Commonwealth V. Unfallious

*The appellate Judge Ruclax quickly walks into the courtroom. He makes his way to the presiding judge. He tell shim something in his ear and gives him an apologetic handshake.
After they exchange words he quickly turns to the courtroom and says*


Members of the court, I have apologized to Judge Mons, and to the defense as I have been briefed as to the circumstances surrounding the evidence. I have repealed the subpoena, so it' not longer legally binding.
Again my apologies to the court.


* He then swiftly exists the court room back to his chambers*

Thank you for the reply, Prosecutor.

You seem to make a lot of general statements, without proof, and attempt to force the Court to accept it as fact. Example,"Furthermore, "... he or she must immediately inform the offending party." Vladovaskia did exactly this. Thus the case does firmly stand." Please provide the instance when the offended party specifically informed my client that he felt offended. The Communications Code is very clear in that the offended party must directly inform the offender. This was not the case.

This point is based ENTIRELY on conjecture and has no basis in fact. A few nations saying that it was possible that maybe in some way there was voter fraud, with no proof, is an insufficient argument. The only proof given on this point is a list of nations that were discriminated against by the regional government on the possibility that they were puppets. There was no proof. There was no reasoning other than speculation of parties that have been identified by my client as political opponents. His opponents that had gained power used it against his party on a baseless speculation. The Honorable Justice, surely must see that this charge cannot stand up, conjecture and bias must not rule this court.

On these charges, which have been conveniently morphed together as there is not enough evidence for both to stand alone, I wish to cite a World Assembly Resolution. All residents of the Commonwealth are required to join the institution, and thus all must adhere to their policies. While it does not define regional law, it illustrates a very fine point.

GA Resolution #323 "No Penalty Without Law" was passed by a 54% margin. The wide majority of voting members of the Commonwealth voted in favor of the resolution, establishing its relevance. The fourth precept of the Resolution states "4. Prohibits member nations, political subdivisions thereof, or any person or organisation acting on or purporting to be acting on the authority of the member nation or political subdivisions thereof, from arresting, detaining, prosecuting, incarcerating, fining, or otherwise placing under duress individuals for violating laws that are not publicly promulgated;"

This displays my client's stance on these charges. The charge of "Hostile Takeover" exists NO WHERE in the regional policies, legal documents, or addresses. The NGA Decommission Act does not contain a clause about such a "hostile takeover" being in a state of illegality. Whether or not one believes what my client did was right, this Court deals in fact. It is not the place of the Courts to decide the morality of decisions of citizens or whether it was "nice" or "mean". It is not the place of the Courts to become a vigilante service, It cannot punish one for doing something "bad". This Court must deal in laws. The simple fact is that this charge was a fabrication of the Justice system, as the charge does not exist, it cannot be found in Court. There is no mention of a conviction on such a charge, or any charge that does not exist before the trial, so no conviction can be handed down.

On the Treason aspect, which the Defense has failed to provide a separate incident worthy of such a charge, surely it should have been tried earlier. If my client did, in fact, commit treason against the Commonwealth, and in turn threaten its security, surely it would have been a more pressing issue. You see, Honorable Justice, the events in question took place in the last calendar year, why is it coming to trial in April? My client believes that this only accentuates the culture of manipulation of the Courts. It is fact, in the sphere of law, that adding extraneous charges to simply add more charges increases the possibility of conviction through the slippery slope maneuver. This may not have been the intent of the Defense, but we firmly believe that this is the product. As evidenced by the simply impossible task of separating the two charges, because they should not be separated.

Thank you again, I wait for a response from the Defense.

Could you point to the specific sentence(s) that you are objecting to?

While you deliberate, or after as it pleases you, I would like to call my first witness.

Sorry for the wait. I typed a very long response and it was all deleted for some reason when I tried to post.

In short, argumentative language such as this is commonplace in general statements such as this, as these portions of the trial are where the guilt or innocence of the defendant is being argued. They are used to argue the guilt or innpocence of the accused, but if not backed up by hard evidence in later stages of the trial, they will not strengthen or weaken the case against the accused, and will have no outcome on the verdict. Argumentative language is not, however, allowed to be used in witness examinations, because witness testimony is used to determine what actually occurred. The prosecutor could not ask a witness "Do you believe that Unfallious has been attempting to manipulate the systems through the use of puppets states?", because that implies guilt in the question, and therefore "leads the witness" or "testifies". Instead, the prosecutor would have to ask if there were anomalies in activity patterns of certain nations, what the witness believes such anomalies suggest, who could be behind those anomalies and why, etc.

The objection is overruled, but I suggest that the prosecution begins calling witnesses to the stand, so that we may begin dealing in fact and testimony. Before hearing arguments about the validity of charges, and whether the accused's actions constituted violations of the law, witnesses must be called and evidence must be cited: the prosecution must prove that such actions were even carried out in the first place. In the end, the presiding judge is the one who must interpret the law and make the decision about the guilt or innocence of the accused, but the burden of proving the actions of the accused falls upon the prosecution, and the judge's decision will be based upon the ability of the prosecution to provide such proof in the examination phase. After the prosecution has tried to back up their claims with testimony, and all the facts have been presented, argumentative language may be re-introduced in the form of closing statements.

I would rather wait and let the Prosecution go first, as is customary. Besides, it is late for both us and our friends in the UK. If you and your witness are still available at 8PM EDT tomorrow, and the Prosecution has not yet found the time to call his witness, I will allow you to call your witness first, as at some point efficiency must be held in higher regard than tradition. Until then, court adjourned.

Humpheria is present and if it pleases the Court, my witness is ready.