperer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 11

J

juniperfig

god's favourite princess
Moderator
State Department
Justice Department
Education Department
Supporter
Aventura Resident
Solicitor General
Staff Popular in the Polls
juniperfig
juniperfig
Chief Of Staff
Joined
Jan 4, 2025
Messages
43

Case Filing



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


GnomeWhisperer (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
Mask3D_WOLF completely abused his power, throwing the law out the window and disrupting GnomeWhisperer’s life in the process. He condemned GnomeWhisperer to an irresponsibly long sentence, leaving him stuck in a cell for ages, stressed, humiliated, and helpless. As if that wasn’t enough, Mask3D_WOLF bragged about it to everyone, mocking GnomeWhisperer and the very foundations of justice this Court stands upon. This wasn’t just unfair– it was cruel. GnomeWhisperer deserves justice and the Defendant needs to be held accountable for what he did.

I. PARTIES
1. GnomeWhisperer (Plaintiff)
2. Mask3D_WOLF (Agent of the Defendant)
3. Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. GnomeWhisperer was sentenced to jail by Mask3D_WOLF for three [3] days and eight [8] hours for 48 counts of murder (P-002).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. According to the Violent Offences Act, Serial Killing is defined as “The act of unlawfully killing more than 7 players before being arrested”, and it explicitly overrides charges of murder. The law clearly states that for each offence, the penalty is $200 per murder and 60 minutes of jail time. By this standard, GnomeWhisperer should have served a total of 60 minutes—no more, no less. Any deviation from this prescribed sentence is not only unlawful but also undermines the authority and consistency of the Violent Offences Act. Failing to adhere to the specified punishment is a clear overreach and a miscarriage of justice.

2. The Constitution states that “every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” GnomeWhisperer was deprived of his right to liberty by being sentenced for such an excessive period of time. To sentence a citizen for a term 80 times greater than the prescribed sentence for their crime is not merely excessive—it is an egregious affront to justice.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $237,000 of compensation, according to the $50 per minute guideline for unjust imprisonment as outlined in the Standardized Criminal Code Act; 4.2.c. He was sentenced to three [3] days and eight [8] hours, or 4,800 minutes in jail, of which only 60 minutes were legally justified for his crime of serial killing. The remaining 4,740 minutes were entirely without legal basis, making this an egregious violation of his rights and warranting full compensation.

2. $284,000 in compensatory damages for the opportunity cost of a 3 day, 7 hour sentence. This was calculated using the following information:
- GnomeWhisperer, on average, can mine a barrel of gunpowder every 10 minutes.
- GnomeWhisperer mines for approximately 30% of his playtime, which was and still is his main source of income.
- Therefore, GnomeWhisperer would acquire 142 barrels of gunpowder in 3 days and 7 hours of playtime.
- At the time of GnomeWhisperer’s jailing, he could sell one barrel for $2000 (P-006).
- $2000 per barrel * 142 barrels = $284,000.

3. $150,000 in punitive damages to address the gross miscarriage of justice perpetrated by Mask3D_WOLF. Under the law, punitive damages exist to punish outrageous conduct and deter similar behavior, and there is no question that this case qualifies. Mask3D_WOLF’s actions were not just negligent—they were a complete mockery of our justice system, causing GnomeWhisperer to endure undue suffering and stripping him of his rights in the most egregious manner.
Mask3D_WOLF made a mockery of Redmont’s legal system by calling the appropriate sentence for GnomeWhisperer’s crime “silly” (P-004), and extrajudicially took GnomeWhisperer’s punishment into his own hands, showing clear disdain for the law he was meant to serve.
The Plaintiff in Discover Bank v. The Commonwealth of Redmont. [2023] FCR 77 was awarded $100,000 in punitive damages. The deliberate and outrageous abuse of power displayed by Mask3D_WOLF not only surpasses the conduct of the defendants in that case, but also strikes at the core principles of justice and fairness. As such, a higher punitive damages award is not only justified but necessary to adequately address the severity of this misconduct.
This award is not just about restitution—it is about sending a clear message that such egregious behavior will not be tolerated in Redmont. It is the only way to ensure justice for GnomeWhisperer and to deter others from making a similar mockery of our system.

