Finished [Kingdom of Hierax] Notice ad trial in absentia

[Redocs]

better than a movie

 

[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,

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

To Miles Holdsworth,


As you insist on an immediate answer to your motion, despite being offered time to properly prepare, the court hereby pronounces its verdict in this matter:

Ad motion of dismissal of trial due to lack of evidence

The Court hereby states, that the Kingdom's and defense arguments make it unclear, whether 10% of the Kingdoms treasury as well as un-rightfully selling a region belonging to the kingdom, consisting of a Castle within shooting range to the Capitol, falls under the term 'attempt to overthrow'. As such this topic will be discussed during the trial.

Thus, the motion is hereby dismissed.


Ad the Master of Justice's ability to hold this trial

- )By old Royal decree ((older than 6 months to say)), a person close to the crown cannot be unfit for duty. As the highest law giving instance in the Kingdom, and thus doing ministry work, the Master of Justice is considered 'close to the crown' and thus not unfit for duty. Said decree is officially released Kingdom law material, and as such to be considered by the court.

-The court would like to state at this point that the defense is prompted to use the entire law of the Kingdom and not pick raisins which might at the first glance appear as if they are in his favor, while the very next sentence does in fact not.-

-)Furthermore, the initial sum as answer for the plea bargain the Kingdom had been set 600'000 Radiants, which the Master of Justice, in his wisdom, believed to be unreasonable and lowered it to more reasonable 450'000, as such a strong argument against being biased is presented.

-)Trial in absentia was a request by the Kingdom in exchange for granting exile over execution, and can thus not be held against the Master of Justice and is not up to debate.

-)The right to trial via combat is in no way anchored in Hieraxian laws or customs, nor is it anchored in the laws given to us by the divines.
Kilrox has long fallen and was, as the Kingdom stated in its reply to the defendant, at no time revered within the Kingdom and in fact outlawed.
As such, the Kingdom will not accept a barbaric act of brute force, at which equality is absolutely impossible as no two fighters have the exact same skill, in any form.

Thus the argument that the Kingdom refused said barbaric act cannot be held against it, or any of its ministers. - This includes the Master of Justice.

-)Archduke Bolvar Firestorm is not a family member of either house Aeyeras or house Hawklight, but House Firestorm.
This crime has been committed against the Kingdom, not house Firestorm.

-) Being a Lord of Hierax alone, does not warrant having personal relations to a suspect.

-) The Master of Justice is the highest legal power within the Kingdom, as such no other person can substitute for him. Therefore a dismissal of the Master of Justice would inevitably lead to martial law taking effect, in which case a fair trial for the defendant could not be guaranteed, as there would be no trial at all.


The motion to dismiss the Master of Justice for this case is therefore dismissed.

The defense will receive the date and place of the trial being held as soon as it has been decided upon. Should the defense not appear, for whatever reason, the Court will assume, that the defendant has withdrawn the defense's mandat and the defendant shall remain unrepresented as decreed in the initial letter.
At this point it is stated that the court guarantees the defense attorney be left into the Court room and not be assaulted or held up by the Kingdom's guards.


Bolvar Firestorm,
in his function as Master of Justice.


*Attached is a letter from the Kingdom*

His Royal Majstey is most amused about your attempts to escape a trial and likes to remind the, that in absence of the Master of Justice, no legal instance in the Kingdom remains, as such should you continue to insist the Master of Justice being biased the his Royal Majesty will declare Martial Law over this case to avoid a law-empty space. As such no more trial would be necessary, and a verdict could be given by the Law of the King's word.
Should the defense thus continue insist on the dismissal of the highest legal instance, his royal majesty will oblige and martial law will take effect over this case henceforth.

The Kingdom also wanted to relay that it takes pride of its sovereignty, and thus will not subjugate Kingdom matters to a third party court.
Furthermore, there is no law in the Kingdom that would even allow such a delegation.

The Kingdom also states that, it has already named its terms for plea bargain, and will not accept, the defendants offer, or any further offers he should make.
Furthermore, the Kingdom likes to remind you that, substituting a fine for jail time would warrant that the law decrees a fine in the first place, which is not the case in the crime 'treason', as such the defendant's offer to remain in Jail is declined as well.

The Kingdom of Hierax

Edit:
((OOC pic unrelated to the latter I can't get myself from not posting after seeing 'His Royal majesty is most amused about....

Edit2: Kudos if you get the reference
))

 

[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,

Your letter was received with much disappointment, for so far this court has declared its own judgment superior to every other jurisdiction within the Northern Kingdoms as well as the judgment of the Gods themselves. Your god of Justice will be most displeased to hear of this, and my client has instructed me to inform other nations of this trespass against justice. This is such a great risk that it would not be taken unless the court was positive of my client's guilt before trial. I remind this court that the purpose of a trial is not merely to sentence the guilty but to determine guilt or innocence. The principle of holding a man innocent until proven guilty stands as protection for the conscious of the state, for it is much better to let a factually guilty man go free than it is to punish a factually innocent man sans a fair trial.

After several exchanges of letters, this court has finally gotten to the heart of the issue, which is rightful ownership of the region. While it is clear that my client sold Dawnshard to House Stirling, it has submitted no evidence to signify that House Stirling ever exercised its own jurisdiction over the property. While I see evidence of ownership change, I see no evidence of the region's shift in allegiance. As such, on the assertion that my client had the proper mens rea to intend to "attempt to overthrow" the Kingdom Hierax by selling a region he rightfully owns and paid his debts, the prosecution relies on the fact that House Stirling owned a region that had cannons within firing distance of the Kingdom. I still contend that the region's allegiance never shifted, and I remind this court that House Stirling has no military with which to fire these cannons. Furthermore, I'm told by my client that House Stirling's captain of the guard, a group intended only to act in defense of its own streets, resigned. His leadership was one of the only pieces holding the organization together, and I'm told that their guard order is now in disarray. And beside the point, because House Stirling did not attempt to fire the cannons and instead sold the region's ownership, I contend that no attempt has occurred. I also contend that if the attempt had occurred, it would not be my client that would have attempted it, because at the point of sale, his involvment in the region ceased and he therefore had no culpability for the further proceedings. True, my client could have sold the region to any House, but he picked one with no military. I ask this court how it views my client's actions as an "attempt to overthrow the kingdom."

