Finished [Kingdom of Hierax] Notice ad trial in absentia

[DraconDarknight]

A note is pinned on the free message boards of every city in Altera, they have also been sent separately to the various known kings and lords.

Notice ad trial in absentia

Hear ye, hear ye people of Altera,/
(to the King of ..<Kingom Name>/to the Lords of...<Region Name>)



let it be known that his Royal Majesty Neoroy I August-Aeyeras and his excellency the Prime Minister, Axex Hawklight have decreed(replaced with 'wish to inform' if you are not the trial suspect, and have been tagged) that Drake Hawklight shall hereby be indicted for treason.

He shall be forbidden to return to the Kingdom of Hierax, and is no longer in the position to represent the Kingdom or house Hawklight, until his name has been cleared in a trial which shall be held in his absence.

The accused may appoint a lawyer to speak in his stead and represent him during the trial.
It shall be noted that, no matter the outcome, all costs regarding the matter are to be beard by the accused himself.
- The Kingdom of Hierax will under no circumstances refund the suspect's lawyer fees.

Should no lawyer be appointed by the time of the trial the Drake Hawklight will remain unrepresented.

The location of the trial shall be given to the accused's lawyer and his lawyer alone, and shall be held under the watchful eyes of the Kingdom's Master of Justice Archduke Bolvar Firestorm.

At the trial the following shall be at stake for the suspect:

- His Lordly Title of Duke
- His Honor as a Knight
- His right to return to the Kingdom in any form
- his affiliation to house Hawklight
- His very right to bear the name Hawklight



Signatures and Sigil's:
King Neoroy I. August-Aeyeras, King od Hierax
Archuke Axex Hawklight, Prime Minister of the Kingdom
Archduke Bolvar Firestorm


FAQ:

Q:Why in absence?
A: Cause we are all pissed and thus have no intention to wait for him to get unbanned.
Plus, its medieval RPG, so him not being able to speak in front of a King while indicted with treason is rather sound.
So yeah its already been announced as absentia now and will be held in absentia.

Q: So what exactly did he do?
A: The court refuses to make statements about ongoing trials .

Q: What about his rights? I mean come on you can't hold a trial and say the suspect isn't to participate
A: Welcome to the medieval!

Q: So who is he prosecutor
A: Update: A prosecutor has been decided, I will refrain from tagging them here though to avoid meta kills.

Q: So doesn't he have the right of legal representation even if he can't afford it?
A: I see no law in the Kingdom that guarantees said right. Its a modern day right in the first place.

Q: Why was I tagged?
A: Some people, especially Kingdom leaders where tagged for their own information(thus they got an extra copy of this) that Jak no longer has any right to represent Hierax, or for that matter house Hawklight, for the time being.
Further the Announcement is a tad different for you, the changes have been placed in brakets.

There is a reason people were tagged even if it might not be evident for them at the moment.


@jakp25
@Megadonkey30
@Valonyx
@Antilogy (Has a law agency)
@MRPolo13 (to ya King char AND Albareth)
@Spear
@Man5791
@dogbew
@Tybalt / @Glados ? (Whoever actually is the King there now)
@Michcat, @Naelwyn (Tzemik and Naelwyn for Vigil's Rest information)
@Faelin


@Axex
@Kvothe
@bodejodel
@Redocs
@Warwolf
@Fronslin (Knight of the Kingdom)

 

[7632]

*sent to the Kingdom of Hierax in sealed scroll* (I'll send something in game when I have the time, just can't get online right this second. I've posted it here so that others may read it, but if it's not addressed to you it's not IC knowledge).

To the King and Lords of the Kingdom of Hierax and the Houses Aeyeras and Hawklight,

Duke Drake Hawklight has appointed me, Miles Holdsworth, to serve as his voice in absentia. The Duke has expressed with me his interest in settling this dispute and wishes to explore the possibility of arranging a plea bargain. Treason, as we all know, is one of the most severe and serious charges a government can place upon its citizens, for a man ought love his country, not betray it. He is fully aware that should he plead guilty he would be legally guilty even if he is not factually guilty and must accept the sentencing.

This letter is not certification of the Duke's guilt, but rather is an exploration of the feasibility of a plea bargain, meaning my client pleads guilty in order to save the Kingdom the cost of holding a costly and time consuming trial in exchange for a lesser sentence. My client is willing to accept being stripped of honor and title bestowed upon him by the great Kingdom of Hierax and accept banishment from said Kingdom and the absence of a trial in exchange for pleading guilty and the right to continue to use his name, Hawklight. If an arrangement is not to be had, my client would likely plead not guilty at trial.

