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

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.

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.

i'm not sure. maybe a day and a half, felt like more

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.

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?

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?

Mask3D_WOLF said:

Your Honor, may I respond to the questions?

Click to expand...

Yes, of course.

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.

Spoiler: D-001

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.

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.

Spoiler: D-001

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.

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.