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

Status
Not open for further replies.
The defence may cross-examine the witnesses called by the plaintiff.
 
Sorry for two messages - same timeline applies. 48 hours for questions, 48 hours for responses.
 
Questions for GnomeWhisperer:

1. Are you 100% sure you were fined for the 48 murders?

2. If yes, how much were you fined?

3. Roughly how long did you actually spend in jail?

4. Did you contact the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Justice about this sentencing error?
 
Are you 100% sure you were fined for the 48 murders?
Yes. There’s indisputable proof, including statements and screenshots, where Mask3D_WOLF openly mentions issuing the fine and the resulting debt. It’s not just my word.

If yes, how much were you fined?
The fine was $7200, putting me $4000 in debt. This figure is documented in the evidence already presented.

Roughly how long did you actually spend in jail?
I was sentenced to three days and eight hours, and that’s what I was told I would have to endure. To me, it felt like far more than three days—I was isolated, anxious, and traumatized, so it dragged on like weeks in my mind. If the defense wants to contest the precise length, they should be able to refer to their own records. It’s telling that they’re asking me about it when they should have a clear record of the time I spent locked away.

Did you contact the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Justice about this sentencing error?
Yes, I disputed my sentence with Masked—who, at the time, was associated with the Department of Homeland Security. Unfortunately, that did not lead to any meaningful resolution. Beyond that, I did not know about any further avenues of appeal or other authorities I could reach out to, and I received no guidance on how to pursue such options.
 

Objection


GnomeWhisperer said:
There’s indisputable proof, including statements and screenshots, where Mask3D_WOLF openly mentions issuing the fine and the resulting debt. It’s not just my word.
Click to expand...
OBJECTION - NARRATIVE

This was a simple Yes/No question.


Motion


GnomeWhisperer said:
This figure is documented in the evidence already presented.
Click to expand...
MOTION TO STRIKE

This is not true; there is no documented evidence suggesting that there was ever a fine.


Objection


GnomeWhisperer said:
I was sentenced to three days and eight hours, and that’s what I was told I would have to endure. To me, it felt like far more than three days—I was isolated, anxious, and traumatized, so it dragged on like weeks in my mind. If the defense wants to contest the precise length, they should be able to refer to their own records. It’s telling that they’re asking me about it when they should have a clear record of the time I spent locked away.
Click to expand...
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE & NOTHING PENDING

The witness's answer does not address the question asked, and the witness is discussing matters irrelevant to the question.

 
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION—NARRATIVE
Your honour, the Defence asked if the witness was 100% sure he was fined for the 48 murders. GnomeWhisperer’s response explains how he can be absolutely certain he was fined for the murders. It is a justified narrative.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION—NOTHING PENDING
Your honour, the witness answered the question to the best of his knowledge. He is not responsible for the DHS’s recordkeeping, and if the Defence needed an exact figure, they should have provided it during discovery. Furthermore, his response provides necessary context regarding the emotional toll of his wrongful imprisonment, which is central to this case.


I also request a response to the motion.
 
Freeze_Line said:

Objection



OBJECTION - NARRATIVE

This was a simple Yes/No question.


Motion



MOTION TO STRIKE

This is not true; there is no documented evidence suggesting that there was ever a fine.


Objection



OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE & NOTHING PENDING

The witness's answer does not address the question asked, and the witness is discussing matters irrelevant to the question.

Click to expand...
First objection is overruled. The response is directly relevant to the question.
Second objection is sustained. The response is not directly relevant to the question. The court asks the witness to answer the question, and if the witness does not remember the amount of time they have spent in the prison total, to state so.

The plaintiff may respond to the motion to strike.
 
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE

Your honour, P-001 and P-003 show the Defendant openly speaking about fining the Plaintiff, and the Defence has submitted no evidence to contradict this. There are two pieces of documented evidence of the Defendant not only suggesting, but admitting to the fine. The Defence's motion is baseless and should be denied.
 

Objection


juniperfig said:
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE

Your honour, P-001 and P-003 show the Defendant openly speaking about fining the Plaintiff, and the Defence has submitted no evidence to contradict this. There are two pieces of documented evidence of the Defendant not only suggesting, but admitting to the fine. The Defence's motion is baseless and should be denied.
Click to expand...
OBJECTION - HEARSAY

Exhibits P-001 and P-003 show the defendant speaking about fining the plaintiff. However, the defendant has never admitted to issuing a fine, and the plaintiff has not provided any evidence proving that a fine was imposed. As it stands, the exhibits are merely statements and do not prove anything.