To charge him, this court would have to show conspiracy, which means it would have to charge and prove House Stirling's guilt in an attempt of treason. However, because House Stirling is not a citizen of the Kingdom of Hierax, it is impossible for House Stirling to commit treason. Thus, it is impossible for the Duke to have Conspired with House Stirling to commit treason.

To rule, with respect to my client, this is an attempt to overthrow the kingdom, the court would have to decide the following

1) The Duke purposefully sold the region to House Stirling, knowing House Stirling would attempt to overthrow Hierax, despite evidence that House Stirling has no military,
2) the allegiance of the region shifted from the Kingdom of Hierax to House Stirling, despite no evidence of flags being replaced or any action otherwise indicating that such an event took place
3)House Stirling would have the know how and adequate means to carry out an attempt to overthrow the Kingdom, despite the lack of a proper military
4) House Stirling actually did attempt to overthrow the kingdom with it's non-existant military by firing cannons it did not fire.
5) The firing of said cannons must have been in an attempt to overthrow the kingdom, when in fact firing cannons from a strategically inferior position would have had little effect on the Kingdom, which is beside the point that House Stirling has no military and the cannons were not fired.

I hope you see the flaw in the prosecution's argument, for it is evident to me and to my client that a failure to recognize this fallacy is evidence of this court's bias against my client.

I again contend that my client is innocent of the charges and ask the courts to again lifts its self-imposed veil of injustice so that it may see to the truth, that no crime has been committed here, that no evidence the prosecution has presented serves to indict him with proper warrant. My client contends that while he owned the region wholly, it was under allegiance to the Kingdom of Hierax, and that allegiance never changed, so my client cannot be guilty. That the Kingdom bought the ownership from House Stirling is evidence that the Kingdom recognized the Duke's ownership in the region.

I submit as evidence of a lack of attempt to overthrow the Kingdom the following:
1)the events actually occurred
2) The Kingdom is still here

I submit as evidence of a lack of attempt to overthrow the Kingdom the following:
1) The Duke owned the region wholly, meaning he could sell the region to whomever he wanted at any time
2) The sale of the region to House Stirling did not sway the allegiance of the region
3) The Kingdom legitimized that relationship by purchasing the ownership of the region from House Stirling

In fact, by House Stirling almost immediately selling ownership of Dawnshard, House Stirling has done the Kingdom a favor, for it has reunited allegiance with ownership. My client informs me that while he was surprised to hear a sale had occurred so quickly, he was not surprised that a sale occurred.


Based on these conclusions, on behalf of my client, I hereby submit a second motion to dismiss the case on grounds of insufficient evidence to even indict my client.

No crime of treason has been committed here. There are no grounds to charge my client or anybody else for the favor he did to Hierax for "conspiring" to unite the region's ownership and allegiance with the Kingdom of Hierax.

Respecfully Signed,
Miles Holdsworth,
Partner of Holdsworth Law, Tambry

 

[7632]

Redacted. The posters were pulled down and letters never mailed.

 

[DraconDarknight]

Redacted. The posters were pulled down and letters never mailed.

Has the letter above been sent to us now or not?

 

[7632]

The first post after yours is sent the second was a letter that we decided not to send. Apologies for the confusion, had a change of heart after we posted it.

 

[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,

Your letter was received with much disappointment, for so far this court has declared its own judgment superior to every other jurisdiction within the Northern Kingdoms as well as the judgment of the Gods themselves. Your god of Justice will be most displeased to hear of this, and my client has instructed me to inform other nations of this trespass against justice. This is such a great risk that it would not be taken unless the court was positive of my client's guilt before trial. I remind this court that the purpose of a trial is not merely to sentence the guilty but to determine guilt or innocence. The principle of holding a man innocent until proven guilty stands as protection for the conscious of the state, for it is much better to let a factually guilty man go free than it is to punish a factually innocent man sans a fair trial.

After several exchanges of letters, this court has finally gotten to the heart of the issue, which is rightful ownership of the region. While it is clear that my client sold Dawnshard to House Stirling, it has submitted no evidence to signify that House Stirling ever exercised its own jurisdiction over the property. While I see evidence of ownership change, I see no evidence of the region's shift in allegiance. As such, on the assertion that my client had the proper mens rea to intend to "attempt to overthrow" the Kingdom Hierax by selling a region he rightfully owns and paid his debts, the prosecution relies on the fact that House Stirling owned a region that had cannons within firing distance of the Kingdom. I still contend that the region's allegiance never shifted, and I remind this court that House Stirling has no military with which to fire these cannons. Furthermore, I'm told by my client that House Stirling's captain of the guard, a group intended only to act in defense of its own streets, resigned. His leadership was one of the only pieces holding the organization together, and I'm told that their guard order is now in disarray. And beside the point, because House Stirling did not attempt to fire the cannons and instead sold the region's ownership, I contend that no attempt has occurred. I also contend that if the attempt had occurred, it would not be my client that would have attempted it, because at the point of sale, his involvment in the region ceased and he therefore had no culpability for the further proceedings. True, my client could have sold the region to any House, but he picked one with no military. I ask this court how it views my client's actions as an "attempt to overthrow the kingdom."