4. $100,000 in humiliation damages. Giving GnomeWhisperer a sentence 80 times what was warranted by the law was not enough for Mask3D_WOLF; no, the Defendant also felt the need to brag about this egregious act for all of Redmont to see, and disgraced GnomeWhisperer by publicly discussing how he would punish GnomeWhisperer (P-001, P-003). This public denouncement of GnomeWhisperer and blatant disregard for the rule of law belittled GnomeWhisperer to his friends and to his peers. To rub salt in the 3 day, 8 hour wound, Mask3D_WOLF even tried belittling GnomeWhisperer’s possible legal representation (P-005). This blatant, malicious act of public humiliation demands accountability and justifies a substantial award in damages.

5.$50,000 in emotional damages. The psychological harm from GnomeWhisperer being unjustly imprisoned for so long can’t be overstated. Mask3D_WOLF’s actions left GnomeWhisperer stuck in jail for an excessive amount of time, causing intense stress, anxiety, and feelings of helplessness, and he has had to relive this terrible time while filing this lawsuit. Emotional damages apply when someone suffers mental harm due to intentional or negligent actions, and this case clearly fits. GnomeWhisperer deserves compensation for the emotional toll this ordeal has taken on him.

6. $100,000 in damages for GnomeWhisperer’s loss of enjoyment in Redmont. Beyond the time lost in jail, GnomeWhisperer was stripped of the ability to enjoy life in Redmont as he once did. His prolonged imprisonment meant missing out on community life and activities, and the injustice of it all eroded his trust in the very institutions meant to protect him. This loss, both tangible and intangible, justifies a substantial award to account for the harm done to GnomeWhisperer’s quality of life.

7. $276,300 in legal fees, 30% of the value of this case, to cover the costs the Plaintiff incurred hiring Dragon Law Firm as his legal counsel in this case.

V. EVIDENCE

AD_4nXcEwXd7vc8fZmBc3eRfN_t3a_oBXhTTT1xouP4x0h_tv_XxyNKJUsJjy_Vc0klMQxQufwjFy8wypVmjf2AeQPXbfIofejGcCmgO5KAz-QxhJvMxOtuYjG1ZMPMKDOpZ9FPOUjSJ
AD_4nXfv17CuT6C1Txv2Yvjh7zA_UeqcPGHWLn7MSR-x0xoR3UPfDv4cUhdQpZh8CX_YHjuYnKEXm-RbOAtGYbVqvINxiUj9X1cgZvbzMWWIBePMAhg0yCtbir-gHFIea128DIDO1tLhQw
AD_4nXfCbWFQ2DZ6s9EKDXhvPz_Jc1grhYIGnJu-D81icnhmNUvLUk4uYgHjrQoo9qHZRCOAC8vvbwBDqYzV5h6dG-7MKW5di-3sxAV-bVioIofyc6FwYw6CD6SSXoluTi2Dd0z6xvlU
AD_4nXfx4SK8O2giFzBSMPlF_6DlkWDe-I48VWYECOuG8xIzht4n94Ll57mrF6tdyKnGAl_MbYYz3gRnKmjWBQ1JxPPnVzQSfP-_sR-RJJHsEmsaP0I8SAfQmJEW4SUdM3VJss8N9WKiTg
AD_4nXfpD2EVu2Syt53QIl3GscEBXfGmckbfNn7HhpoU9QflKHhpqGZWacRbDu3mzC3usD4Gfnu8GsoBOYR58LhX7M3EsUBkRO1Fc2kpnLFZU4wY4vsQT8YUkpxKdPECIcGXbkFGqFru
AD_4nXeZJQRG6_uFPEdvSPteCU9pVdC4wzvBIRkhFL9aBv_UdVlcRBHolmiQ4NqSjlKn90kVshkTXEFZCM6BbxsSRdS8Rf6F25IcyXbVU3xi5GoRonqaXOxfrQlFwAKTTJqWiV7DRHuH

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 28th day of January, 2025.

 
Last edited:
I respectfully request to amend the complaint as follows:

II. FACTS
1. GnomeWhisperer was sentenced to jail by Mask3D_WOLF for three [3] days and eight [8] hours for 48 counts of murder (P-002).
2. The prison mine was broken during GnomeWhisperer's sentence, preventing him from working off his sentence (P-007).

...