By observation, I note the difficulty of enforcing the proposition that a banished man be stripped of his name. The great Kingdom of Hierax would have difficulty enforcing such a charge on a man not located within the Kingdom's jurisdiction. I would like to point out that if indeed my client is factually guilty, it would bring him more suffering to use the name, for it would remind him of his supposed crimes. Nay, a factually guilty and banished man is much more likely to assume another identity of his own accord, to flee from the terrors of his own mind. To impose a requirement to change a name may give solace to the guilty at a time when no solace is desired. Thus, I see no cause for forcing a man to give up his name when he would likely abandon it anyway. To ask or make other jurisdictions to enforce such a decree would be far more work than the worth of the decree, so this provision should be dropped from the sentence even if no plea agreement is reached.

In summation, if asked outside a trial but in front of a judge, my client would plead guilty to the charge of treason and accept revocation of the following:
- His Lordly Title of Duke
- His Honor as a Knight
- His right to return to the Kingdom in any form

I respectfully ask for your timely response to this arrangement.

Miles Holdsworth,
Partner of Holdsworth Law, Tambry

 

[DraconDarknight]

OOC note:
my like only means I've seen it.

 

[Centurion]

neat

 

[Michcat]

*Nabs popcorn*

shame this stuff ain't public, its better then TV-

 

[DraconDarknight]

*Nabs popcorn*

shame this stuff ain't public, its better then TV-

Next time on Judge Bolvar Firestorm:

Will the Kingdom accept this proposal or will it outright refuse?

 

[7632]

Bah bah bah BAH bah bah bah bah bah....

 

[DraconDarknight]

(No IC knowledge of any of this, except you were told by someone, who can rightfully claim to know)

To Lawyer Miles Holdsworth(@Antilogy ),
His Royal Majesty and House Hawklight informed us, that the Kingdom would be willing the accept the offer for an nonnegotiable sum of 450'000 Radiant (We actually expect to get 450k, yes), which is to be deposited with the Court (@Kvothe (to HeerKarel) , @DraconDarknight) within 40 days(irl) from now on. <IC date>

Said sum shall compensate for:

- Damage caused by the act of treason
- Restoration of house Hawklights honor, which the defendant soiled.
- Court fees

However let it be known, that should the defendant accept his majesty's offer, that all the previously announced sanctions, the loss of his right to bear the name Hawklight included, will come into effect until the full sum has been deposited with the court.

Payment can be conducted the following ways:

- Radiants
- Emeralds (Block), common altera counter value
- Diamond (block), a 700 Radiant (per block)

Should the defendant be able to pay within time he may keep his name as requested, in exchange for:

- Never return to the Kingdom
- his honor as a Knight
- his Title of Duke

His Royal Majesty also likes to point out that in case the sum has not been paid in time, any partial payments the defendant may make will be considered forfeited, in case the full sum cannot be paid within time.
Furthermore, should the defendant break this agreement in any way, he shall henceforth be considered an outlaw and be huntable by anyone who wishes to do so, without them having to fear the legal prosecution.
(e.g. agreement to his char being killed on Hierax claimed territory, if anyone wishes to do so; IF they start a Fight with him will of course also be considered a conclusive agreement from their side.Sistrhood revival remains possible, under the sisterhood rules)

Additionally, he would be convicted of all charges, the loss of his name included, without a further trial being held if one of the conditions stated above should occur.

It shall also be known that his Royal Majesty has decreed that, the Lords and Kingdoms of Altera shall be informed about this offer having been as well remain informed of the outcome, in either case.

Archduke Bolvar Firestorm,
Master of Justice ad Hierax

OOC :Follwing Letter only knowledge by the people who have been tagged:

To his Royal Majesty/Imperial Majesty/Noble title < Your character's name> ad <Your Kingdom/Region Name>

his royal Majesty King Neoroy I. Aeyeras, of Hierax would like to inform you that an offer of settlement has been sent to the Lawyer of the suspect of treason Duke Drake Hawklight.
You will find a copy of the letter to his lawyer as an attachment.
- Archduke Bolvar Firestorm, in his function as Master of Justice ad Hierax


Recievers
@Megadonkey30
@Valonyx
@MRPolo13 (to ya King char AND Albareth)
@Spear
@Tybalt / @Glados ? (Whoever actually is the King there now)
@Michcat, @Naelwyn (Tzemik and Naelwyn for Vigil's Rest information) - (You rang mich ?)
@Faelin

 

[7632]

*sent to the Kingdom of Hierax in sealed scroll* (I'll send something in game when I have the time, just can't get online right this second. I've posted it here so that others may read it, but if it's not addressed to you it's not IC knowledge).