To charge him, this court would have to show conspiracy, which means it would have to charge and prove House Stirling's guilt in an attempt of treason. However, because House Stirling is not a citizen of the Kingdom of Hierax, it is impossible for House Stirling to commit treason. Thus, it is impossible for the Duke to have Conspired with House Stirling to commit treason.

To rule, with respect to my client, this is an attempt to overthrow the kingdom, the court would have to decide the following

1) The Duke purposefully sold the region to House Stirling, knowing House Stirling would attempt to overthrow Hierax, despite evidence that House Stirling has no military,
2) the allegiance of the region shifted from the Kingdom of Hierax to House Stirling, despite no evidence of flags being replaced or any action otherwise indicating that such an event took place
3)House Stirling would have the know how and adequate means to carry out an attempt to overthrow the Kingdom, despite the lack of a proper military
4) House Stirling actually did attempt to overthrow the kingdom with it's non-existant military by firing cannons it did not fire.
5) The firing of said cannons must have been in an attempt to overthrow the kingdom, when in fact firing cannons from a strategically inferior position would have had little effect on the Kingdom, which is beside the point that House Stirling has no military and the cannons were not fired.

I hope you see the flaw in the prosecution's argument, for it is evident to me and to my client that a failure to recognize this fallacy is evidence of this court's bias against my client.

I again contend that my client is innocent of the charges and ask the courts to again lifts its self-imposed veil of injustice so that it may see to the truth, that no crime has been committed here, that no evidence the prosecution has presented serves to indict him with proper warrant. My client contends that while he owned the region wholly, it was under allegiance to the Kingdom of Hierax, and that allegiance never changed, so my client cannot be guilty. That the Kingdom bought the ownership from House Stirling is evidence that the Kingdom recognized the Duke's ownership in the region.

I submit as evidence of a lack of attempt to overthrow the Kingdom the following:
1)the events actually occurred
2) The Kingdom is still here

I submit as evidence of a lack of attempt to overthrow the Kingdom the following:
1) The Duke owned the region wholly, meaning he could sell the region to whomever he wanted at any time
2) The sale of the region to House Stirling did not sway the allegiance of the region
3) The Kingdom legitimized that relationship by purchasing the ownership of the region from House Stirling

In fact, by House Stirling almost immediately selling ownership of Dawnshard, House Stirling has done the Kingdom a favor, for it has reunited allegiance with ownership. My client informs me that while he was surprised to hear a sale had occurred so quickly, he was not surprised that a sale occurred.


Based on these conclusions, on behalf of my client, I hereby submit a second motion to dismiss the case on grounds of insufficient evidence to even indict my client.

No crime of treason has been committed here. There are no grounds to charge my client or anybody else for the favor he did to Hierax for "conspiring" to unite the region's ownership and allegiance with the Kingdom of Hierax.

Respecfully Signed,
Miles Holdsworth,
Partner of Holdsworth Law, Tambry

To Miles Holdworth,

The Kingdom will from no on no longer respond to any of your letters outside the courtroom, as they are all directed at the integrity of the Kingdoms legal system and go as far as claiming that brute force is preferable to decide who is guilty or not over a trial.
The Kingdom and the Court has on Several occasions proven that this is supposed to be a fair trial with an equal chance of loosing for both sides.

- The courts refusal to Dismiss charges outside of a trial
- The court having sent a note that the defendant may appoint a lawyer, as no law within the Kingdom guarantees a suspect the right of legal representation

The Kingdom has already declined your attempts to settle things outside the court on several occasions by now, and intends to stand to it, as certain matters such as a legal definition of a general term can only be defined within the Halls of the Courtroom.
Note that, should the defense decide to break legal customs, by informed publishing legal correspondence about an ongoing case, the Kingdom will see this as an invitation to published the entire act including your indirect claim that the god of justice prefers brute force with no possible equality over the the justice of a trial, in front of a Judge who has up to this point taken every measure to ensure a fair trial, going as far as ordering the Kingdom to revise its laws as soon as the trial is over.

Furthermore, it is EVERY Country's RIGHT to settle its own matters in front of its own court, and this decision has nothing to do with superiority over other countries legal instances.
Or does the Kingdom of Hierax have the audacity to

At the time the crime is suspected to have been committed, the defendant was still a vassal of the Kingdom and Dawnshard as such part of the Kingdom.
Should the defendant feel this isn't the case, he is free to proclaim that neither he nor his lawyer will be present at the trial.
The Kingdom will not stand for slanderous claims such as 'the High court of Hierax claims to be superior to other Kingdom's court's.

Or has the Kingdom of Hierax ever shown the audacity to hold trial instead of another Kingdom in their own matters? I believe the Kingdom has not.

Furthermore it should be noted, that House Sterling is as such,neutral, standing army or not, not part of the Kingdom of Hierax and thus a third force.

Aside from this, it still remains a fact that the defendant sold Kingdom territory without prior consultation of his Royal Majesty and is thus under suspicion of treason.
Buying' the Region off House Sterling instead of occupation, was further a pure gesture of generosity and honoring for a man who had the guts to try to extort a King, and in no way an approval to your client selling the region without prior permission, such a thing has never been stated and will never been stated.

The Kingdom also likes to remind you that one does not need an army to fire a cannon. In fact, the Kingdom claims that even someone with the intellect of a recently hatched parrot would be able to fire a cannon by pure intuition.
You are also requested to inform your client, that a fief given to a vassal, does not mean he can do with it whatever he wants.