V. EVIDENCE

...

1738217344430.png
 
Your honor, I know the Commonwealth has not yet been summoned, but we request the opportunity to address the Plaintiff's request to amend the filing before it is ruled upon.
 
Dartanboy said:
Your honor, I know the Commonwealth has not yet been summoned, but we request the opportunity to address the Plaintiff's request to amend the filing before it is ruled upon.
Click to expand...

Objection


Breach of Procedure

The Commonwealth has not been summoned. Furthermore, the Court rules state that a party can amend the filing with notice to the Court. It is not a request, and it cannot be blocked by the Court. The amendment is happening.

 

Writ of Summons



@Freeze_Line is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of GnomeWhisperer v. Commonwealth of Redmont

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.

 
Alexander P. Love said:

Objection


Breach of Procedure

The Commonwealth has not been summoned. Furthermore, the Court rules state that a party can amend the filing with notice to the Court. It is not a request, and it cannot be blocked by the Court. The amendment is happening.

Click to expand...
This objection has been overruled.

No such rule exists to my knowledge, though the Plaintiff is free to cite it if they wish to do so.

The defendant may provide a response to the request.
 
ColonelKai said:
This objection has been overruled.

No such rule exists to my knowledge, though the Plaintiff is free to cite it if they wish to do so.

The defendant may provide a response to the request.
Click to expand...
Apologies, misread the rule, rookie mistake.

The amendment to the complaint may be made as the Plaintiff wishes.
 
ColonelKai said:

Writ of Summons



@Freeze_Line is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of GnomeWhisperer v. Commonwealth of Redmont

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.

Click to expand...
Your honor, I will be representing the Commonwealth in this case.
 
juniperberries said:
I respectfully request to amend the complaint as follows:

II. FACTS
1. GnomeWhisperer was sentenced to jail by Mask3D_WOLF for three [3] days and eight [8] hours for 48 counts of murder (P-002).
2. The prison mine was broken during GnomeWhisperer's sentence, preventing him from working off his sentence (P-007).

...

V. EVIDENCE

...

View attachment 51360
Click to expand...

Objection


PERJURY

The evidence "P-007" is either fake or a gross misrepresentation (such as the Plaintiff attempting to break a block outside the mine then quickly returning to keep the message up).

Furthermore, the Prison mine was working properly (not broken) and, in-fact, the Plaintiff skipped a whopping 3 days, 4 hours, 27 minutes, and 10 seconds of their sentence (over 95% of the sentence).

Screenshot_20250129-120632.png
Screenshot_20250129-120641.png
Screenshot_20250129-120645.png

 
Dartanboy said:

Objection


PERJURY

The evidence "P-007" is either fake or a gross misrepresentation (such as the Plaintiff attempting to break a block outside the mine then quickly returning to keep the message up).

Furthermore, the Prison mine was working properly (not broken) and, in-fact, the Plaintiff skipped a whopping 3 days, 4 hours, 27 minutes, and 10 seconds of their sentence (over 95% of the sentence).

View attachment 51577View attachment 51578View attachment 51579

Click to expand...

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Per the definition of perjury- “When a witness intentionally lies or misrepresents facts under oath”- the Defence must provide actual proof that the Plaintiff knowingly made a false statement. Disagreeing with the Plaintiff’s account does not establish perjury.

The Defence has presented evidence showing that GnomeWhisperer "skipped" a whopping 3 days, 4 hours, 27 minutes and 10 seconds. This does not establish that the mine was functional. The Plaintiff’s statement- that technical issues prevented GnomeWhisperer from working off his sentence- remains accurate, and the Defence has not disproven this fact. If the Defence wishes to claim otherwise, they must provide concrete evidence that GnomeWhisperer was able to complete the full required mining time without interference.

The Defence has alleged that the Plaintiff has “faked” evidence- a serious and reckless accusation- without providing a shred of proof. A charge this severe demands specific and verifiable evidence, not speculation or assumption. Absent that evidence, the accusation remains completely unfounded and should be dismissed outright.
 
Dartanboy said:
Your honor, I will be representing the Commonwealth in this case.
Click to expand...
The defendant has 72 hours beginning now to submit their response to complaint.
 