 

Motion


GnomeWhisperer said:
i'm not sure. maybe a day and a half, felt like more
Click to expand...
MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honor, the question was merely intended to confirm an established fact. It asked approximately how long the plaintiff spent in jail, yet their response was highly exaggerated. As evidenced by proof provided by Dartanboy, the plaintiff was jailed for only 3 hours and 33 minutes, which is far from ”maybe a day a half.” Therefore, the defense respectfully urges the court to strike the witnesses’s response for severe exaggeration and partial perjury.

 
Freeze_Line said:

Objection



OBJECTION - HEARSAY

Exhibits P-001 and P-003 show the defendant speaking about fining the plaintiff. However, the defendant has never admitted to issuing a fine, and the plaintiff has not provided any evidence proving that a fine was imposed. As it stands, the exhibits are merely statements and do not prove anything.

Click to expand...
The objection is overruled. The application of hearsay under the objections guide is "Occurs when a witness testifies about statements made by others to prove the truth of those statements." In the evidence provided by the plaintiff (see. P-001, P-003), the plaintiff was speaking about an action, not about statement made by others. The usage of the evidence provided by the plaintiff as part of their response to motion was nowhere near the definition of hearsay, and thus the objection is overruled, and the court urges that the defendant care for the objections submitted to court.


Freeze_Line said:

Objection



OBJECTION - NARRATIVE

This was a simple Yes/No question.


Motion



MOTION TO STRIKE

This is not true; there is no documented evidence suggesting that there was ever a fine.


Objection



OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE & NOTHING PENDING

The witness's answer does not address the question asked, and the witness is discussing matters irrelevant to the question.

Click to expand...
The motion to strike is denied. As the plaintiff has pointed out, there is reasonable evidence submitted to the court as to show at least the possibility of fines having been issued. Therefore, there is no reason for the court to strike the statement.


Freeze_Line said:

Motion



MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honor, the question was merely intended to confirm an established fact. It asked approximately how long the plaintiff spent in jail, yet their response was highly exaggerated. As evidenced by proof provided by Dartanboy, the plaintiff was jailed for only 3 hours and 33 minutes, which is far from ”maybe a day a half.” Therefore, the defense respectfully urges the court to strike the witnesses’s response for severe exaggeration and partial perjury.

Click to expand...
The motion to strike is approved, but the statement will be kept in record for the moment. The witness' statement is indeed inadmissible (which is the criteria under the motion to strike) due to the fact that it directly conflicts with a more reputable piece of evidence.

The court would like to ask the witness @GnomeWhisperer the source or at the least the potential source of the very significant deviation.
 

Motion


ColonelKai said:
The motion to strike is approved, but the statement will be kept in record for the moment. The witness' statement is indeed inadmissible (which is the criteria under the motion to strike) due to the fact that it directly conflicts with a more reputable piece of evidence.

The court would like to ask the witness @GnomeWhisperer the source or at the least the potential source of the very significant deviation.
Click to expand...

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Reconsider

Your honour,

According to Rule 4.2, Submission Required for Use, from the Court Rules and Procedures:
All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission. Material must have been included within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible and the argument can be voided by the presiding judge.

The evidence submitted by Dartanboy was not included within a complaint, answer, amended complaint or answer, or within a discovery submission. It was included as a part of a perjury objection which occurred prior to the opening of discovery. It must be deemed inadmissible and cannot be used for legal arguments.

 
juniperfig said:

Motion




IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Reconsider

Your honour,

According to Rule 4.2, Submission Required for Use, from the Court Rules and Procedures:
All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission. Material must have been included within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible and the argument can be voided by the presiding judge.

The evidence submitted by Dartanboy was not included within a complaint, answer, amended complaint or answer, or within a discovery submission. It was included as a part of a perjury objection which occurred prior to the opening of discovery. It must be deemed inadmissible and cannot be used for legal arguments.

Click to expand...
It will only be kept within the record for the duration in which the court inquires to the witness.

ColonelKai said:
The objection is overruled. The application of hearsay under the objections guide is "Occurs when a witness testifies about statements made by others to prove the truth of those statements." In the evidence provided by the plaintiff (see. P-001, P-003), the plaintiff was speaking about an action, not about statement made by others. The usage of the evidence provided by the plaintiff as part of their response to motion was nowhere near the definition of hearsay, and thus the objection is overruled, and the court urges that the defendant care for the objections submitted to court.