You may still insist in a judge, who has patiently listened to your ridiculous claims that knowingly ignored and mixed up several different laws without any legal basis for it is being biased, in which case the Kingdom will oblige to your previous request and remove the Archduke from his Post as Master of Justice for the duration of this trial, with all the consequences arising from it.
Furthermore the Kingdom reminds you that, as you should know that lawyers cannot simply mix laws and raisin pick parts of it as they please outside of a civil law process.

We are looking forward to see you in front of the court.

The Kingdom of Hierax

 

[Michcat]

 

[Valonyx]

*snorts*

Northern paperwork-bound bureaucracy...

 

[Faelin]

*snorts*

Northern paperwork-bound bureaucracy...

I nearly inhaled a whole slice of toast laughing at that.

 

[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 Kingdom of Hierax,

Your last letter makes clear that you shall not respond to any more of my letters, so I do not expect a reply, though in all honesty I would be surprised if such a decision is enforced. To begin, to remove a lawyer's ability to confer with the judge is to remove his ability to freely represent his client and also in violation of my client's right to have his voice heard. This, in combination with this court's unwillingness to accept, consider, or in most cases even acknowledge the receipt of almost every piece of evidence I've presented, is further evidence to myself and to my client that this trial is nothing but show, and that this court has already concluded that my client is guilty.

While we appreciate this Kingdom's willingness to accept a plea bargain, we find the terms of the bargain to be unreasonable and an act of attempted extortion upon my client. To further this point, the court's unwillingness to modify the terms of the bargain so as to allow the accused to serve 450 weeks in prison despite that rule being the law of his House, is further evidence that this court is willing to stain the name of Hawklight in the name of justice.

While we appreciate this Kingdom's willingness to remove the Master from his post, we again find that declaring martial law in lieu of seeking a third party arbitrator is unreasonable and unjustified. By definition, any Judge within the Kingdom of Hierax has an interest in the outcome of this trial, and we contend that the only fair judge is a third party. It has been stated that this court is unwilling to allow another court to decide my client's fate, even of that other court applies the Laws of the Kingdom of Hierax, and my client and I find this to be further evidence of this court's unwillingness to proceed with reason and dignity.

I have demanded to see evidence that the allegiance of the town changed, and received no answer save being cut off from correspondence. I have demanded to see evidence that my client's actus reus is consistent with the Kingdom's definition of treason and instead received a deferral to the imaginary ability for the court to modify meaning of words beyond common usage. I have demanded to see evidence that my client possessed the proper mens rea to commit a hostile monetary takeover and received no answer whatsoever. I have demanded to see evidence that Dawnshard's allegiance ever wavered from Hierax and received snide comment that a parrot could fire a cannon. Surely if a parrot can fire a cannon, the prosecution can submit evidence that Dawnshard's allegiance wavered! And whether a parrot COULD fire a cannon is neither here nor there, for it matters not whether a parrot fired, but whether a House with no military actually or attempted to fire the cannons. To that, again with no surprise, I see no evidence. And that point's even moot, because even if House Stirling did attempt it, my client had nothing to do with it. In sum, it's more like:

*A duck is guilty of treason because a parrot didn't fire a cannon. To which I say this is utter nonsense.

More so than ever, I contend this court to be biased and to therefore be improper forum, and were it not from the instruction of my client, I would continue to fight this point. However, against my better judgment, my client decided to concede jurisdiction to this court and its master in matters regarding this case.

When a man joins a sovereignty and subsequently earns title, he forms a social contract with his sovereign. The sovereign shall protect his citizens from returning to the state of nature, and in exchange the man must uphold the principles of the social contract, otherwise he faces expulsion or termination. As evidenced, it is my client's belief from the transgressions of this proceeding that the Kingdom of Hierax wishes to find him guilty, to the point where it is willing to throw out its own canons of construction and actual law in favor of receiving reparations for a perceived wrong. In this sense, the Kingdom throws away its own chivalry and integrity and the social contract between my client and this kingdom is broken. The obvious conclusion is thus that the court has no jurisdiction for punishing my client, but my client has rejected this train of thought. Again, he concedes to honor the social contract in the hopes that his actions serve to reinstate the Kingdom's honor.

In the interest of saving money and time for the Kingdom of Hierax, my client wishes to avoid trial and hereby pleads guilty, so long as the original sentencing applies. To remind the court, the charges were treason, defined as

"Thou who hast spied against our glorious Kingdom, revealed state secrets helped the enemy or tried to overthrow the kingdom"

with the sentencing being the removal of

- 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

The Duke, in expressing his guilt, wishes to say that, on his honor as a Duke, he will accept the charges and some or all parts of the original sentencing, so as to uphold the integrity of the social contract formed between he and his Sovereign. It is imperative to a man's conscious and honor that he accept the judgment of his peers, even if that judgment is misguided, because of his prerogative to uphold the social contract between he and his Sovereign. As per his Soveriegn's wishes, he hereby drops the title of Duke. Regarding the name Hawklight, he wishes to say that it is not he who has impeded the honor of his name, but his Sovereign, for potentially overstepping the bounds of its own authority in stripping a factually innocent man of his name in the absence of any presented evidence. His Sovereign, the Kingdom of Hierax, in removing his name and affiliation, will bring great shame to itself and to the name Hawklight, and my client would gladly shed that dishonorable name should the Kingdom bring the name dishonor in attempting to remove the name.

In behaving this way, the Duke is one of the bravest and most honorable men I've ever met. The Kingdom has the right to strip that honor within its own jurisdiction, but to do so in this case would be to strip its own honor as well as the honor of the name Hawklight. Honor is not a gift or entitlement bestowed upon or stripped from a man by the sovereign, it is found within the confines of one's own soul, entangled with the essence of one's own conscious. The most honorable action my client has left is to accept his punishment.