Dartanboy said:

Objection


PERJURY

The evidence "P-007" is either fake or a gross misrepresentation (such as the Plaintiff attempting to break a block outside the mine then quickly returning to keep the message up).

Furthermore, the Prison mine was working properly (not broken) and, in-fact, the Plaintiff skipped a whopping 3 days, 4 hours, 27 minutes, and 10 seconds of their sentence (over 95% of the sentence).

View attachment 51577View attachment 51578View attachment 51579

Click to expand...
juniperberries said:
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Per the definition of perjury- “When a witness intentionally lies or misrepresents facts under oath”- the Defence must provide actual proof that the Plaintiff knowingly made a false statement. Disagreeing with the Plaintiff’s account does not establish perjury.

The Defence has presented evidence showing that GnomeWhisperer "skipped" a whopping 3 days, 4 hours, 27 minutes and 10 seconds. This does not establish that the mine was functional. The Plaintiff’s statement- that technical issues prevented GnomeWhisperer from working off his sentence- remains accurate, and the Defence has not disproven this fact. If the Defence wishes to claim otherwise, they must provide concrete evidence that GnomeWhisperer was able to complete the full required mining time without interference.

The Defence has alleged that the Plaintiff has “faked” evidence- a serious and reckless accusation- without providing a shred of proof. A charge this severe demands specific and verifiable evidence, not speculation or assumption. Absent that evidence, the accusation remains completely unfounded and should be dismissed outright.
Click to expand...
This objection has been overruled.

While the evidence presented by the defendant may be useful within their bid to poke holes in the plaintiff's argument, perjury very expressly requires a proof of ill intent, and that the accused believes that the statement made was untrue. The court does not find that the defendant has provided the necessary evidence to pass the threshold necessary for such an accusation.
 
Your Honor, there has been some miscommunication within the DOJ, I request a 24 hour extension.
 
The deadline will be extended to 23:00 UTC tomorrow, or approximately 24 and a half hours from now.
 

Answer to Complaint


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

GnomeWhisperer
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

  1. The Defense AFFIRMS that GnomeWhisperer was sentenced to jail by Mask3D_WOLF for 3 days and 8 hours for 48 counts of murder.

  2. The Defense NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that the prison mine was broken during GnomeWhisperer's sentence.

II. DEFENCES
  1. The plaintiff was sentenced to 3 days and 8 hours for 48 counts of murder. This was due to a mistake and an error that could not be fixed with the plugin, as we will prove later during trial. However, being sentenced for a certain duration does not mean the plaintiff remained in prison for that entire time.

  2. There are endless possibilities for how that screenshot could have been obtained. We cannot rule out the possibility that the plaintiff went outside the mine to mine a block that was not designated for the mine. Other than that, the defense was unable to verify whether this was the case.


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 9 day of February 2025

 
The case will hereby go into the Discovery Phase, for a maximum of 72 hours.
 
The Plaintiff would like to call GnomeWhisperer and Vernicia as witnesses.
 

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

juniperberries said:
Vernicia
Click to expand...

This court case is about the plaintiff's alleged wrongful imprisonment. Vernicia is not one of the listed parties and is in no way relevant to this case.

 
The defense submits the following witness list:

- Mask3D_WOLF
 
juniperberries said:
The Plaintiff would like to call GnomeWhisperer and Vernicia as witnesses.
Click to expand...
Can the plaintiff explain how the second witness put forward is relevant to the case?
 
ColonelKai said:
Can the plaintiff explain how the second witness put forward is relevant to the case?
Click to expand...
Your Honor, Vernicia is the person who buys the gunpowder from the plaintiff and can testify toward our compensatory damage claim.
 
Does the defense dispute the gunpowder prices? Specifically the prices, not any other part of the compensatory claim.
 
ColonelKai said:
Does the defense dispute the gunpowder prices? Specifically the prices, not any other part of the compensatory claim.
Click to expand...
The defense does not dispute the gunpowder prices
 
Freeze_Line said:

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT OBJECTION - RELEVANCE This court case is about the plaintiff's alleged wrongful imprisonment. Vernicia is not one of the listed parties and is in no way relevant to this case.

Click to expand...

In that case, the court sustains this objection. The discovery is now over, and the plaintiff now has 48hours for their opening statement.

I apologise for the delay in the last 2 days as I was traveling from Japan to East Coast US.
 