The motion to strike is denied. As the plaintiff has pointed out, there is reasonable evidence submitted to the court as to show at least the possibility of fines having been issued. Therefore, there is no reason for the court to strike the statement.



The motion to strike is approved, but the statement will be kept in record for the moment. The witness' statement is indeed inadmissible (which is the criteria under the motion to strike) due to the fact that it directly conflicts with a more reputable piece of evidence.

The court would like to ask the witness @GnomeWhisperer the source or at the least the potential source of the very significant deviation.
Click to expand...

@GnomeWhisperer, you have 24h to answer the question presented by the court.
 
In the interest of fairness I tried to give the most conservative estimate I could, which was always going to be an estimate because even trying to relive this experience to give you an answer is traumatic and painful for me, but if you're pressing me on why the answer is so inconsistent, my answer would be that I'm as consistent as the application of Redmont law. I have no doubt that if you continue to press me to relive a traumatic experience, my answers are going to increasingly become erratic as they're being provided under duress. I'm already at my limit as it is with this case, so I would appreciate some leniency and understanding from the court.
 
Considering the large discrepancy at the face of submitted evidence, and a non-applicable answer, the court finds it suitable that the witness be officially warned on their behaviour in giving testimony to the court.

Their previous answer - which is now to be struck and deemed inadmissible - is exaggerated, and their reasoning to the mismatch is mostly emotionally charged in a way that is not plausible for the situation at hand.

Continued such behaviour in testimonies to the court will result in a contempt of court charge.

Considering the cross-examination done, the defendant may now ask their question to their witness @Mask3D_WOLF. The defence has 48 hours to ask questions, and the witness 48 hours to answer.
 
I'm a bit busy with schoolwork and request a 24 hour extension, Your Honor.
 
Questions for @Mask3D_WOLF:

1. Can you explain how Gnome was sentenced to 4,800 minutes? (equivalent to 3 days and 8 hours)

2. Did you attempt to resolve this issue?

3. How long did you work at the DHS?

4. Which position did you hold for most of your tenure at the DHS?

5. Were there any similar issues in the past, or was this something new?

6. During your time in the DHS, did you see GnomeWhisperer's sentence and how much time he spent in jail?

7. If so, could you tell us exactly how long he spent in jail?
 
Last edited:
Your Honor, could you also clarify whether the evidence submitted by Dartanboy is admissible?
 
Freeze_Line said:
Your Honor, could you also clarify whether the evidence submitted by Dartanboy is admissible?
Click to expand...
Only the answer to your third question was declared inadmissible.
 
ColonelKai said:
It will only be kept within the record for the duration in which the court inquires to the witness.
Click to expand...
Your Honour, to clarify, have you changed your mind about your statement regarding the evidence made here? Is the proof submitted by Dartanboy now admissible?
 
juniperfig said:
Your Honour, to clarify, have you changed your mind about your statement regarding the evidence made here? Is the proof submitted by Dartanboy now admissible?
Click to expand...
No, as I stated above, the answers to the third question are inadmissible. The evidence was always going to be inadmissible, it was simply kept until I asked the question to the witness as otherwise I would be inquiring them about an already struck piece of evidence, equivalent of questioning someone in regards to evidence that does not exist.

Sorry about the confusion.
 
Your Honor, may I respond to the questions?
 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO SUBMIT LATE EVIDENCE

While this motion is not listed in the motions list, it has been used in former courts, and the defense wishes to do the same for the sake of formalities.

The evidence provided by Dartanboy is crucial and essential for a proper judgment and ruling in this case. In FlyingBlocks v. Commonwealth of Redmont, the plaintiff was allowed to submit late evidence due to the severity and size of their claims. This case should be no different, as it also involves a high level of severity and substantial claims.

We have not yet finished witness questioning and still have plenty of time before closing statements. The plaintiff is also already aware of this evidence, so there is no need to delay the court to assess it.

The defense, therefore, respectfully requests that the court grant this motion, permit the defense to repost the evidence presented by Dartanboy, and deem the evidence admissible, as it is crucial to upholding fairness and justice.

1.png

3.png
2.png

 
Freeze_Line said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO SUBMIT LATE EVIDENCE

While this motion is not listed in the motions list, it has been used in former courts, and the defense wishes to do the same for the sake of formalities.

The evidence provided by Dartanboy is crucial and essential for a proper judgment and ruling in this case. In FlyingBlocks v. Commonwealth of Redmont, the plaintiff was allowed to submit late evidence due to the severity and size of their claims. This case should be no different, as it also involves a high level of severity and substantial claims.