I ask you again, is this man, a man willing to accept the consequences of actions the Kingdom has not proven he is legally or factually guilty of, a man willing to accept an unjust verdict and sentencing despite the advice of his lawyer, a man who, in his last acts as a citizen of this Kingdom pays his debts, attempts to save the Kingdom time, money, and face, is this man really a traitor? Are these actions consistent with a man who would commit treason? Are you willing to punish an innocent man to feed a parrot who, nevermind a cannon, is desperate for a cracker that's been forged from a gavel stained with the desire to placate the pathos while ignoring ethos and logos?

The court is now faced with a difficult decision, for my client now puts his fate in your hands. Though he has pleaded guilty, by rights you still have the power to declare him innocent. Though he is willing to accept all of the original sentence, you now have legal right to apply the full original sentence. What I say next, I say not as my client's lawyer, but as an adviser to you; choose wisely what you do next, for a man does not easily forget punishing a man he knows is innocent, and the power to remove a man's name and honor is a dangerous precedent, if even possible. It would not surprise me to see others within your sovereignty fear this draconian power be abused with checks or due process in stopping it.

I ask you one last time before I rest my case: Is there really enough evidence to convict this man? Are his actions consistent with that of a traitor? Do your laws really allow you to twist the statute such when the meaning is clear? Are you willing to convict an innocent man and risk corruption amongst your own judicial system?

Find him innocent or guilty, it makes no matter to me or my client. It ought to matter to your conscious and your honor.

Respectfully Signed,
Miles Holdsworth, Attorney
Holdsworth Law, Tambry

Edit: Made grammatical corrections

 

[Tempy_]

*A duck is guilty of treason because a parrot didn't fire a cannon. To which I say this is utter nonsense.

 

[Archbishop]

*A duck is guilty of treason because a parrot didn't fire a cannon. To which I say this is utter nonsense.

 

[7632]

View attachment 59710

I lawl'd

 

[7632]

OOCly btw ^

 

[Jak]

 

[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 Kingdom of Hierax,

Your last letter makes clear that you shall not respond to any more of my letters, so I do not expect a reply, though in all honesty I would be surprised if such a decision is enforced. To begin, to remove a lawyer's ability to confer with the judge is to remove his ability to freely represent his client and also in violation of my client's right to have his voice heard. This, in combination with this court's unwillingness to accept, consider, or in most cases even acknowledge the receipt of almost every piece of evidence I've presented, is further evidence to myself and to my client that this trial is nothing but show, and that this court has already concluded that my client is guilty.

While we appreciate this Kingdom's willingness to accept a plea bargain, we find the terms of the bargain to be unreasonable and and act of attempted extortion upon my client. To further this point, the court's unwillingness to modify the terms of the bargain so as to allow the accused to serve 450 weeks in prison despite that rule being the law of his House, is further evidence that this court is willing to stain the name of Hawklight in the name of justice.

While we appreciate this Kingdom's willingness to remove the Master from his post, we again find that declaring martial law in lieu of seeking a third party arbitrator is unreasonable and unjustified. By definition, any Judge within the Kingdom of Hierax has an interest in the outcome of this trial, and we contend that the only fair judge is a third party. It has been stated that this court is unwilling to allow another court to decide my client's fate, even of that other court applies the Laws of the Kingdom of Hierax, and my client and I find this to be further evidence of this court's unwillingness to proceed with reason and dignity.

I have demanded to see evidence that the allegiance of the town changed, and received no answer save being cut off from correspondence. I have demanded to see evidence that my client's actus reus is consistent with the Kingdom's definition of treason and instead received a deferral to the imaginary ability for the court to modify meaning of words beyond common usage. I have demanded to see evidence that my client possessed the proper mens rea to commit a hostile monetary takeover and received no answer whatsoever. I have demanded to see evidence that Dawnshard's allegiance ever wavered from Hierax and received snide comment that a parrot could fire a cannon. Surely if a parrot can fire a cannon, the prosecution can submit evidence that Dawnshard's allegiance wavered! And whether a parrot COULD fire a cannon is neither here nor there, for it matters not whether a parrot fired, but whether a House with no military actually or attempted to fire the cannons. To that, again with no surprise, I see no evidence. And that point's even moot, because even if House Stirling did attempt it, my client had nothing to do with it. In sum, it's more like:

*A duck is guilty of treason because a parrot didn't fire a cannon. To which I say this is utter nonsense.

More so than ever, I contend this court to be biased and to therefore be improper forum, and were it not from the instruction of my client, I would continue to fight this point. However, against my better judgment, my decided to concede jurisdiction to this court and its master in matters regarding this case.

When a man joins a sovereignty and subsequently earns title, he forms a social contract with his sovereign. The sovereign shall protect his citizens from returning to the state of nature, and in exchange the man must uphold the principles of the social contract, otherwise he faces expulsion or termination. As evidenced, it is my client's belief from the transgressions of this proceeding that the Kingdom of Hierax wishes to find him guilty, to the point where it is willing to throw out its own canons of construction and actual law in favor of receiving reparations for a perceived wrong. In this sense, the Kingdom throws away its own chivalry and integrity and the social contract between my client and this kingdom is broken. The obvious conclusion is thus that the court has no jurisdiction for punishing my client, but my client has rejected this train of thought. Again, he concedes to honor the social contract in the hopes that his actions serve to reinstate the Kingdom's honor.

