THE LORD MARSHAL v. THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL

[Draeris 3124]

THE LORD MARSHAL v. THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL

 

PRESIDING;

HIS EXCELLENCY THE IMPERIAL ARCHCHANCELLOR;

Peter the Poor 

 

PLAINTIFF;

HIS EXCELLENCY THE IMPERIAL LORD MARSHAL;

COUNT OF HARLINGEN,

Leonard II de Ruyter

 

PLAINTIFF WITNESSES; 

Lucy Devorax

Alice Capet

Jon-Paul de Leumont

 

DEFENDANT;

HIS EXCELLENCY THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL;

COUNT OF PROVINS,

Bohemond de Leumont

 

REPRESENTED BY:

THE MOST ESTEEMED HONOURABLE JUDGE;

Brother Boniface of Helena

David de Alence of Bourdon

 

DEFENDANT WITNESSES;

Adelene de Leumont

 

REGARDING:

The accusation of bias, disruption of order & conspiring against servicemen Lucy Devorax & Baerin Furnival.

 

THE PRETEXT:

Lucy Devorax and Baerin Furnival, henceforth referred to as servicemen, were put to trial on the subpoena of Brother Boniface of Helena, regarding alleged heresy by ms. Devorax and refusal to perform guard duties by mr. Furnival. The servicemen are under the jurisdiction of the Lord-Marshal, Leonard II de Ruyter.

 

The court procedure was still unfinished, with only one of the servicemen to have received a verdict of guilty and the removal of the iblees shard inside her. The second serviceman left the court to barricade himself in his residence, refusing to comply with enforcers Jon-Paul de Leumont & the Templar’s of Arjen’s Cross. He was declared a fugitive, and the trial was suspended.

 

Afterwards, The 2nd Grapevine was published in Helena, citing facts regarding the trial.

 

THE INITIATION:

The serviceman returned with an entourage of colleagues led by Leonard II de Ruyter, who demanded for the presiding judge to not oversee the trial of Baerin Furnival. The Imperial Judiciary suggested to mr. de Ruyter to fill in the form ‘Objection to legality’ so that the court may formally handle his request. This was refused. After dialogue became impossible, His Excellency the Archchancellor intervened. 

 

This intervention led to an extrajudicial lawsuit initiated by Ser Leonard II de Ruyter against the Solicitor-General for bias, disruption of order & conspiring against his servicemen. This lawsuit was, despite the lack of a subpoena, legitimized by the Archchancellor. This was legal due to the mandated authority given by the Lord-Protector. This is when the trial of BONIFACE v. LUCY DEVORAX, BAERIN FURNIVAL was annulled and the trial of THE LORD MARSHAL v. THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL began. 

 

THE TRIAL:

Plaintiff argued that the defendant was biased due to the ‘slander in the Grapevine’ and the ‘consistent persecution of his guards’ as Solicitor-General. The argument of the slander in the Grapevine {the newspaper}, was based on the alleged ownership of the Solicitor-General over the Grapevine and articles related to the Imperial guard. Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant wrote The Grapevine himself right after the trial, thus, rendering him responsible for the slander in it. The argument of consistent persecution was based on the previous trial ‘The Crown v. The Solicitor-General’ wherein the witnesses, including serviceman Lucy Devorax, testified against the Solicitor-General wielding a knife, against the threat of a lawsuit for slander from the Solicitor-General’s legal representation at that time. In ‘The Crown v. The Solicitor-General’, the Solicitor-General, defendant, was ruled not guilty. 

 

Defendant argued that The Grapevine was irrelevant to this legal procedure specifically and denied leaving the courthouse for around 2 hours after the trial was suspended. Defendant furthermore stated that he had locked the doors of the courthouse specifically over safety concerns. Defendant also stated that the trial against the servicemen were legal and not biased, because they were initiated by a legitimate subpoena delivered to the Solicitor-General in court. Defendant expressed the hypothesis that if he chose not to handle the lawsuit, he would be biased in favor of the guards, and would be in breach of his legal obligations & protocols of the Imperial judiciary.

 

Defendant objected against the relevance of The Grapevine in this legal procedure. The objection was sustained, on the argument that the Grapevine spoke of specific characteristics and events pertaining to individuals, and not The Imperial Guard as an organization. Personal interpretations against articles that describe a person were not a sign of institutional bias, as was the primary claim of the plaintiff.  