We have not yet finished witness questioning and still have plenty of time before closing statements. The plaintiff is also already aware of this evidence, so there is no need to delay the court to assess it.

The defense, therefore, respectfully requests that the court grant this motion, permit the defense to repost the evidence presented by Dartanboy, and deem the evidence admissible, as it is crucial to upholding fairness and justice.

View attachment 52478
View attachment 52480View attachment 52479

Click to expand...
Motion denied. There is no reason why this evidence could not have been submitted any earlier during Discovery, unless the defendant can justify.
 

Motion


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

ColonelKai said:
Motion denied. There is no reason why this evidence could not have been submitted any earlier during Discovery, unless the defendant can justify.
Click to expand...

Your Honor, the defense was under the impression that the evidence submitted by Dartanboy would be allowed and admissible, as it solely served the purpose of providing a clear record of how long the plaintiff spent in jail. They insinuate that the plaintiff spent the full three days and eight hours in jail, which the plaintiff clearly did not. Dartanboy, therefore, objected to perjury to clarify the matter and provided key evidence that supported the answer to the complaint and was fundamental to our opening statement.

Rule 1.2 (Presiding Judge) states that "All application of Court Rules shall be held at the decision of the presiding judge." The defense asks the court to recognize the gravity of the evidence provided by Dartanboy. We cannot allow a minor procedural issue to undermine justice and fairness in this trial. We are not requesting to submit new evidence; we simply ask that the already submitted evidence be acknowledged. The fact that it was submitted in an improper format should not render it useless, especially since it was already used during witness testimony, so why should it not be considered now?

The final decision rests with the judge. Court rules and procedures are meant to serve as guidelines, but justice and fairness must take precedence. We urge the court to do the right thing and uphold these principles. This crucial evidence has already impacted the trial, and we respectfully request that it remain part of the proceedings.

 
GnomeWhisperer said:
i'm not sure. maybe a day and a half, felt like more
Click to expand...
To make it clear - sorry, when you said Dartanboy, I didnt check the name, and just stated it being true.

The above quoted piece is the ONLY piece of evidence declared inadmissible and struck from the court.
 
Hello, and good afternoon.

I would like to preface this post with an apology. Due to the limited amount of time (usually being exaughsted when doing so), I have hugely confused some matters at hand in this case, where I did not realise the below motion was for the 3 images (screenshots of the sentences provided within the objection provided by the defence) and not about the testimony given by the witness. Due to the two events being linked and the issue being dragged out to my unsatisfaction, I glimpsed over it in an unprofessional manner that should not have happened. I would like to extend my sincerest apologies to both parties.

Within this post are the court orders necessary to clean up my mistake and clarify certain issues.



Reconsideration of Decisions
Filed 10/03/2025

Following the misunderstanding of the court, it is within the courts belief that a re consideration of the previous decisions are to be underway. Hereby, the court will re-issue a decision on the following motion;

juniperfig said:

Motion




IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Reconsider

Your honour,

According to Rule 4.2, Submission Required for Use, from the Court Rules and Procedures:
All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission. Material must have been included within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible and the argument can be voided by the presiding judge.

The evidence submitted by Dartanboy was not included within a complaint, answer, amended complaint or answer, or within a discovery submission. It was included as a part of a perjury objection which occurred prior to the opening of discovery. It must be deemed inadmissible and cannot be used for legal arguments.

Click to expand...
This motion is hereby approved by the court, and thus will issue the following orders for correction on the matter.

  1. The court shall no longer consider the original pieces of evidence provided within the objection.
  2. The testimony that was struck after being compared against the piece of evidence will be un-struck.


Reconsideration of Decisions
Filed 10/03/2025

Following the misunderstanding of the court, it is within the courts belief that a re consideration of the previous decisions are to be underway. Hereby, the court will re-issue a decision on the following motion;
Freeze_Line said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO SUBMIT LATE EVIDENCE

While this motion is not listed in the motions list, it has been used in former courts, and the defense wishes to do the same for the sake of formalities.

The evidence provided by Dartanboy is crucial and essential for a proper judgment and ruling in this case. In FlyingBlocks v. Commonwealth of Redmont, the plaintiff was allowed to submit late evidence due to the severity and size of their claims. This case should be no different, as it also involves a high level of severity and substantial claims.

We have not yet finished witness questioning and still have plenty of time before closing statements. The plaintiff is also already aware of this evidence, so there is no need to delay the court to assess it.

The defense, therefore, respectfully requests that the court grant this motion, permit the defense to repost the evidence presented by Dartanboy, and deem the evidence admissible, as it is crucial to upholding fairness and justice.

