THE CROWN v. CORBISH

[sergisala 3451]

SUBPOENA

14th of Godfrey’s Triumph, 1767

 

THE CROWN

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

EDWARD WILLIAMS GALBRAITH

BY ORDER OF THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL

 

DESIRES TO SUMMON THE FOLLOWING PARTY BEFORE A CIRCUIT COURT;

 

SIEGMUND CORBISH

 

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW:

 

Defamation 202.063 - Where an individual knowingly disseminates false information about an individual, with intent to harm the reputation of that individual, in a public space or by distribution of printed materials, this shall be defamation in the first degree. (Class E)

 

Deviancy 206.031 - Where an individual intentionally acts in unusual or accepted standards, especially in social or political behavior, this shall be the crime of deviancy in the third degree. (Class E)

 

Extortion 204.081 - Where an individual intentionally threatens another individual for obtaining money, titles, or other benefits for oneself, this shall be the crime of extortion. Third degree penalty. (Class E)

 

Theft Conspiracy 203.012 - Where an individual intentionally deprives another of movable property without the consent of its owner, and this property is of great amounts, this shall be theft in the first degree or grand theft. (Class P)

 

209.011 - Where an individual knowingly signals intent to commit a crime at a future time, this shall be the crime of conspiracy, and is subject to the same class of punishment of the crime which conspiracy is caused for.

 

Vandalism Conspiracy 203.042 - Where an individual intentionally or negligently damages or defaces the property of another, and this damage is of great amounts, this shall be vandalism in the first degree. (Class P)

 

209.011 - Where an individual knowingly signals intent to commit a crime at a future time, this shall be the crime of conspiracy, and is subject to the same class of punishment of the crime which conspiracy is caused for.

 

     A saint day ago in Helena, Siegmund Corbish showed up in front of Lucille Mary’s Bee Shop located in Pontian Place 2 and there he started harassing Lucille Mary and advertising another competing bee house business that exists in Haense through very bad manners. In fact, during that conversation Siegmund Corbish insulted her: he called her a b**** during multiple times and other mean and defamatory words, and he also told her that he was planning to break into her property and steal all her bees. After hearing that last statement Lucille Mary asked him to please not do that because she really loves her bees and they are very important to her. However, knowing this fact only made Siegmund Corbish more willing to commit all these crimes and he mentioned that he was going to kill all her bees after he managed to steal them and destroy her bee house. Siegmund Corbish then proceeded to threaten her saying that she shouldn’t own a business because she’s a woman, a totally unacceptable threat only expressed with the vile intention of forcing Lucille Mary to close her business if she didn’t want to have her bees stolen and killed and her bee house destroyed by Siegmund Corbish. All the crimes mentioned in this paragraph were witnessed by Cole Roger. 

 

Defamation 202.063 - Where an individual knowingly disseminates false information about an individual, with intent to harm the reputation of that individual, in a public space or by distribution of printed materials, this shall be defamation in the first degree. (Class E)

 

Deviancy 206.031 - Where an individual intentionally acts in unusual or accepted standards, especially in social or political behavior, this shall be the crime of deviancy in the third degree. (Class E)

 

     Later, he showed up in front of the Carrington & Company Mall in Helena where he argued with Marry Lucille, Alpha Carrington and other Carringtons shouting in public and, again, harassing Mary Lucille and the rest of the Carringtons that were present constantly saying that he was going to steal the bees from Mary Lucille and take her shop down. Then, Siegmund Corbish defamed the Carrington & Co. saying that it was the worst store of the Holy Orenian Empire. After that, authorities of the Kingdom of Haense and haensemen arrived and continued to trash Mary Lucille and then the haensemen took Mister Corbish out of the city. All the crimes mentioned in this paragraph were witnessed by Alpha Carrington, Declan Flynt and Cole Rogers. 

 

Trespassing 203.061 - Where an individual intentionally enters the property of another which a reasonable person would consider to be restricted, this shall be trespassing in the second degree. (Class P)

 

Burglary 203.022 - Where an individual unlawfully enters a property with intent to commit a violent crime, this shall be burglary in the first degree. (Class P)

 

Disturbing the Peace 207.051 - Where an individual intentionally and deliberately hinders or interrupts the common peace by embellished performance or immoral behavior, this shall be the crime of disturbing the peace in the third degree. (Class E)

 

     Afterwards, Siegmund Corbish decided to carry out his revenge against the Carringtons so he broke into the Carrington Manor located at D’Arkent Square 2 in Helena. Then, the Carringtons noticed that somebody entered their property and alerted the authorities. The Imperial State Army, led by Sir Henry, arrived and saw that Siegmund Corbish was indeed inside of the Carrington Manor and told Siegmund Corbish that he was under arrest. As confirmed by the ISA afterwards, Siegmund Corbish was fully armed so it is very likely that he was about to commit a violent crime within the manor. Despite the ISA told Siegmund Corbish that he was being arrested he initially refused to be arrested and resisted the arrest, and it was only after constantly asking him to surrender himself to the authorities that he accepted being arrested and followed the ISA to the Bastille. All the crimes mentioned in this paragraph were witnessed by Sir Henry, the three ladies, Cole Roger and Declan Flynt.  