To the King and Lords of the Kingdom of Hierax and the Houses Aeyeras and Hawklight,

My client and I have discussed the offer of settlement. The way the issue has been presented, should he plead guilty, he can either accept full charges and not pay, or pay the amount within the time limit to retain his name. Alternatively, he could attempt to clear his name in what all parties of this arrangement know to be naught but a show trial.

The Duke is, however, a Gods Fearing man of principle, and rather than leave his fate up to those who have apparently already made up their minds about his guilt, my client hereby demands the Gods decide his innocence or guilt in a TRIAL BY COMBAT, as is his right. He would wish to represent himself, but should the Lords of House Aeyeras and the Monarchy of Hierax insist on a trial in absentia, the Duke will nominate a champion to represent him in a duel to the death.

Should he or his champion survive, he is innocent and all charges must be dropped, with no sentencing.
Should he or his champion be killed, he is guilty and the original charges and sentencing apply (if he survives).

In summation, my client rejects the most recent offer and instead demands a deadly trial by combat to determine his innocence or guilt, as is his right.

I respectfully ask for your timely response to this arrangement.

Miles Holdsworth,
Partner of Holdsworth Law, Tambry

 

[DraconDarknight]

*sent to the Kingdom of Hierax in sealed scroll* (I'll send something in game when I have the time, just can't get online right this second. I've posted it here so that others may read it, but if it's not addressed to you it's not IC knowledge).

To the King and Lords of the Kingdom of Hierax and the Houses Aeyeras and Hawklight,

My client and I have discussed the offer of settlement. The way the issue has been presented, should he plead guilty, he can either accept full charges and not pay, or pay the amount within the time limit to retain his name. Alternatively, he could attempt to clear his name in what all parties of this arrangement know to be naught but a show trial.

The Duke is, however, a Gods Fearing man of principle, and rather than leave his fate up to those who have apparently already made up their minds about his guilt, my client hereby demands the Gods decide his innocence or guilt in a TRIAL BY COMBAT, as is his right. He would wish to represent himself, but should the Lords of House Aeyeras and the Monarchy of Hierax insist on a trial in absentia, the Duke will nominate a champion to represent him in a duel to the death.

Should he or his champion survive, he is innocent and all charges must be dropped, with no sentencing.
Should he or his champion be killed, he is guilty and the original charges and sentencing apply (if he survives).

In summation, my client rejects the most recent offer and instead demands a deadly trial by combat to determine his innocence or guilt, as is his right.

I respectfully ask for your timely response to this arrangement.

Miles Holdsworth,
Partner of Holdsworth Law, Tambry

To Lawyer, Miles Holdsworth,


Let it be known that neither the gods, nor the laws of the Kingdom of Hierax guarantee any defendant a right to trial by combat yet alone someone who is a suspect of a capital crime.

The Kingdom of Hierax is a Kingdom of Law and Order, and as such, deciding someones guilt by fighting skills is an unacceptable atrocity against true justice.
A person's fighting skills have nothing to do whether ones actions are just, and this proposal comes very close to heresy against everything the God of Justice himself stands for and is thus hereby formerly declined.

As your client choose to refuse the states offer of settlement it is hereby, in his favor, decided that his wish is to be judged in front of the Royal Court.

Thus by court order, your last letter is considered legally non existent, and shall thus not be forwarded to the prosecutor, in favor of your client as the prosecution could view this attempt to settle true justice with a blade as an admittance of guilt.

The Kingdom of Hierax
Bolvar Firestorm,
Master of Justice

 

[7632]

*sent to the Kingdom of Hierax in sealed scroll* (I'll send something in game when I have the time, just can't get online right this second. I've posted it here so that others may read it, but if it's not addressed to you it's not IC knowledge).