View attachment 52478
View attachment 52480View attachment 52479

Click to expand...
The court rules and procedures state;

Courts said:
The scope and purpose of Discovery is to allow all material to enter the court prior to the beginning of arguments for the sake of fairness. It is to enable fairness by allowing the parties to view the information so that they may properly formulate their legal arguments. Presiding judges shall be guided by this principle.
Click to expand...
Courts said:
All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission. Material must have been included within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible and the argument can be voided by the presiding judge.
Click to expand...

From this, the court will assume, reasonably, that the primary factor in determining whether or not a submission should be allowed is dependent on the factor of fair preparation for both parties and their legal counsel. That is the primary reason why discovery exists, and a departure from its standards must therefore not violate this principle.

For the principle to be violated, this would mean that the submission of the evidence being late would have to have an adverse effect on the other party's ability to mount a legal defense.

The movant in the motion has claimed that as the plaintiff is aware of the information provided within the evidence, there should be no harm in admission of the evidence to the courts. The court disagrees with this fact as even if a party is aware of the existence of a piece of evidence or fact, the admittance (or lack of admittance) of that piece of evidence to the courts will effect the defense strategy and impact their ability to mount an effective defense.

This fact is compounded by the fact that the defendant has had the piece of evidence, which was available for submission within the prescribed discovery period, and has simply failed to submit it in a valid manner due to a lack of their own capabilities and understanding of the courts rules and procedures.

This evidence is crucial to the case, but considering the facts at hand, the court determines it to be the correct action to deny this motion.



Contempt of Court
Filed 10/03/2025

The witness @Mask3D_WOLF is hereby held in contempt of court for failing to abide by court rules and procedures and providing an answer to the questions presented by the defense. The court will leave the punishment to the Department of Homeland Security's discretion.




As we have exhausted the list of witnesses, the plaintiff has 48 hours to submit a closing statement.
 
May I provide an explanation for my delayed response?
 
You may.
 
I recently experienced a death in the family and, hopefully understandably, was not motivated to post in this case to the extent of the questions provided while grieving. I can provide various degrees of proof of this if need be. I understand I should have asked for an extension, however with a whirlwind of things to do, both on DC and (very majorly) off DC, this slipped my mind. I take responsibility for my actions, however, in light of these circumstances I ask that I be able to promptly respond to this and any follow-up questions, and that my charge possibly be reduced to a warning.
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
I recently experienced a death in the family and, hopefully understandably, was not motivated to post in this case to the extent of the questions provided while grieving. I can provide various degrees of proof of this if need be. I understand I should have asked for an extension, however with a whirlwind of things to do, both on DC and (very majorly) off DC, this slipped my mind. I take responsibility for my actions, however, in light of these circumstances I ask that I be able to promptly respond to this and any follow-up questions, and that my charge possibly be reduced to a warning.
Click to expand...
My condolences,

The charge is to be removed. You have 48 hours to respond to all pending questions.
 

Motion


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

The defence moves to amend the witness questions as follows:

1. Can you explain how Gnome was sentenced to 4,800 minutes? (equivalent to 3 days and 8 hours)

2. Did you attempt to resolve this issue?

3. How long did you work at the DHS?

4. Which position did you hold for most of your tenure at the DHS?

5. Were there any similar issues in the past, or was this something new?

6. During your time in the DHS, did you see GnomeWhisperer's sentence and how much time he spent in jail?

7. If so, could you tell us exactly how long he spent in jail?

 
Freeze_Line said:

Motion


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

The defence moves to amend the witness questions as follows:

1. Can you explain how Gnome was sentenced to 4,800 minutes? (equivalent to 3 days and 8 hours)

2. Did you attempt to resolve this issue?

3. How long did you work at the DHS?

4. Which position did you hold for most of your tenure at the DHS?

5. Were there any similar issues in the past, or was this something new?

6. During your time in the DHS, did you see GnomeWhisperer's sentence and how much time he spent in jail?

7. If so, could you tell us exactly how long he spent in jail?

Click to expand...
Approved.
 
1. Still being used to the old jailing system at the time, I confused the fine (previously $100, which confused the situation) with jail time under the impression that serial crime was repealed. I later found out that serial crime was indeed repealed, but not serial killing. Had I known this, I would not have made this good-faith mistake.
2. I immediately attempted to resolve this by opening a staff ticket and reporting the incident to my superiors.
3. I have worked at the DHS for 3 years now.
4. I have held the position of superintendent, now referred to as captain, for most of my tenure.
5. This was completely new.
6/7. Yes, he spent 3 hours and 33 minutes in jail out of the 3 day 8 hour sentencing total.
 