In the interest of saving money and time for the Kingdom of Hierax, my client wishes to avoid trial and hereby pleads guilty, so long as the original sentencing applies. To remind the court, the charges were treason, defined as

"Thou who hast spied against our glorious Kingdom, revealed state secrets helped the enemy or tried to overthrow the kingdom"

with the sentencing being the removal of

- 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

The Duke, in expressing his guilt, wishes to say that, on his honor as a Duke, he will accept the charges and some or all parts of the original sentencing, so as to uphold the integrity of the social contract formed between he and his Sovereign. It is imperative to a man's conscious and honor that he accept the judgment of his peers, even if that judgment is misguided, because of his prerogative to uphold the social contract between he and his Sovereign. As per his Soveriegn's wishes, he hereby drops the title of Duke. Regarding the name Hawklight, he wishes to say that it is not he who has impeded the honor of his name, but his Sovereign, for potentially overstepping the bounds of its own authority in stripping a factually innocent man of his name in the absence of any presented evidence. His Sovereign, the Kingdom of Hierax, in removing his name and affiliation, will bring great shame to itself and to the name Hawklight, and my client would gladly shed that dishonorable name should the Kingdom bring the name dishonor in attempting to remove the name.

In behaving this way, the Duke is one of the bravest and most honorable men I've ever met. The Kingdom has the right to strip that honor within its own jurisdiction, but to do so in this case would be to strip its own honor as well as the honor of the name Hawklight. Honor is not a gift or entitlement bestowed upon or stripped from a man by the sovereign, it is found within the confines of one's own soul, entangled with the essence of one's own conscious. The most honorable action my client has left is to accept his punishment.

I ask you again, is this man, a man willing to accept the consequences of actions the Kingdom has not proven he is legally or factually guilty of, a man willing to accept an unjust verdict and sentencing despite the advice of his lawyer, a man who, in his last acts as a citizen of this Kingdom pays his debts, attempts to save the Kingdom time, money, and face, is this man really a traitor? Are these actions consistent with a man who would commit treason? Are you willing to punish an innocent man to feed a parrot who, nevermind a cannon, is desperate for a cracker that's been forged from a gavel stained with the desire to placate the pathos while ignoring ethos and logos?

The court is now faced with a difficult decision, for my client now puts his fate in your hands. Though he has pleaded guilty, by rights you still have the power to declare him innocent. Though he is willing to accept all of the original sentence, you now have legal right to apply the full original sentence. What I say next, I say not as my client's lawyer, but as an adviser to you; choose wisely what you do next, for a man does not easily forget punishing a man he knows is innocent, and the power to remove a man's name and honor is a dangerous precedent, if even possible. It would not surprise me to see others within your sovereignty fear this draconian power be abused with checks or due process in stopping it.

I ask you one last time before I rest my case: Is there really enough evidence to convict this man? Are his actions consistent with that of a traitor? Do your laws really allow you to twist the statute such when the meaning is clear? Are you willing to convict an innocent man and risk corruption amongst your own judicial system?

Find him innocent or guilty, it makes no matter to me or my client. It ought to matter to your conscious and your honor.

Respectfully Signed,
Miles Holdsworth, Attorney
Holdsworth Law, Tambry

From:
High Court of Hierax

To Miles Holdsworth,

First of all, the Court reminds the attorney that, whether accepting a plea bargain is not in the hand of the court but the accuser, as such claiming that this court is biased based on the Kindom's refusal to accept your plea bargain is baseless.
Modifications can only happen within legal parameters, as such substituting plea bargain with jail time is not possible.
The court thus hereby requests the defense attorney to refrain from further confusions between the Kingdom and its court in the future.

In this spirit, the Court hereby clarifies that the defense's ability to comminicate with it has at no time been revoked, but the defense ability to communicate with the Kingdom!

The court further wishes to confirm that the Kingdom's understanding on the following facts are true, before it is willing to pronounce a verdict without holding a trial.

- ) The Client's wish to plead guilty
- ) The client requests this court to base its decision solely on all the arguments that have been brought forth by the defense as well as the accuser, without a verbal trial in front of the court being held.

(Edit: 22:33; 22.02.15)
Should this letter remain unanswered within a frist of 6 days (1 irl day) the Court will assume that the Kingdom has the right understanding of the defendant's will.

Bolvar Firestorm,
in his function as Master of Justice.

 

[7632]

To High Court of Hierax,

Apologies for the confusion, I'll admit with so many entities it is hard to figure with whom I should be and am speaking.

My client requests that this court bases its decision upon the arguments already made in correspondence by the defense and the prosecution and the court itself. If this is the case, my client will waive his right to a trial in favor of one of the following;

1) a grant of the motion to dismiss the case
2) a finding that the client is innocent
3) a pleading from the client that he is guilty of treason and only treason, and the sentencing exclusively be some or all of the original sentence,

with the sentencing being the removal of

- 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


The Gods be with your impending decisions!

Respectfully Signed,
Miles Holdsworth, Attorney
Holdsworth Law, Tambry

 

[DraconDarknight]

VERDICT in the Case the Kingdom of Hierax vs Duke Drake Hawklight


Statement of the case submitted by the Kingdom of Hierax

His Royal Majesty, King Neoroy Aeyeras of Hierax indicted Drake Hawklight for treason on the basis of selling the Lands of the Kingdom to a third force without its permission.
As the King could see how the buyer was at no fault due to his firm believe in the Duke's right to sell the land the King decided in his wisdom that the buyer shall not be punished for the defendant's crimes and bought it back from said third force.

The Prosecution office therefore summarized this behavior as overthrowing the Kingdom in its power and integrity as a whole, as the price set by the buyer was 300'000 Radiant which equals roughly 10% of the Kingdom's treasury, and that the Kingdom solely bought it out of respect towards the buyer for having the guts to try extorting money from a King, as well as the possibility of the region being sold to an actual enemy had the Kingdom refused the buyer's offer.