 

Lucy Devorax was called  for her testimony by Plaintiff, but was ruled an invalid witness per objection of the defendant due to her allegedly being an unreliable witness. The objection was based on her previous false testimony in the aforementioned trial and her employment by plaintiff. This objection was sustained.

 

Alice Capet was called for her testimony by Plaintiff, but was ruled an invalid witness per objection of the defendant due to her allegedly being an unreliable witness. The objection was based on her previous false testimony in the aforementioned trial and her irrelevance to this legal procedure. This objection was sustained. 

 

Jon-Paul de Leumont was called for his testimony by Plaintiff, but was ruled an invalid witness per objection of the defendant due to him allegedly being an unreliable witness. The objection was based on his employment by Leonard II de Ruyter and him being the defendant’s brother. This objection was overruled.

 

Thus, Jon-Paul de Leumont testified before the Imperial Court. He stated that he deemed the defendant suspicious enough to allege ownership over The Grapevine, as most articles involve himself or information that only specific circles would be privy to. Due to this assumption, the Solicitor-General would’ve slandered the servicemen and therefore would’ve reasonably appeared to be biased, and thus, would’ve illegally handled the legal procedure of ‘BONIFACE v. LUCY DEVORAX, BAERIN FURNIVAL’. 

 

Defendant objected against the testimony on the grounds of the previous ruling that everything regarding The Grapevine was ruled irrelevant and due to certain discrepancies in the testimony of both the plaintiff and the witness. The discrepancies were that the alleged witnesses, including the Plaintiff, were not present at the location as they claimed, as the plaintiff shouted “Men, with me!” in the town square, and walked away. Therefore, they could not have observed the defendant’s actions as they stated them in court. The first objection was overruled, as The Grapevine was relevant in the specific context of Jon-Paul’s testimony. The second objection was sustained, as their absence from the courthouse and town square was proven by multiple bystanders and the presiding judge himself.

 

Adelene de Leumont was called for her testimony by Defendant, but was ruled an invalid witness per objection of the plaintiff due to her allegedly being an unreliable witness. The objection was based on the sibling familial tie to the defendant. This objection was sustained.

 

Defendant objected to the sustainment, stating that if his sister couldn’t testify, his brother shouldn’t be able also. This objection was overruled on the basis of the circumstances, namely that witness Jon-Paul de Leumont was testifying against the defendant and not in favor of the plaintiff.

 

PRESIDING ACTING-JUDGE, HIS EXCELLENCY THE ARCHCHANCELLOR, Peter the Poor, gave the following verdicts.

 

REGARDING THE ‘SLANDER’ IN THE GRAPEVINE AS ARGUMENT OF BIAS, the Court ruled as invalid. The contents of The Grapevine were presumed to be truthful and would pertain to single individuals, not groups or organizations. Furthermore, the ownership of The Grapevine by the defendant could not be proven, which disqualifies the discussion by itself. 

 

REGARDING THE CHARGE OF INSTITUTIONAL BIAS BY THE IMPERIAL COURT, the Court ruled ‘Not guilty’, based on the arguments that it would be indeed the defendant’s job to process a subpoena into a legitimate legal procedure as is a right established in the LEX IMPERIALIS. 

 

REGARDING THE CHARGE OF CONSPIRING AGAINST THE IMPERIAL GUARD BY THE IMPERIAL COURT, the Court ruled ‘Not guilty’, based on the arguments that there was no established slander nor bias by the Imperial Judiciary at the behest of defendant. Furthermore, defendant only persecuted two individual servicemen, who were both subpoenaed by a civilian at the time. This does not resemble the necessary criteria for it to be deemed a conspiracy. 

 

Therefore, the defendant was deemed ‘Not guilty’ on all counts. 

 

JURISPRUDENCE: 

Considering that the parties Leonard II de Ruyter, Alice Capet, Lucy Devorax & Baerin Furnival have twice participated in a legal procedure against the Solicitor-General, albeit in different roles, regarding accusations of bias or corruption, the Imperial Judiciary deems the repetition of charging the Solicitor-General for the same crime, pertaining to the same parties, within a week, dangerous for its ability to handle subpoenas & execute its authority.

 

Therefore, the Imperial Judiciary shall add to its LEX IMPERIALIS that an individual cannot be prosecuted twice for the same crime, involving the same parties, unless it is proven to be under different circumstances or based by a separate act by itself.