The plaintiff may now cross-examine the witness. The questions must be submitted within 48 hours after which the witness has an additional 48 hours to respond.
 
The plaintiff has failed to meet their deadline. The court hereby finds Dragon Law in contempt. We will continue to closing statements. The plaintiff now has 72 hours for their closing statement.
 
ColonelKai said:
The plaintiff has failed to meet their deadline. The court hereby finds Dragon Law in contempt. We will continue to closing statements. The plaintiff now has 72 hours for their closing statement.
Click to expand...

My apologies, your honour. I had mistakenly entered this into my calendar as a 72 hour deadline, not a 48 hour deadline.

The Defence was granted over a week to question their witness. In the interest of fairness, I request a late extension. I am prepared to present my questions to the witness now, if the Courts allow.
 
juniperfig said:
My apologies, your honour. I had mistakenly entered this into my calendar as a 72 hour deadline, not a 48 hour deadline.

The Defence was granted over a week to question their witness. In the interest of fairness, I request a late extension. I am prepared to present my questions to the witness now, if the Courts allow.
Click to expand...
Motion denied. There was a very clear reason why they were allowed a week that was out of their control but a reason caused by the witness themselves. It was not a similar circumstance.
 

Closing Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT
May it please the court.

GnomeWhisperer was wrongfully imprisoned. The law was clear—his sentence should have been 60 minutes, yet he was given three days and eight hours. Even though the Defense claims he only served three hours and 33 minutes, that is still two hours and 33 minutes longer than what the law allows. That is not a minor error—that is an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty.

And let’s be clear—prisoners are released "early" all the time. In Redmont, prisoners can legally reduce their sentence by performing manual labor in the prison mines, but this is still serving their sentence. GnomeWhisperer did exactly what he was supposed to do—he mined to shorten his sentence, as allowed by law. But then the mining system broke, and he was stuck, unable to work off more time. Even his early release wasn’t a reflection of justice being served. He had to do hard labor just to reduce an already illegal sentence, and when that system failed him too, he was left waiting indefinitely, unable to do anything but sit and serve time he was never supposed to serve.

The Defense wants you to believe that this was just a simple mistake. That somehow, a three-year veteran of the DHS just happened to forget how sentencing works and accidentally jailed someone for 4,800 minutes instead of 60. But how does a senior officer, with years of experience enforcing the law, not know the sentencing guidelines for one of the most serious crimes in Redmont? How does someone tasked with administering justice not bother to check before throwing a citizen into jail for days?

And even after this so-called mistake, what did Mask3D_WOLF do? Did he immediately work to fix the error? No. Did he apologize or acknowledge that GnomeWhisperer’s rights were violated? No. Did he mock the correct sentencing guidelines and make a joke of the entire system? Yes. That is not a mistake. That is a gross abuse of power.

The Defense would like you to believe that this case isn’t a big deal because GnomeWhisperer wasn’t in jail for the full three days. But GnomeWhisperer was never informed that his sentence was a mistake. He believed he was stuck in jail for three full days and eight hours. He was publicly humiliated when Mask3D_WOLF called the correct sentencing “silly” and turned his case into a spectacle. He was forced to mine to get out earlier, and when mining broke, he had no way to continue shortening his sentence.

Everything about this case is broken. The sentence was broken, violating the law by locking up my client for far longer than was permitted. The appeals process was broken, leaving GnomeWhisperer to sit in jail without any immediate explanation or correction. The attitude of the official responsible was broken, treating the law as a joke and the suffering of my client as entertainment. Even the very system designed to let prisoners earn their release was broken, forcing my client to waste time in a prison he never should have been in. The only way to fix this now is for the court to do what Mask3D_WOLF refused to—uphold the law, hold the Defendant accountable, and ensure that justice in Redmont means something.

Thank you.

 
The defendant has 72 hours for their closing statement.
 

Objection


OBJECTION - PERJURY

juniperfig said:
Did he immediately work to fix the error? No.
Click to expand...

Your Honor, the witness themself said, "I immediately attempted to resolve this by opening a staff ticket and reporting the incident to my superiors." The plaintiff knowingly made a false statement to paint Mask3D_WOLF as a terrible person. I move to strike that statement from the closing statement and request that the plaintiff’s counsel be charged with perjury.

 
The plaintiff has 24 hours to respond to the objection.
 

