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

[juniperfig]

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

Spoiler: ”P-001”

Spoiler: ”P-002”

Spoiler: ”P-003”

Spoiler: ”P-004”

Spoiler: ”P-005”

Spoiler: ”P-006”

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.

 

[juniperfig]

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

...

Spoiler: P-007

 

[Dartanboy]

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.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

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.

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.

 

[ColonelKai]

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.

 

[ColonelKai]

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.

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]

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.

Apologies, misread the rule, rookie mistake.

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

 

[Dartanboy]

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.

Your honor, I will be representing the Commonwealth in this case.

 

[Dartanboy]

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

...

Spoiler: P-007

View attachment 51360

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).

Spoiler: Proof

 

[juniperfig]

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).

Spoiler: Proof

View attachment 51577View attachment 51578View attachment 51579

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.

 

[ColonelKai]

Your honor, I will be representing the Commonwealth in this case.

The defendant has 72 hours beginning now to submit their response to complaint.

 

[ColonelKai]

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).

Spoiler: Proof

View attachment 51577View attachment 51578View attachment 51579

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.

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.

 

[Freeze_Line]

Your Honor, there has been some miscommunication within the DOJ, I request a 24 hour extension.

 

[ColonelKai]

The deadline will be extended to 23:00 UTC tomorrow, or approximately 24 and a half hours from now.

 

[Freeze_Line]

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

 

[ColonelKai]

The case will hereby go into the Discovery Phase, for a maximum of 72 hours.

 

[juniperfig]

The Plaintiff would like to call GnomeWhisperer and Vernicia as witnesses.

 

[Freeze_Line]

Objection

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

Vernicia

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.

 

[Freeze_Line]

The defense submits the following witness list:

- Mask3D_WOLF

 

[ColonelKai]

The Plaintiff would like to call GnomeWhisperer and Vernicia as witnesses.

Can the plaintiff explain how the second witness put forward is relevant to the case?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Can the plaintiff explain how the second witness put forward is relevant to the case?

Your Honor, Vernicia is the person who buys the gunpowder from the plaintiff and can testify toward our compensatory damage claim.

 

[ColonelKai]

Does the defense dispute the gunpowder prices? Specifically the prices, not any other part of the compensatory claim.

 

[Freeze_Line]

Does the defense dispute the gunpowder prices? Specifically the prices, not any other part of the compensatory claim.

The defense does not dispute the gunpowder prices

 

[ColonelKai]

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.

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.

 

[juniperfig]

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.

 

[ColonelKai]

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

 

[Freeze_Line]

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.

 

[ColonelKai]

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.

 

[GnomeWhisperer]

Present, your Honor.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Present.

 

[ColonelKai]

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.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

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.

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.

 

[juniperfig]

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?

 

[ColonelKai]

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.

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.

 

[Freeze_Line]

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.

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.

 

[Freeze_Line]

Objection

Did you ever receive an apology or acknowledgment from Mask3D_Wolf that your sentence was excessive?

OBJECTION - Leading Questions

How did your peers’ reactions to Mask3D_WOLF’s public discussion of your punishment make you feel?

OBJECTION - Hearsay

What do you enjoy doing in Redmont?

OBJECTION - Relevance

Did your sentence prevent you from participating in specific activities you had planned?

OBJECTION - Leading Questions

Do you feel that the sentence changed how you view justice in Redmont?

OBJECTION - Leading Questions

Do you feel the same sense of safety, freedom, and enjoyment in Redmont that you did before this happened?

OBJECTION - Calls for a conclusion

 

[Freeze_Line]

The 48 hours have elapsed, and the defense requests that we proceed

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The 48 hours have elapsed, and the defense requests that we proceed

There were a lot of questions, the witness is answering them. We ask the court be reasonable on time here.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection

OBJECTION - Leading Questions


OBJECTION - Hearsay


OBJECTION - Relevance


OBJECTION - Leading Questions


OBJECTION - Leading Questions


OBJECTION - Calls for a conclusion

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.

 

[Freeze_Line]

Objection

There were a lot of questions, the witness is answering them. We ask the court be reasonable on time here.

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.

Spoiler: Proof

 

[ColonelKai]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Objection

OBJECTION - Leading Questions

OBJECTION - Hearsay


OBJECTION - Relevance


OBJECTION - Leading Questions


OBJECTION - Leading Questions


OBJECTION - Calls for a conclusion

 

[ColonelKai]

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.

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.

Spoiler: Proof

View attachment 52175

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

 

[ColonelKai]

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.

 

[Vernicia]

Me present

 

[GnomeWhisperer]

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]

Me present

May the plaintiff begin questioning the witness, your Honor?

 

[ColonelKai]

May the plaintiff begin questioning the witness, your Honor?

I will give the plaintiff 48 hours to present their questions. The witness @Vernicia has 48 hours to respond upon the questions being presented.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Me present

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?

 

[Vernicia]

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?

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

 

[Alexander P. Love]

No further questions your Honor

 

[ColonelKai]

The defence may cross-examine the witnesses called by the plaintiff.

 

[ColonelKai]

Sorry for two messages - same timeline applies. 48 hours for questions, 48 hours for responses.

 

[Freeze_Line]

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?

 

[GnomeWhisperer]

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.

 

[Freeze_Line]

Objection

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.

OBJECTION - NARRATIVE

This was a simple Yes/No question.

Motion

This figure is documented in the evidence already presented.

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

Objection

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.

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.

 

[juniperfig]

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.

 

[ColonelKai]

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.

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.

 

[juniperfig]

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.

 

[GnomeWhisperer]

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

 

[Freeze_Line]

Objection

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 - 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.

 

[Freeze_Line]

Motion

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

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.

 

[ColonelKai]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

Motion

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.

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.

 

[ColonelKai]

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.

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

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.

@GnomeWhisperer, you have 24h to answer the question presented by the court.

 

[GnomeWhisperer]

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.

 

[ColonelKai]

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.

 

[Freeze_Line]

I'm a bit busy with schoolwork and request a 24 hour extension, Your Honor.

 

[Freeze_Line]

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?

 

[Freeze_Line]

Your Honor, could you also clarify whether the evidence submitted by Dartanboy is admissible?

 

[ColonelKai]

Your Honor, could you also clarify whether the evidence submitted by Dartanboy is admissible?

Only the answer to your third question was declared inadmissible.

 

[juniperfig]

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

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?

 

[ColonelKai]

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?

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.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Your Honor, may I respond to the questions?

 

[Freeze_Line]

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

 

[ColonelKai]

Your Honor, may I respond to the questions?

Yes, of course.

 

[ColonelKai]

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

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

 

[Freeze_Line]

Motion

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

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

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.

 

[ColonelKai]

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

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.

 

[ColonelKai]

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;

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.

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;

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

The court rules and procedures state;

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.

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.

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.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

May I provide an explanation for my delayed response?

 

[ColonelKai]

You may.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

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.

 

[ColonelKai]

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.

My condolences,

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

 

[Freeze_Line]

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?

 

[ColonelKai]

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?

Approved.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

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.

 

[ColonelKai]

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.

 

[ColonelKai]

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.

 

[juniperfig]

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.

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.

 

[ColonelKai]

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.

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.

 

[juniperfig]

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.

 

[ColonelKai]

The defendant has 72 hours for their closing statement.

 

[Freeze_Line]

Objection

OBJECTION - PERJURY

Did he immediately work to fix the error? No.

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.

 

[ColonelKai]

The plaintiff has 24 hours to respond to the objection.

 

[Freeze_Line]

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.

 

[ColonelKai]

The court will hereby enter recess pending a verdict.

 

[ColonelKai]

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.