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT


May it please the court. Your Honour, opposing counsel, and all those present—this case is about justice, accountability, and the fundamental rights of every citizen in Redmont.

We stand here today because my client, GnomeWhisperer, was subjected to a blatant abuse of power—an egregious violation of his rights that should outrage anyone who believes in fairness and the rule of law. Mask3D_Wolf, acting as an agent of the Commonwealth, did not simply make a mistake. He did not simply miscalculate a sentence. No—he willfully disregarded the law, imposed an excessive punishment, and then, as if to flaunt his power, mocked both my client and the very justice system he was supposed to uphold.

The law is clear. The Violent Offences Act states that for serial killing, the punishment is a $200 fine per murder and a 60-minute jail sentence. That’s it. No exceptions. No loopholes. And yet, instead of 60 minutes, Mask3D_Wolf sentenced GnomeWhisperer to 3 days and 8 hours—4,800 minutes—80 times longer than what the law allows. There is no justification for this. None. This is not a simple clerical error; this is an absolute disregard for legal precedent, a decision made not based on the law, but on the personal whims of the Defendant.

The Defence has already admitted that an error was made, but now they try to hide behind excuses. They claim it was a “mistake” that “could not be fixed with the plugin.” Your Honor, that is not a defence—it is an admission of negligence. If an officer of the law knowingly issues an unlawful sentence and does nothing to correct it, that is not an accident—that is incompetence at best and outright malice at worst.

But the injustice didn’t stop at the excessive sentencing. Instead of recognizing his mistake, Mask3D_Wolf bragged about it. He publicly mocked the idea of applying the proper sentence, calling it “silly.” He discussed my client’s punishment as though it were some personal game rather than a matter of law. And he didn’t stop at humiliating GnomeWhisperer—he even tried to belittle the legal representation fighting for his rights. This isn’t just unlawful—it’s cruel.

And the effects of this injustice are undeniable. GnomeWhisperer spent ages locked away, stripped of his freedom, unable to work, unable to engage in the community, unable to live his life in Redmont. This sentence represents $284,000 in earnings, immense emotional distress, and worst of all, lost faith in the very system that is supposed to protect him.

The facts of this trial are clear. The Defendant’s actions were unlawful. The suffering inflicted upon GnomeWhisperer was real. And justice demands that Mask3D_Wolf and the Commonwealth be held accountable.

Your Honor, we ask that this honourable Court find the Defendant liable on all charges and grant GnomeWhisperer the full compensation he is owed, thereby upholding Redmont’s foundational commitment to fair treatment under the law.

 
Thank you. The defendant now has 48 hours beginning now to present their opening statement to the court.
 

Opening Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Good afternoon, Your Honor and the opposing counsel.

We are here today because of a mistake that occurred on January 21st. The plaintiff, GnomeWhisperer, after murdering 48 people, was sentenced to the wrong amount of jail time. While this may seem like a deliberate abuse of police power, it was not. The officer in question was simply doing their job and made an honest mistake, as any human being can.

The officer had no bias against the plaintiff, and there was nothing personal about the sentencing. This officer has served as the Deputy Secretary of the DHS for a very long time, taking their job seriously and acting responsibly.

The plaintiff stated, “If an officer of the law knowingly issues an unlawful sentence and does nothing to correct it, that is not an accident—that is incompetence at best and outright malice at worst.” However, the officer did attempt to correct the mistake and did everything they could, but they were ultimately unable to do so due to an issue with the plugin.

The 4,800-minute sentence was not issued intentionally or knowingly. It was a mistake. One that, unfortunately, could not be corrected.

Additionally, police officers fine convicts after jailing them because the plugin does not support automatic fines (Trainee Guide for Trainee Officers). In this case, the plaintiff was not fined at all. The officer refrained from issuing a fine because they realized the sentencing was a mistake. If the officer had acted maliciously and intended to punish the plaintiff unfairly, they would not have skipped the fine.

While the plaintiff was mistakenly sentenced to 4,800 minutes in jail, they did not serve the full sentence. The plaintiff exaggerates their time in jail, as they only served 3 hours, 32 minutes, and 50 seconds, not the full 3 days and 8 hours. This means they only served about 4.43% of the total sentence. The plaintiff may claim they missed out on a lot, but in reality, they did not.