Closing Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Good afternoon, Your Honor, and opposing counsel.

The plaintiff was indeed wrongfully imprisoned due to an accident, as we have established during the witness testimonials. We're only human, after all, and we make mistakes. Mask3D_WOLF is a veteran in the DHS, and even though they have extensive experience and an excellent record, they still made this mistake. We have also established that Mask3D_WOLF immediately attempted to resolve the issue. This was not an act of power abuse; it was a mistake, and they took steps to correct it. Furthermore, this is the first time such an incident has occurred. Mask3D_WOLF could not have predicted this, and we should therefore treat it as what it is, a mistake.

Section 4.2c of the Standardized Criminal Code Act states:
"If an individual is found to be not guilty of a crime after punishment has been imposed, they shall be compensated $50 per minute spent in jail for offenses found unproven, alongside a reimbursement of any fine paid for unproven offences."

The plaintiff tried to twist this by claiming it applies only to "Unjust Imprisonment." However, the plaintiff was found guilty and wrongfully sentenced. Even then, there is no explicit law stating that individuals who were guilty of a charge but sentenced incorrectly must be compensated $50 per minute. Furthermore, the plaintiff only spent 2 hours and 33 minutes longer than they should have, making the $237,000 compensation request completely outrageous. Even if such a law existed, the proper calculation would amount to only $7,650.

The plaintiff also requested $284,000 in "compensatory damages for the opportunity cost of a 3-day, 7-hour sentence." However, the plaintiff only served 2 hours and 33 minutes beyond their rightful sentence. Attempting to calculate lost time outside of prison is absurd. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to provide any proof for claims such as "GnomeWhisperer, on average, can mine a barrel of gunpowder every 10 minutes." and "GnomeWhisperer mines for approximately 30% of his playtime, which was and still is his main source of income." The plaintiff could have just as easily claimed they mined 100% of their playtime, and they would still have presented the same amount of evidence, absolutely none.

I would also like to point out that just because the defendant previously sold shulkers for $2,000 does not mean they would have been able to sell it again for that price. The simple rule of supply and demand applies. We cannot assume and speculate that prices will remain the same when the plaintiff continues to introduce more supply. People do not need unlimited gunpowder, so why would the price remain stable forever? It wouldn’t. Even Vernicia does not have infinite money.

Punitive damages are defined as "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." This is the first time such an incident has occurred in Mask3D_WOLF’s DHS career. This was not intentional; it was a genuine mistake that they attempted to resolve. How can a mistake be considered "outrageous conduct" that warrants deterrence? Mask3D_WOLF never intended for this to happen and certainly does not plan to repeat it. Punitive Damages should not be awarded for an unintentional act made without malice. Had this been intentional, Mask3D_WOLF would not have immediately attempted to resolve it. Therefore, Punitive Damages do not apply in this case.

The plaintiff also presents vague evidence regarding their claim of humiliation. There are endless possibilities regarding what Mask3D_WOLF actually meant in the alleged messages. The plaintiff also failed to provide timestamps, meaning we cannot determine the order of these messages or whom they were directed toward. As a result, we can only speculate that they were aimed at the plaintiff, making this claim unsubstantiated. We cannot grant humiliation damages when we lack certainty about the messages’ recipient, context, and timing.

The plaintiff's testimony about how this has affected them and what they felt does not support their request for $50,000 in Emotional Damages. While this imprisonment was inconvenient for the plaintiff, it certainly did not reach the level of severity that would justify such an amount. Additionally, emotional damages are defined as "situations in which a person suffers psychological harm due to an entity's negligent or intentional actions. Emotional damages may be proven by witness testimony, reasonable person tests, or any other mechanism the presiding judge considers persuasive." This was a mistake, not an intentional act, and based on the plaintiff's testimony, there is no indication that they suffered psychological harm severe enough to warrant such damages.

Loss of enjoyment is defined as "situations in which an injured party loses, or has diminished, their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm." The plaintiff has continued their activities in the same manner as before their imprisonment. The additional 2 hours and 33 minutes spent in jail did not cause the severe harm the plaintiff claims. This did not alter their daily routine, income generation, or free will. They can still participate in the same activities without difficulty. Therefore, loss of enjoyment damages should not apply.

Finally, while the additional 2 hours and 33 minutes may have caused some inconvenience to the plaintiff, the damages they are requesting are excessive. This entire case arose from a mistake, an unintended error that Mask3D_WOLF immediately tried to correct. A mistake does not constitute an outrageous act. Furthermore, at the time this case was filed, the cap for consequential damages (if punitive damages do not apply) was $50,000.