To the King and Lords of the Kingdom of Hierax and the Houses Aeyeras and Hawklight,

My client is shocked at your refusal to allow the gods to decide his fate, for surely they are of more sound mind to decide his fate than you. Be that as it may, my client wishes to express his disappointment in your unwillingness to accept his plea bargain offer, for he was looking for to moving on. He now wishes to state that he is innocent of the charge of treason, but is willing to accept legal culpability in a plea bargain, as stated below. Given that the charges do not align with my client's actions, dismissal seems more likely, so I implore you to accept this offer if you insist on punishing my client.

By the laws of the Kingdom of Hierax, treason is defined as: "Thou who hast spied against our glorious Kingdom, revealed state secrets helped the enemy or tried to overthrow the kingdom"

My client, the Duke, has not spied against the Kingdom, revealed no state secrets, did not help any enemies, and did not try to overthrow the kingdom. My client's debts to the Kingdom were paid before sale of Dawnshard, and the sale of Dawnshard itself cannot be classified as fitting within any of the four categories of treason bestowed upon the system of Laws in the Kingdom of Hierax. Thus, my client is innocent.

Even if this court throws out their own definition of treason, the Great House law still applies. In the case at hand, the law is established by House Hawklight's recognition as a great house. Under the laws of the great house, treason is defined as a high level crime and is state as 'As treason classify all acts perpetrated with the purpose of aiding the countries enemies." Once again, my client did not aid any such enemies.

As such, I hereby file a motion to dismiss the charges on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to prove my client committed treason against the Kingdom of Hierax. This case is frivolous at best, and my client has instructed me that in the event of a guilty verdict, he will press charges against the Kingdom of Hierax for conspiracy and attempted or actual theft or other charges related to inappropriately taking a man's name in the absence of a crime. He has instructed me to be prepared to file a civil suit for libel, for such a decree would ruin his reputation.

In the event that the case is not dismissed as it should be, to save yourself all these legal troubles, and in goodwill and respect for Hierax, my client has agreed to again offer a plea bargain. He would plead guilty to treason in the following scenario. If accepted, he will give up his right to sue Hierax in civil and criminal court over the subject matter of this case. He will also agree to exile in the following terms:

- His Lordly Title of Duke
- His right to return to the Kingdom in any form

In this scenario, he agrees to exile, which is a stated punishment within the laws of Hierax, and to give up his Title. He would be legally guilty of treason against Hierax.

My client insists upon is factual innocence against the charges and urges you to accept this last chance to sentence him fairly and within the bounds of the law. Hierax may not punish its own for taking rights away from an innocent man, but the Gods most certainly will. My client is giving you license to punish an innocent man, and if you insist on punishing him, then I highly recommend you accept this offer.

I respectfully ask for your timely response to this arrangement.

Miles Holdsworth,
Partner of Holdsworth Law, Tambry

 

[DraconDarknight]

*sent to the Kingdom of Hierax in sealed scroll* (I'll send something in game when I have the time, just can't get online right this second. I've posted it here so that others may read it, but if it's not addressed to you it's not IC knowledge).

To the King and Lords of the Kingdom of Hierax and the Houses Aeyeras and Hawklight,

My client is shocked at your refusal to allow the gods to decide his fate, for surely they are of more sound mind to decide his fate than you. Be that as it may, my client wishes to express his disappointment in your unwillingness to accept his plea bargain offer, for he was looking for to moving on. He now wishes to state that he is innocent of the charge of treason, but is willing to accept legal culpability in a plea bargain, as stated below. Given that the charges do not align with my client's actions, dismissal seems more likely, so I implore you to accept this offer if you insist on punishing my client.

By the laws of the Kingdom of Hierax, treason is defined as: "Thou who hast spied against our glorious Kingdom, revealed state secrets helped the enemy or tried to overthrow the kingdom"

My client, the Duke, has not spied against the Kingdom, revealed no state secrets, did not help any enemies, and did not try to overthrow the kingdom. My client's debts to the Kingdom were paid before sale of Dawnshard, and the sale of Dawnshard itself cannot be classified as fitting within any of the four categories of treason bestowed upon the system of Laws in the Kingdom of Hierax. Thus, my client is innocent.

Even if this court throws out their own definition of treason, the Great House law still applies. In the case at hand, the law is established by House Hawklight's recognition as a great house. Under the laws of the great house, treason is defined as a high level crime and is state as 'As treason classify all acts perpetrated with the purpose of aiding the countries enemies." Once again, my client did not aid any such enemies.

