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.