The defense asks the court to consider the lack of evidence provided by the plaintiff and question how much the vague evidence they did provide truly proves. Justice must be served rightfully.

The Commonwealth thanks everyone for their time.

 
The court will hereby enter recess pending a verdict.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
GnomeWhisperer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 11

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The plaintiff was unfairly sentenced to 48 individual counts of murder rather than the serial murder which explicitly overrides the multiple murder charges.
2. The plaintiff has therefore spent unjust time in custody of the state and has lost value in multitude of ways which there must be compensation.
3. The mining mechanism within the jail was broken which led to further suffering as the plaintiff was unable to expedite their jailtime.
4. The officer in charge, Mask3d_Wolf has openly mocked and bragged about the situation at hand.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The length of the incarceration was due to an accident, one which was attempted to be remedied immediately.
2. The plaintiff has actually used the mining mechanism to skip a considerable portion of their jailtime.

III. THE COURT OPINION
I would like to first and foremost apologize for the delays. This was one of the first cases I took on, and not only did I make some mistakes, the delay was insanely long. Some of it was required as per my real life circumstances and the inability of other judges and justices to take on the case due to load or conflict of interest, but the timely carriage of justice is a fundamental right and some of the latency here is inexcusable. I hope both parties find it within their heart to not judge this too harshly.

That being said, this case has been one which required a mountain of evidence and deliberation - something we did not receive. Multiple arguments surrounding the core conflict within this case entirely went on without any evidence, and I would like to remind both parties of two factors; the fact that we are operating on a balance of probabilities, and that if there is an argument made with no evidence provided whatsoever - be it in form of witness testimonies or other - that the burden of proof falls to the person making the argument.

In the same vein, the verifiable facts are that the plaintiff was sentenced to an unjust number of amount by the officer in charge.

The plaintiff has also submitted persuasive evidence as to the behaviour of the officer in charge (P-001, P-003, P-004, P-005).

Other than that, the defense has not provided any evidence to back up their claims.

The court hereby dismisses the argument that this was a mistake, and that the the issue at hand was attempted to be remedied immediately. The defense has not provided any proof of such, and the intent can be, and usually is, proven through the behaviour and handling of a person or persons to the courts. Considering the aforementioned evidence providing insight into the behaviour, the court believes that the situation at hand was definitely negligent at the least, and even further agrees that the act was malicious.

The court would normally be inclined to accept the very reasonable agreement that some of the remedies sought by the plaintiff are unjust due to the skipped amount of jailtime, however, due to the incompetence displayed by the defense in this case, none of the potential evidence proving the skipped amount is admissible. Therefore, the court will rule with balance of probabilities and assume that the plaintiff has spent the full charged length in the prison.

Additionally, the court finds it that the calculations for the missed business opportunities as laid out in the second prayer for relief is a reasonable approximation. The defense has failed to demonstrate any verifiable reason why any of the calculation would be inaccurate or a misrepresentation. While prices fluctuate, an estimate is a very acceptable way of getting compensation. Otherwise, no compensation could ever be made on the grounds of a free-floating price point.

The court also agrees with the punitive damages on the grounds that an act being the first of its kind has no relation, and the argument of the defense that because the definition states "negligent or intentional actions." and the action was not intentional not only does not hold water as they have failed to provide any reason as to why the court should further consider the acts to be a complete accident, they fail to point out the possibility of the act being negligent even though the word is next to the words they have highlighted. This is a misspoken argument at best and an attempt to coerce the court at worst. The court fully agrees that this was at the least negligent, and deserves punitive damages to ensure further compliance. The "mistake" made by the officer in charge is outrageous and is a mistake that should not be repeated.

IV. DECISION
1. The relief sought for the Unjust Imprisonment of the plaintiff as set by the Standardized Criminal Code Act; 4.2.c, is GRANTED IN FULL.
2. The relief sought for compensatory damages by the plaintiff due to missed business opportunities is GRANTED IN FULL.
3. The relief sought for punitive damages due to the gross miscarriage of justice is GRANTED IN FULL.
4. The relief sought for humiliation damages due to the comments of the officer is GRANTED IN FULL.
5. The relief sought for the emotional damages as result of the imprisonment is GRANTED IN FULL.
6. The relief sought for the loss of enjoyment is DENIED. The court believes that the compensatory damages as well as the rest of the damages such as emotional damages covers the losses aptly.
7. The court grants the modified legal fees as a result of the charges at $246,300.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top