The defense asks the court to consider the simple fact that mistakes happen, and sometimes, they are beyond our ability to correct. We will demonstrate this as the trial progresses, and every piece of the puzzle will fall into place.

Thank you.

 

Writ of Summons



@GnomeWhisperer and @Mask3D_WOLF are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of GnomeWhisperer v. Commonwealth of Redmont as witnesses.

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.

 
Present.
 
The plaintiff now may present questions to the witnesses, within the following 48 hours. The witnesses have a further 48 hours to answer, after which any follow-up questions may be asked within a further 48 hours, and so on.
 
ColonelKai said:
In that case, the court sustains this objection. The discovery is now over, and the plaintiff now has 48hours for their opening statement.

I apologise for the delay in the last 2 days as I was traveling from Japan to East Coast US.
Click to expand...

Motion


Motion to Reconsider

Your honor, we still need Vernicia... she can testify as to the rate she bought the gunpowder, etc... unless the other side does not wish to contest our claim for compensatory damages.

 
Questions for @GnomeWhisperer:

  1. Can you confirm for the court what crime you were charged with?
  2. Can you confirm for the court what your sentence was?
  3. Were you aware of the Violent Offences Act and the proper sentencing guidelines before your arrest?
  4. When you were first sentenced, did Mask3D_WOLF inform you that it was an error?
  5. Were you fined by Mask3D_WOLF for these murders?
  6. Did you ever receive an apology or acknowledgment from Mask3D_Wolf that your sentence was excessive?
  7. When you were sentenced to 3 days and 8 hours, what was your first reaction?
  8. Can you describe what it felt like to believe you’d be stuck in jail for three days and eight hours?
  9. Has this event caused you any lingering stress or anxiety?
  10. How did it feel to see Mask3D_WOLF openly talking about your sentence?
  11. How did it feel to have your sentencing discussed publicly instead of being handled privately?
  12. What was your reaction when you saw Mask3D_WOLF call the correct punishment “silly”?
  13. Did you receive messages or reactions from others in Redmont about your sentencing?
  14. How did your peers’ reactions to Mask3D_WOLF’s public discussion of your punishment make you feel?
  15. What do you enjoy doing in Redmont?
  16. Did your sentence prevent you from participating in specific activities you had planned?
  17. Do you feel that the sentence changed how you view justice in Redmont?
  18. Do you feel the same sense of safety, freedom, and enjoyment in Redmont that you did before this happened?
 
Alexander P. Love said:

Motion


Motion to Reconsider

Your honor, we still need Vernicia... she can testify as to the rate she bought the gunpowder, etc... unless the other side does not wish to contest our claim for compensatory damages.

Click to expand...
I will allow the defendant to state specifically to which extent they wish to contest the compensatory damages before I make a ruling on this.
 
ColonelKai said:
I will allow the defendant to state specifically to which extent they wish to contest the compensatory damages before I make a ruling on this.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, it is unreasonable for the defense to calculate and determine the exact extent to which we are contesting the damages; we cannot plan everything down to the last detail. Courts are meant to be fair to both sides, and Vernicia’s summons was overturned 8 days ago! The plaintiff cannot simply request her again after discovery has ended just because they feel like it. Everything has its time; if the plaintiff wanted to challenge this decision, they should have done so immediately after it was made, not now. Therefore, the defense requests that a fair trial be upheld and asks that their request be denied.
 

Objection


juniperberries said:
Did you ever receive an apology or acknowledgment from Mask3D_Wolf that your sentence was excessive?
Click to expand...
OBJECTION - Leading Questions

juniperberries said:
How did your peers’ reactions to Mask3D_WOLF’s public discussion of your punishment make you feel?
Click to expand...
OBJECTION - Hearsay

juniperberries said:
What do you enjoy doing in Redmont?
Click to expand...
OBJECTION - Relevance

juniperberries said:
Did your sentence prevent you from participating in specific activities you had planned?
Click to expand...
OBJECTION - Leading Questions

juniperberries said:
Do you feel that the sentence changed how you view justice in Redmont?
Click to expand...
OBJECTION - Leading Questions

juniperberries said:
Do you feel the same sense of safety, freedom, and enjoyment in Redmont that you did before this happened?
Click to expand...
OBJECTION - Calls for a conclusion