As such, I hereby file a motion to dismiss the charges on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to prove my client committed treason against the Kingdom of Hierax. This case is frivolous at best, and my client has instructed me that in the event of a guilty verdict, he will press charges against the Kingdom of Hierax for conspiracy and attempted or actual theft or other charges related to inappropriately taking a man's name in the absence of a crime. He has instructed me to be prepared to file a civil suit for libel, for such a decree would ruin his reputation.

In the event that the case is not dismissed as it should be, to save yourself all these legal troubles, and in goodwill and respect for Hierax, my client has agreed to again offer a plea bargain. He would plead guilty to treason in the following scenario. If accepted, he will give up his right to sue Hierax in civil and criminal court over the subject matter of this case. He will also agree to exile in the following terms:

- His Lordly Title of Duke
- His right to return to the Kingdom in any form

In this scenario, he agrees to exile, which is a stated punishment within the laws of Hierax, and to give up his Title. He would be legally guilty of treason against Hierax.

My client insists upon is factual innocence against the charges and urges you to accept this last chance to sentence him fairly and within the bounds of the law. Hierax may not punish its own for taking rights away from an innocent man, but the Gods most certainly will. My client is giving you license to punish an innocent man, and if you insist on punishing him, then I highly recommend you accept this offer.

I respectfully ask for your timely response to this arrangement.

Miles Holdsworth,
Partner of Holdsworth Law, Tambry

To Miles Holdsworth,

The Kingdom has asked the Court to forward the following arguments to you.

------------
First off the Kingdom never once doubted the gods ability to pronounce a better judgement, but having BRUTE FORCE decide whether someone is guilty or not.
Furthermore, the defendant stated that it is his right, yet the gods never decreed a right as such.

The Kingdom also points out that, the corresponding motto 'Might is right' belongs to the, long fallen, evil god Kilrox, whose religion was at no point part of the Kingdom and was in fact outlawed.
The Kingdom does in no way think that ones fighting skills are any hint towards their guilt. In fact, in cases such as , for example, murder such a skill could even assist the argument that the crime was possible for the culprit in question.
However, the Kingdom neither doubted the fighting skills the defendant claimed to have, nor charged him with murder, thus any argument about the Kingdom's right to go the legal, and thus the way of true justice, is void from the very beginning.
Further the Kingdom argues, that the sheer fact that a Lord can be brought in front of a court already warrants equality, what a display of weapon skills doesn't.
For a guarantee of equality both combatants would need to have the exact same skill, be in the exact same condition and have access to the exact same equipment.

Since the Kingdom does in no way doubt the defense attorney's ability to speak in front of a court without embarrassing himself, the Kingdom believes that equality and justice is better served by a trial in front of the court.

Second, as the defense already stated the Kingdom's definition of treason is:
"Thou who hast spied against our glorious Kingdom, revealed state secrets helped the enemy or tried to overthrow the kingdom"

The kingdom argues that the defendants act qualifies not only as attempt to overthrow the kingdom but also aiding a third with a 'hostile monetary takeover'.

Furthermore, the Kingdom hereby reminds the lawyer that, house Hawklight is part of the Kingdom of Hierax, and as such subjugated to its laws it helped deciding.
Thus, the simple sentences lex posterior derogat lex preterior and lex superior derogat legi inferiori take full effect.

Additionally the Kingdom would reminds the lawyer as well as his defendant that a trial in front of the Master of Justice is a trial of highest instance.
As such the summoned court has the right to specify any legal terms such as 'overthrow' and 'aiding' as well as the term 'enemy'

The Kingdom likes to point out that the defendants actions were an attack to the Kingdom's territorial integrity and thus an attempt to overthrow it in its power even if restricted to a certain area.

As such the high court has the right to specify any legal terms such as 'overthrowal' or 'aiding enemies'.

As the defense has raised questions as to whether the defendant's actions qualify under the said legal terms, the Kingdom sees itself forced to hereby request the court to include those definitions into the debate.

Furthermore, the Kingdom likes to point out that the immanent right to exile someone from a noble house, and thus loose its name, lies not only with the Kingdom but also with the house's lord, whereas the latter can exercise it at its own behest should they see one of subjects unfit to bear the name.
Regent Archduke Axex Hawklight, Lord of House Hawklight, as well as the Royal Council haveagreed to the charges forwarded by the Kingdom to the court, as such said decision was derogated to the court the very same moment.