It further claims that enemy not only refers to declared enemies but also potential ones, especially in hindsight of Castle Dawnshard being within firing range to the Kingdom's Capitol Heaven's Reach.
The absence of the possession of a standing army is of no matter as 'even a person with the intellect of a recently hatched parrot' could fire a cannon.

And that the Duke conclusively forfeit his right to sell Dawnshard without royal permission upon it having been become part of the Kingdom by the defendant's own choice.

it has further, upon the defense argument, requested the court to make statements on the general terms 'to overthrow' and enemy.

In regard to the defense claims about House law still being in effect, the existence of a right to trial by combat,

the Kingdom merely pointed to

- The Kingdom Laws
- Legal sentences
- the absence of such a right in the god's law
- the defense raisin picking parts of law and mixing them at their own pleasure.

The defense argues that...

...that the Duke had any right to sell his lands without the King's permission, and that the Duke has thus not committed any crime against the crown.

...that this court is biased due to the Master of Justice having a relation by the definition given in the Kingdom of Hierax's laws.

....that this court is biased due to dismissing the defendant's quote: 'right of trial by combat' as well as the possibility of the trial being held in front of another country's court.

....House Hawklight's laws being still in effect.

....that the buyer is not a proclaimed enemy of the crown.

....the Defendant is not responsible for any actions the buyer might have taken

...The defendant has the right of trial by combat

....The Kingdom's response to the plea bargain be unreasonable

.....The high court having no right to closer define general terms

...The Duke paid off debts before leaving.


More specific and less shortened variants can be found in the arguments having been made to the court via correspondance.


It shall be noted that the defendant has asked for no verbal trial being held, and gave the court and thus agreed to the court basing its judgment solely on the correspondence between itself, the Kingdom and the defense and has further plead guilty to the original charges the Kingdom has brought forth.


Legal debate
Ad the Master of justice's bias

The master of Justice has no relation to the accused, nor has the crime been committed to against or by one of his family members. The Master of justice is a the Lord of House firestorm, and not part of House Hawklight, Aeyeras, August, or Noldor. (Sorry guys we stated on several occasions that Aeyeras is an OOC house)

the General term relation refers solely to 'ongoing and openly exercised feud's between persons', family relations such as blood relation, matrimonial relation, fiancée's

Furthermore, according to a royal decree, which has been released as official kingdom law, persons close to the crown can never be unfit for duty, otherwise no judge would ever be able to announce a verdict as their salary is still legally carried by the state.
Paying a judge's salary alone is not enough to declare them biased.

As the appointed highest legal instance in the Kingdom the Master of Justice is considered close enough to the crown to fulfill these requirements.

Furthermore, the absence of the Master of Justice, would lead to a law free space, in which alone the Law of the King's word would count and could be changed every time a King pleased even during a trial.
Such a thing is neither desired by this court, the gods nor the Kingdom and is definitely not in the interest of any defendant nor or any defendant to come.

It is further stated that the trial in absentia was initiated by the Kingdom in exchange for charging FOR EXILE OVER DEATH, in case of conviction.

Furthermore, neither the refusal of an institution not anchored within the Kingdom's NOR a divine's law can be held against any judge. The same goes for plea bargain offers made by the accuser.

It is further stated that the Master of Justice already rebutted a much more unreasonable offer to a point where it has never even been made to the defendant or his defense council, namely 600'000 Radiant.
It shall further be stated that the way someone comes up with money resulting from fines resulting from being found guilty crime or, such in this case plea bargains, is not the court problem.

As thus, the motion to dismiss the Master of justice due to bias is declined.

Ad the High courts right to specify general terms

The court has every right to summarize a case under a general term, otherwise verdicts would not be possible.
'to overthrow' is a general term, that as both sides have proven can be taken in several ways, it is thus the courts responsibility to decide whether a term falls under a generally written term.

As a high court, this court's decisions have binding force.
Thus, every future court will have to keep to its decisions, and definitions of general terms.

This is law advancing function is anchored in the Kingdom's laws to which the defendant could have objected at any time before his indiction, especially considering how these laws were pronounced long ago.
However the defendant has never made use of this right, his title came along with.

Ad terminus 'overthrow'

The court agrees with the prosecutions opinion, that trying to rid the Kingdom of its territory against its will is an attempt to overthrow its integrity.
The term' attempt overthrow the Kingdom' , is in contrast to the defense claims not limited to the entire Kingdom but also includes only part of it such as its territorial integrity.
Neither the size nor the value of the overthrown good are relevant as the elements have been fulfilled.

This is justified by the argumentum a maiore ad minus, the Kingdom has brought forth.

Ad terminus enemy

The terminus enemy is to be taken as 'third force' and does not require ongoing wars, or bad relations between them.
A third force, is an organization or mass of people with the potential power to become a danger to the Kingdom.
House Sterling , fulfills these requirements, as it not only had the necessary funds to acquire Dawnshard from the Duke, but is also a City state.

House 'Sterling' and the Kingdom are thus of no relevance to the case, the fact that they are a third force that could potentially, raise an army and harm the Kingdom is enough. Their proclamation of neutrality is of no consequence as they have the power to renounce it at any given time.

The existence of a right to trial by combat

The right to trial by combat is neither anchored within the Kingdom of Hierax's laws nor the Laws of any divine worshipped within it.
A fight between two people only proves the better fighter, but not whether someone is guilty of a crime. Such a thing can solely be justified by the dead god Kilrox's motto 'Might is right' which the Kingdom does not only consider to be barbaric, but is also in contradiction to other, notably still living, divine entities which are in addition also revered within the Kingdom.

Ad the reasonability of the Kingdom's counter offer to the defense plea bargain

Upon further inspection this court finds the terms given to the plea bargain in a grey zone, especially as plea bargains are not regulated within the Kingdom's laws at all.