 
The 48 hours have elapsed, and the defense requests that we proceed
 
Freeze_Line said:
The 48 hours have elapsed, and the defense requests that we proceed
Click to expand...
There were a lot of questions, the witness is answering them. We ask the court be reasonable on time here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Freeze_Line said:

Objection



OBJECTION - Leading Questions


OBJECTION - Hearsay


OBJECTION - Relevance


OBJECTION - Leading Questions


OBJECTION - Leading Questions


OBJECTION - Calls for a conclusion

Click to expand...
I’m not sure the defense knows what a leading question is. A leading question is when the question suggests the answer such as “isn’t it true that…”. None of our questions are leading.

The question is not hearsay as it isn’t calling on the witness to state what a party said, it is asking the witness to connect general reactions to the witness’s feelings.

The question is relevant as it goes to support our loss of enjoyment claim.

The question does not call for conclusion as it asks the witness to testify to their own feelings, it’s not asking them to form an opinion on a set of facts.
 

Objection


Alexander P. Love said:
There were a lot of questions, the witness is answering them. We ask the court be reasonable on time here.
Click to expand...
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The plaintiff is speaking out of turn.

Additionally, the witness had plenty of time to answer the questions. The witness has sent over 100 messages in the last two days and has been online on the server. 48 hours is plenty of time to answer some questions, and the defense requests that we proceed. We are already far behind.

IMG_0612.jpeg

 
Freeze_Line said:
Your Honor, it is unreasonable for the defense to calculate and determine the exact extent to which we are contesting the damages; we cannot plan everything down to the last detail. Courts are meant to be fair to both sides, and Vernicia’s summons was overturned 8 days ago! The plaintiff cannot simply request her again after discovery has ended just because they feel like it. Everything has its time; if the plaintiff wanted to challenge this decision, they should have done so immediately after it was made, not now. Therefore, the defense requests that a fair trial be upheld and asks that their request be denied.
Click to expand...
I don't quite understand by what you mean you its "unreasonable" for you to "calculate and determine the exact extent to which [you] are contesting the damages", as I asked whether or not you contest the value given in the damages or the method in which it was calculated. There was no calculation necessary from your side.

Alexander P. Love said:

Motion


Motion to Reconsider

Your honor, we still need Vernicia... she can testify as to the rate she bought the gunpowder, etc... unless the other side does not wish to contest our claim for compensatory damages.

Click to expand...

As it seems there will be potential conflict in this regard, I will accept this motion and reinstate Vernicia as a witness. The summons will be issued shortly.


Freeze_Line said:

Objection



OBJECTION - Leading Questions

OBJECTION - Hearsay


OBJECTION - Relevance


OBJECTION - Leading Questions


OBJECTION - Leading Questions


OBJECTION - Calls for a conclusion

Click to expand...
 
Apologies -- continuing the message here.
As the witness has been quite active in the public channels, and given that he was given twice the amount that is normally afforded to witnesses and still yet has failed, I issue a warning to the witness @GnomeWhisperer and give 24 extra hours beginning now to answer the questions. Failure will result in a contempt of court charge.

That being said, all of the objections made by the defence against the witness questions are overruled.


Freeze_Line said:

Objection



OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The plaintiff is speaking out of turn.

Additionally, the witness had plenty of time to answer the questions. The witness has sent over 100 messages in the last two days and has been online on the server. 48 hours is plenty of time to answer some questions, and the defense requests that we proceed. We are already far behind.

View attachment 52175

Click to expand...
This has been granted. The court will strike the message from record and warns the plaintiff not to repeat the mistake.
 

Writ of Summons



@Vernicia is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of GnomeWhisperer v. Commonwealth of Redmont.

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.

 
Me present
 
1. Can you confirm for the court what crime you were charged with?
I was charged with fourty eight counts of murder under Redmont law.

2. Can you confirm for the court what your sentence was?
Initially, I was sentenced to three days and eight hours in jail.

3. Were you aware of the Violent Offences Act and the proper sentencing guidelines before your arrest?
No, I was not fully aware of the specific guidelines under the Violent Offences Act at that time. I did not expect the penalty to be so high, and I learned about the proper sentencing only after my initial punishment was handed down.

