*You walk into the courtroom and hear something that sounds like small thunder. It’s the shuttering of hundreds of cameras from news reporters. The flashes are like lighting that bounce of the tasteful oak and marble walls. The seats and beaches are flooded with people in suites and elegant outfits. Government Officials are present, visiting diplomats, sitting politicians and many many advisers assistants and aids. The room is suspended in a silence. There are about 25 court officers in the room lining the bench, for the judge’s personal safety, and more stationed near the parties. Court officers with heavy military weapons are stationed outside the the doors and all in the court house. The Judge is sitting there and finishes writing. He looks up and begins.
Good Evening to all.
Firstly,
I would like to start off by citing an example. An example in which a citizen was prosecuted for violating the communications code.
If we look at the Supreme Court case of The Commonwealth of Free Nations v. Namayapata
After trial the ruling stated that breaching the Communication Codes meant that the Defendant needed to have used "fighting words” in conversation and vocabulary in the altercation, fighting words being the legal term for words that insinuate violence or for our understanding in the NS world- words that insinuate emotional attacks and cyber bullying.Looking at the evidence I see no such of fighting words in his vocabulary during the altercation.
Secondly,
The Defendant’s fact book entry is indeed covered under his freedom of expression. The Prosecution has made a valid argument as to what his fact book caused, what it made people feel and what it might have led to in regards to regional security and those claims are indeed worthy being regarded.
However the Defendant’s act of simply making such a fact book is indeed his right and absolutely covered under our Constitution.
Also to add, if If the Defendant was showing GR citizens his fact book as a form of protest than it would still be covered under his right. The State of the Commonwealth of Free nations can not be held accountable for it’s citizens’ exercising protest in a way that does not use fighting words.
Thirdly,
Another fact, which is extremely important to note, is that the Defendant made his factbook entry eighty days before the altercation, eighty days of no problems or inquires into it. This is the fact that gives the court a intense conviction of reasonable doubt or in other words because there was no inquiry into it sooner it stands to question if there were any other motives by the direct plaintiff or victim to charge the defendant other than the fact book. Again, as I’ve said before, even if the members of Genuan Rebirth did not know about his FactBook until he posted it on their RMB, his posting it is still an exercise in freedom of expression.
Fourthly,
The Prosecutions argument that the Fact Book created a scare or threat of regional invasion or raid, as stated by it’s former President Sovietia, is noted but has not legitimate rather simply honest emotional fear and or simple conjecture. The state of Genuan Rebirth did not mobilize it’s allies’ military or ask for a standby for military assistance during the altercation, it did not seriously the Defendant’s FactBook as a threat to national security. With that being said the decision of Former President Sovietia to leave her office then cannot be weighted on the Defendant’s shoulders. Rather her leaving was her choice, out of frustration with the altercation among other things, but it’s important to note that her leaving can not and will not be the laid at the Defendant’s feet. In addition to this there was simple not enough evidence to prove that former Pres. Sovietia’ leaving was his fault and there is ample room for rerasable doubt.
Fifthly,
Before I give a ruling I want to address the direct plaintiff, the Prosecution, and others who wished the Defendant to be charged, tried and punished.
I understand and truly empathize with those citizens of Genuan Rebirth who felt hurt by the Fact Book. Who may have felt betrayed on the CFN or who may have felt insulted. Who wanted punishment and who felt that the honor of their beloved region was tarnished. I truly comprehend your view and again, empathize with those feelings.
I must ask though dear brethren, Would we let a simple act of protest and political expression….. ruin…or …..erode the fraternal relationship and good caring friendship of the Commonwealth of Free Nations and Genuan Rebirth?
We have deep roots. Roots that are bolted to the ground beneath them. And it takes allot more than a trail to even scratch the metal on these bolts.
Before I give the official verdict I want to leave you all with this poem that I’ve read a while ago.
*he digs in his pocket, unfolds the paper and reads*
“Things have not been easy for us lately
But I’m proud of us for holding on
For working together to make it through this
I know we’ll be okay in the end
And I hope you believe that, too
Because no matter how hard things become at times
It’s only a part of any relationship
And I believe it will make us stronger”
Lastly,
*he bangs gavel twice*The Court of First Resort of the Commonwealth of Free Nations herebye finds that Defendant, Unfallious,
not guilty on the first count of breaching the Communications Code.
For the
Second Count of the Capital Crime of Treason, this court finds the Defendant
not guilty.*he looks at Unfallious*Mr. Unfallious you
are acquitted of all charges against you.
Due to your not guilty verdict there is not sentence of any kind or conditions that need to be followed.
Just countune to be a law biding citizen
Thank you all for being here for court, especially the politicians who took time out to be here and take the stand.
This case is closed. *He gathers papers. Stands up, bangs gavel. and leaves chair.*