However, this amount has not been set by the court but the Kingdom, and it thus not for the court to decide.
A judge is free to accept or not accept settlement offers given by either party during a civil trial, he has however no responsibility to interfere should he choose not to, as both parties have the right to decline any form of settlement.
In this case a settlement was sought in a court deciding over a crime, and is thus unregulated area.

The initial offer of a plea bargain came from the defense, and the counter offer from the Kingdom, as such, there is no responsibility to interfere in the terms of the settlement as long as they see no need to do so.

In the specific case the settlement consisted of 300'000 for damage caused, 100'000 for the damage caused to the honorable name of House Hawklight and 50'000 Court fees.

This court sees no problem with asking as punitive fine for soiling the honor of a well established noble house, whose roots go back centuries and even before the establishment of the Kingdom, and also repeats that the amount wasn't set by the court itself.

- IUDEX NON CALCULAT!

Ad the defendant's responsibility for consequences of his sale

When the duke sold Dawnshard to house sterling, he took the risk of said entity taking actions against the Kingdom, and would thus thus at least a contribution offender.

Whether a parrot has actually the power to fire a cannon is of no relevance, as the Kingdom never stated that a parrot could fire a cannon but a person with ones intellect.

The court agrees that lighting fuse with fire does only require a school education, and might thus be possible for a person no smarter than a bird.

Ad trial of internal matters in front of foreign courts

Each and every Nation has the right to trial its own criminals under its own laws and has no obligation to bring charges in front of a foreign court, particularly as every court is to use its own procedural law.
The Kingdom of Hierax, taking pride in its sovereignty does not equal a declaration that it's courts are superior to those of other nations, but is merely an expression of said sovereignty.

As the prosecution has stated, no court in the Kingdom has the audacity to proclaim right to hold trial in the stead of another nations legal institutions, and thus has the right to refuse any offer subjugate charges against its criminals to other nation's courts, without being seen biased based on it.

This is a right every nation has and cannot be taken from it.

Paid debts

The repaying of the debts only shows that he is ready to pay debts, it does however not change the fact that he sold Kingdom territory.

Ad Raisin picking laws

The Kingdom's laws have to be read and used in their entire form.
Picking singular sentences out, disregarding others and mixing them at one's own pleasure is inadmissible in front of a criminal court.

Sentence


Ad Kingdom of Hierax, Accuser

The Kingdom of Hierax is hereby sentenced to carry all court fees that have been accumulated up until now. - The specific sum being 50'000 Radiant, payable within 30 days to the court.

These costs do not include the defendants expenditures for his legal council, which the defendant has to carry himself.

The Kingdom is sentenced to bear the costs of the proclamation of this judgment.

The Kingdom of Hierax is sentenced to outlaw plea bargains in their entirely, or regulate them as there is no hint in the Kingdom's laws to be found, and only grey-zone reasonable offers having been made.

The Kingdom of Hierax is sentenced to include this court's verdict, into its legal materials, and adjust the laws, especially the court's conclusion of the terms 'to overthrow' and 'enemy'.

The Kingdom of Hierax is sentenced to never again delegate the matter of a House's right to exile its relatives of said house, or stripping them off the name of their Noble name.

These rights shall henceforth remain with the house's Lord or any person it has been delegated to, it may however NOT be delegated to a court's decision.

The Kingdom of Hierax is sentenced to decree a law as to what is to happen if the Master of Justice is accused of bias.


Ad Duke Drake Hawklight, defendant
- )Ad Charges of Treason

The defendant has pleaded guilty on the charges of treason and expressed his wish to spare himself and the Kingdom the trial as well as plead guilty to the Kingdom's original charges.

After carefully debating the validity of those charges and both sides arguments, and thus the validity of the defendants guilty plea.

This court hereby finds the accused Drake Hawklight guilty on the charges of treason.

He shall henceforth be stripped of his Titles, and Ranks and all functions he has held within the Kingdom, and shall be forbidden to return, for his disloyal and dishonorable acts.

He shall also no longer be able to represent either the Kingdom of Hierax nor House Hawklight, as such is a part of said Kingdom.

Should he return to the lands claimed by the Kingdom, he shall automatically be declared an outlaw within the Kingdom of Hierax.
This verdict does not affect territories other than the Kingdom of Hierax, it is thus every nations free decision whether they intend to declare the Drake Hawklight an outlaw should they see fit.

Furthermore, the Kingdom hereby directs the matter on the accused's right to keep his family name, and thus exile from house Hawklight, back to the Kingdom who has held it last and previously delegated it to the court.
This decision is based on the court agreeing with the defendant's claim that such a draconian power in the hands of a single-instanced court would raise reasonable doubts in the Kingdom's system of justice.
This verdict does not touch House Hawklight's, or any person's it the decision has been delegated to by the same, right to exile him from house Hawklight and thus strip the accused of its name in any form.

Archduke Bolvar Firestorm,
Master of Justice

((We all recognize the OOC rights Jak had to the region btw, however IC, the Region was part of the Kingdom - dota
People who recieved a copy of this verdict

@Megadonkey30 (Thurian Emperor)
@Valonyx (Thorius in the body of his son)
@MRPolo13 (King char and Albareth
@Spear (Septimus)
@Tybalt / @Glados ? (Whoever actually is the King there now)
@ Tzemik and Naelwyn for Vigil's Rest information) - (2 tags are more than enough for staff; Should be reserved for important stuff)
@ Freya Lonmar (See Nael and Mich)

))

 

[DraconDarknight]

^^
||
Roughly 3 hours of my life spend on that.

Edit: obviously the defense got a copy too...