4. When you were first sentenced, did Mask3D_WOLF inform you that it was an error?
Not right away. I only learned much later that my sentence was supposedly an error, but there was no formal notice or immediate correction when it happened.

5. Were you fined by Mask3D_WOLF for these murders?
Yes, I was fined as part of the overall punishment, this occured prior to my arrest and was the reason I turned myself in for the arrest as I feared being fined twice if I didn't turn myself in after already being fined once.

6. Did you ever receive an apology or acknowledgment from Mask3D_WOLF that your sentence was excessive?
No, I never received any formal apology. There was no direct admission from Mask3D_WOLF that I had been given a harsher sentence than necessary.

7. When you were sentenced to 3 days and 8 hours, what was your first reaction?
I was shocked and scared. Three days and eight hours felt like an extreme punishment—especially since I believed there would be a more measured procedure for sentencing.

8. Can you describe what it felt like to believe you’d be stuck in jail for three days and eight hours?
It felt oppressive and hopeless. Three days and eight hours might not sound like a lot on paper, but in the context of a bustling city like Redmont—and the activities I do there—it felt like I was being cut off from everything.

9. Has this event caused you any lingering stress or anxiety?
Absolutely. I still feel on edge about how justice is carried out in Redmont. Not knowing if a sentence might suddenly change or be deemed “an error” afterwards has made me uneasy.

10. How did it feel to see Mask3D_WOLF openly talking about your sentence?
I felt embarrassed and exposed. Seeing my case discussed openly, rather than with some discretion or confidentiality, was humiliating.

11. How did it feel to have your sentencing discussed publicly instead of being handled privately?
It made me feel like I was on display. People were reacting to the length of my sentence in real time, and it amplified my sense of injustice.

12. What was your reaction when you saw Mask3D_WOLF call the correct punishment “silly”?
I was frustrated. It felt dismissive, like my situation wasn’t taken seriously. Calling the correct punishment “silly” suggested a lack of regard for proper procedure and fairness.

13. Did you receive messages or reactions from others in Redmont about your sentencing?
Yes, I received a lot of questions and comments. Some people were sympathetic, while others seemed to mock or gossip about my situation.

14. How did your peers’ reactions to Mask3D_WOLF’s public discussion of your punishment make you feel?
It made me feel singled out and powerless. The public discourse made it harder for me to move on or have a fair opportunity to defend myself.

15. What do you enjoy doing in Redmont?
I love participating in community events, trade, and exploring different builds and businesses. I especially enjoy working on group projects with friends through GnomeCorp.

16. Did your sentence prevent you from participating in specific activities you had planned?
Yes. I had to miss out on a few group events and business opportunities during that time. It felt like I was penalized beyond just the jail time because I lost out on those experiences.

17. Do you feel that the sentence changed how you view justice in Redmont?
It definitely did. I lost some faith in the fairness and consistency of the justice system. It’s hard not to be cynical after such a confusing ordeal.

18. Do you feel the same sense of safety, freedom, and enjoyment in Redmont that you did before this happened?
No. Even though Redmont is still my home, I’m more cautious. I don’t feel the same level of safety or trust in how the law is enforced. It changed my perception of how secure and fair life in Redmont can be.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
May the plaintiff begin questioning the witness, your Honor?
Click to expand...
I will give the plaintiff 48 hours to present their questions. The witness @Vernicia has 48 hours to respond upon the questions being presented.
 
Vernicia said:
Me present
Click to expand...
1. Did you buy each barrel of gunpowder from GnomeWhisperer for $2,000?
2. How quickly do you go through gunpowder?
3. How often were you, at the time, willing to buy gunpowder from GnomeWhisperer?
 
Alexander P. Love said:
1. Did you buy each barrel of gunpowder from GnomeWhisperer for $2,000?
2. How quickly do you go through gunpowder?
3. How often were you, at the time, willing to buy gunpowder from GnomeWhisperer?
Click to expand...
A ) Yes at that time yes
B ) I prefer keep it trade secret but we at those weeks everyone was supplying me with tooons of shulkers of gunpowder and there was days where consumption was above barrel of shulkers
C ) There is system in place allowing unlimited sale of that , meaning he cound sell unlimited ammount
 
No further questions your Honor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top