Lawsuit: Pending Commonwealth of Redmont v. Whimsythegolden [2025] DCR 104

Writ of Summons

@Whimsythegolden, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. Whimsythegolden [2025] DCR 104.

In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for such responses shall be 48 hours after the motion was filed.

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.

Plea

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Whimsythegolden
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA
1. Guilty

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 11th day of December 2025

Brief

SENTENCING

The position of the Commonwealth is quite simple, the Criminal Code Act dictates the maximum penalty for Weapons of Mass Destruction Trafficking as 100 Penalty Units, and 60 minutes in prison. While filing this case, the Commonwealth recommended a much lighter sentence based on the lack of severity of the actions committed by the Defendant. That being said, the Defendant should still be held responsible for their actions. A lessened sentence would amount to a mere slap on the wrist. The facts of the case are particularly egregious, as the Defendant was not selling these items, but rather freely distributing them. Even if the Defendant was unaware that they were brazenly giving illegal items as a "gift" to an arresting officer, the act of giving away and distributing WMDs for free to random citizens is a serious issue, as it places innocent civilians in danger of being charged with WMD possession even if they did not seek out or intentionally purchase said items.

On the subject of the monetary value at stake, while the Commonwealth acknowledges that the Defendant has a lower balance such that a sentence of 30 Penalty Units would significantly affect their net-worth, the Commonwealth believes that this is still justified. While 30 Penalty Units may be a significant burden for the Defendant currently, the monetary value is rather restrained compared to income possibilities in Redmont. Server voting rewards can easily recoup this value, therefore, unless the Defendant demonstrably needs the income immediately in order to pay an expiring loan, or extend the rent on some property, a temporary lack of available balance does not disproportionately affect the Defendant when juxtaposed with the crime they have readily admitted guilt in.

The Defendant must be strongly held accountable to their actions, to discourage future criminal behavior from the Defendant or any potential WMD traffickers. Thusly the Commonwealth requests a sentence of 30 Penalty Units, and 10 Minutes in Prison.

As requested by the Honorable Magistrate, the Prosecution will notify(ping) @Omegabiebel of this filing.

Brief

SENTENCING

Your Honor,

I think this case is clear. The defendant is simply not that smart. One could even describe him as an idiot. Who else in their right mind would commit an offence before the very eyes of a police sergeant while being arrested? It is a stupid offence that easily could have been avoided. It should be treated as such in sentencing.

The Commonwealth argues that this is some dangerous criminal out to get everyone and everything a Posession of WMDs charge. This is mere speculation without any form of evidence whatsoever. The Defendant pleaded guilty to dropping a singular police officer an WMD. They didn't plead guilty to mass distribution of illegal items. As such this speculation should be ignored. This is the Commonwealth trying to "puff up" their charge to justify an overly harsh punishment.
We should also keep in mind that it's often the simple explanations that form the motive of an offence. In this case this is the offender being stupid. This isn't the criminal mastermind with a web of co-conspirators, or the evil banker with a complex fraud scheme. This is a simple minded player who made a simple mistake. No more, no less.

I would also like to note the contradiction within the Commonwealth's brief. They first describe the offence as having "lack of severity", but subsequently describe it as "particularly egregious" based on pure speculation without a sliver of evidence. By their own admission we must then agree that the offence is not that serious as the "particularly egregious" argument melts away under the judicial gaze.

A punishment should protect the community as well as aim to rehabilitate and "correct" the offender. The offender here has no assets whatsoever. No plots and no bank accounts. They haven't even joined a bank discord. All they have is the 1.7k in their in-game balance (as of writing). The Commonwealth seeks to take 3000 dollars from that balance. This will undoubtedly put the defendant in deep debt, unable to even buy food until they've "worked off" that debt. This is harsh. Too harsh. The defendant shouldn't have to be dependent on server voting for several days while they pay off their debt, unable to eat or do anything else.

The Commonwealth contends that reducing their punishment recommendation would make this punishment a mere "slap on the wrist". While I heavily object to this characterization, lenient punishments work. Sometimes the offender just needs a little timeout to think about what they've done, and how they can do better in the future. It isn't the fact that they got punished that hits hard, its the conviction itself that causes some to "wake up" and change their lifestyle. From privately speaking with them, I can assure you they have learned their lesson and regret the offence. The Courts have previously given lenient sentences where the defendant was remorseful (Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. .Sirbucket420 [2024] FCR 127).

In conclusion, the law grants the Court the power to set a fine as well as sentence the defendant to prison. I ask that you substitute the fine with a more appropriate prison sentence of up to 5 minutes on top of the requested 10 minutes and an admonishment from the court to not commit this offence again. This will give the defendant the chance to think about their actions and rehabilitate, instead of ruining his fun on the server for real life days to come. The offender is a criminal, no doubt about that, but not a monster.

I thank the Court and Prosecutor NovaKerbal for their time.