Under these arguments the Kingdom hereby wishes to express that the plea bargain can only happen under the circumstances made earlier. As a sign of good faith the Kingdom offers to extend the deadline by 20 days.
------------------------------

In accordance with the request the Kingdom has brought forth, the court shall thus debate whether 'selling kingdom territory to a third force without royal permission' qualifies as either an attempt to overthrow in any way - its integrity included - as well as whether the term enemies means third forces or parties per se.

Legal definitions can only be argued over in trial as such the court hereby prompts the defense as well as the prosecution to be prepared to argue over said subjects during the trial.



Archduke Bolvar Firestorm,
in his fuction as Master of Justice
(Singature only applies for the parts before and after the ---------, not in between)

 

[dogbew]

((can we make tl;dr's a thing, for us simple folk? ))

 

[DraconDarknight]

((can we make tl;dr's a thing, for us simple folk? ))

((In a nutshell

The defense attacked our definition of treason and claimed that House Hawklights laws still apply,

For the letter point, Hierax provided two legal sentences that argue against it, and basically disprove that.

For the first point it was pointed out that a court the right to decide whether a specific action can be summarized under a not nearly specified term falls to the court.
In this specific case, both the decision whether said actions are included in those terms, will significantly change the Kingdoms laws in one way or another for future trials, as a high court (such as here) can advance the law through its judgements.))

@dogbew small addition after you already read it (last sentence)

 

[Michcat]

*Furiously munches popcorn*

 

[7632]

*sent to the Kingdom of Hierax in sealed scroll* (I'll send something in game when I have the time, just can't get online right this second. I've posted it here so that others may read it, but if it's not addressed to you it's not IC knowledge).

To the King and Lords of the Kingdom of Hierax and the Houses Aeyeras and Hawklight,

I have received your response and still wait for an answer on the motion for dismissal. From there, I must contest the court's power to interpret the meaning of words. It has the power to evaluate the credibility of the evidence, but that does not afford to the court the right to interpret the meaning of words beyond common meaning in normal usage. To interpret any other way would be beyond the scope of power this court possesses.

Having read the rules posted within the Kingdom of Hierax, and noting that Hierax does not subscribe to the common laws, there is no visible precedent or decree granting the power for the court to interpret the meaning of words to its own pleasure. In that sense, the only reasonable approach to defining the meaning of words is to use the word's meaning within everyday use. In the case at hand. Since we already have a definition for treason, this case boils down to words within the definition, which reads thus," Thou who hast spied against our glorious Kingdom, revealed state secrets helped the enemy or tried to overthrow the kingdom"

The charges do not involve spying nor revealing state secrets, thus the contention is over "helped the enemy" or "tried to overthrow the kingdom."

It is not possible to say that my client "helped the enemy". The only way to suggest that the Duke "helped the enemy" is to declare House Stirling, the purchaser and subsequent seller of the lands of Dawnshard, and all their Lords, citizens, and holdings, an enemy of the Kingdom of Hierax. Considering that the region of Dawnshard could have been sold to real enemies of the Kingdom of Hierax, or sold for much more than it was, and considering past relations between Hierax and Stirling, it does not appear that they are enemies. In addition, it is too late to declare Stirling an enemy of the state now, for that would be ex post facto. They were not enemies, declared or otherwise, at the time of the transgression, so my client cannot have "helped the enemy".

The prosecution's evidence more strongly suggests that he "tried to overthrow the kingdom", but this too is false. The phrase "tried to overthrow the kingdom" must be read literally, and since the court has not previously established the right to interpret the language by precedent or decree, "tried to overthrow the kingdom" means "tried to overthrow the kingdom." To that, I answer that the transgression occurred and yet the Kingdom of Hierax is still here. How can he have "tried to overthrow the kingdom" if he actually carried out his supposed attempt and yet the Kingdom remains?

Even if a court that does not subscribe to common law and does not have written or binding precedent (thanks to the notion that no precedent is binding, as per the Law of Hierax) somehow decides it has the power to interpret "tried to overthrow the kingdom", the interpretation would stretch far beyond the bounds of reason to suggest that the Duke was treasonous. The Prosecution's argument rests on the notion that "...the defendants act qualifies not only as attempt to overthrow the kingdom but also aiding a third with a 'hostile monetary takeover'."

To commit a crime, a man must have the proper actus reus and mens rea to commit said crime. If my client had the intent to aid in a "hostile monetary takeover", why would he pay back his debts before leaving, those debts being known as 60,000 radiants. Furthermore, it has been cited that the damages my client supposedly caused in his "crimes" amount to 300,000. Is this great Kingdom so poor that a loss of 300,000 radiants would risk a hostile monetary takeover? I beg to differ. So, to apply this supposed charge to the case at hand, the court would have to
1) Pull out of thin air the right to interpret the meaning of words to its own accord,
2)Decide that a Hostile Monetary Takeover would qualify as an "attempt to overthrow the kingdom"
3) Decide that the Duke's actions equated to a Hostile Monetaru Takeover despite missing a mens rea element and no evidence that a transgression was in effect a hostile takeover
4) Decide the Hostile Monetary Takeover would have overthrown the Kingdom, when in fact it did not

The only hope for the prosecution thus rests upon this assertion "The Kingdom likes to point out that the defendants actions were an attack to the Kingdom's territorial integrity and thus an attempt to overthrow it in its power even if restricted to a certain area." This interpretation relies on a phrase that is not there. The law reads "tried to overthrow the kingdom." The phrase "part or all of" would be required to limit the scope of "overthrown the kingdom" to a "certain area." If the law makers of this great Kingdom meant "part or all of the kingdom" why is that not stated? A subscription to common meanings of words leaves no room for "part or all of". It simply means "tried to overthrow the kingdom." My client cannot be guilty for that which he has not done, for he did not "try to overthrow the kingdom". Having carried out his actions and seeing the Kingdom in perfect health and having the money to hold trial makes me believe my client caused very little actual harm.

I again assert a motion to dismiss the charges on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to prove my client committed treason against the Kingdom of Hierax.

In the absence of an acceptance of this motion, I present a few additional points. To begin, I contest that the the Master of Justice is unfit to continue in this case as per his own laws.
"Unfit Jurymen, Judges and Prosecutors

A judge, jurymen or prosecutor is to be considered unfit to participate in a trail...

a.) Involving a crime against them or his family members
b.) Involving a suspect they have a personal relation to"

I contest that Bolvar Firestorm, the Master of Justice, is unfit for duty on the grounds that he has a personal relation to the Duke.

On the rejection of a trial by combat, I contest that this court, in its unwillingness to allow a reasonable settlement to occur and unwillingness to allow my client to be present at his own trial has shown that the court believes in my client's guilt. That be the case, this trial would be no more fair than the court asserts a trial by combat would be. In the event that my motion to dismiss is denied and my motion to remove Bolvar Firestorm as Judge is also denied, I move that this court has been compromised by its own bias and that, in the interest of fairness for my client, we move this trial to another, less biased jurisdiction.

With every correspondence with this court, it becomes clearer to me that my client is likely to win in a fair court. That being said, my client again agrees to settle this with a plea bargain. If indeed this Kingdom is so poor that my client's actions have caused a "hostile takeover" then it would behoove this court to dismiss this case for fear of not being able to afford its own court fees. If this case continues, I present it as evidence that no hostile takeover has occurred, for it would prove that the Kingdom has the money to risk losing a trial it knows it will likely lose.

The plea bargain is on the same terms as before:
"
If accepted, he will give up his right to sue Hierax in civil and criminal court over the subject matter of this case. He will also agree to exile in the following terms:

- His Lordly Title of Duke
- His right to return to the Kingdom in any form

In this scenario, he agrees to exile, which is a stated punishment within the laws of Hierax, and to give up his Title. He would be legally guilty of treason against Hierax."

Finally, My client has asked me to make an inquiry on his behalf about your offer for settlement. The offer's terms are that he would be able to keep his name. He wishes also to keep his honor, and also inquires as to whether he can serve the monetary penalty in prison, as per the laws of the Great Houses, including his own.
"In case the perpetrator is unable to pay his fine, his jail time extends by one week per 1.000 radiants of the debt." "[OOC: one week jailtime equals one day in real life]"

Under this proposal, the Duke would serve 450 weeks of time (450 days), but would retain his name and honor.

This is not a signification that my client has or would agree to these terms, only an inquiry as to its feasibility as per the laws of his own house.


Miles Holdsworth,
Partner of Holdsworth Law, Tambry

 

[Archbishop]

*Chews his popcorn much more loudly*

 

[DraconDarknight]

((Must refrai...n from answering in sleepy state...

Ok a fitting ooc gif can't hurt...

Sorry couldn't find a non anime or translated version.

))

 

[Axex]

I'm glad I have you lawyer types to do all this, I've just spent the last few days adding cannons to Whiterock.

 

[Faelin]

Enjoying this far, far too much.