 

WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT PARTY OR PARTIES:

 

WITNESSES

Mary Lucille d’Arkent, Witness

Lieutenant Sir Henry, Witness

 

WRITTEN TESTIMONIES OF

Declan Flynt

Mary Sophia d’Arkent

Cole Roger

Mary Lucille d’Arkent

Lieutenant Sir Henry

Yuki

 

ON THE DESIRED DATE OF:

TO BE DECIDED.

 

YOURS HUMBLY,

EDWARD WILLIAMS GALBRAITH

PONTIAN PLACE 8

Sergi#5457

[yandeer 734]

A young and haggard Helenan bureaucrat sighs in exhaustion as she reads over this latest legal missive, putting down a reminder in her already lengthy to do list that she should consult with one J. Adler and other legal representatives on creating a guide on how to present an objective legal case in a subpoena. 

 

The young Kortrevich then goes to take a spot of chamomile tea (likely more brandy than water in it) as she stares blankly at the ceiling of her office, contemplating how much trouble she would get in if she used the adjective “mean” to describe her boss in an official missive as the employee of the Ministry of Justice did to the accused. 

[rukio 8924]

”Bees have rights too, you know.” A young mali’ame, dark of hair and blue of eye would point out. ”Free the bees, Mary Lucille should not deny them their freedom.”

[Mescaffier 6197]

”Hrrmm...” a young Viktoriya murmured, reading over the missive with a curious gaze. “Oh! He’s the old prune that screamed at Lucy, Basil, and I,” she huffed, recalling when the elder had taken up a screeching match with herself & the Carrington and Basrid children. ”This serves him right!”

[TheNunnery 1853]

“The Orenian people strike again! This time bees!” A young doctor said to herself while drinking her evening tea, then, spitting her tea out saying “Guess it’s the BEE MOVEMENT!” The woman laughed loudly when saying this, having some joyful tears of laughter. 

[Xarkly 17299]

RESPONDING AFFIDAVIT
OF BEHALF OF SIEGMUND CORBISH

 

I DO DECLARE that I am Konstantin Wick, of II Petyr’s Passage, New Reza.

 

I DO DECLARE that I am a practicing solicitor of Konstantin & Company Solicitors.

 

I DO DECLARE that I appear on behalf of Siegmund Corbish (hereafter the “Defendant”).

 

I DO DECLARE that this Affidavit is submitted in response to the alleged wrongdoing of the Defendant outlined by the subpoena entitled ‘The Crown v. Corbish’ (hereafter the “Subpoena”).

 

I DO DECLARE that the information contained in this Affidavit is, to the best of my knowledge, fair, true and accurate.

 

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT, I do call the following witnesses to appear before the Court to testify in this matter:

• SOFIA BARUCH
• VORION STURMHOLM
   

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT, I do submit this Book of Evidence and I do swear it is, to the best of my belief, true and accurate: [Book of Evidence will be linked in trial, having already been distributed to the judge and prosecution]

EXHIBIT A: THE TESTIMONY OF MARY SOPHIA, given before Konstantin Wick;

 

EXHIBIT B: THE TESTIMONY OF DECLAN FLYNT, given before Konstantin Wick;

EXHIBIT C - THE TESTIMONY OF MARY LUCILLE, given before Konstantin Wick;

EXHIBIT D - THE TESTIMONY OF PERIDOT CARRINGTON;

EXHIBIT E: THE TESTIMONY OF KONSTANTIN WICK;

EXHIBIT F: THE TESTIMONY OF HIS MAJESTY, SIGISMUND II OF HAENSE;

EXHIBIT G: THE TESTIMONY OF GODFRIC ALIMAR;

EXHIBIT H: THE TESTIMONY OF SIEGMUND CORBISH;

EXHIBIT I: A SKETCH OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ATTACKED KONSTANTIN WICK AT THE CARRINGTON ESTATE;

EXHIBIT J: A SKETCH OF THE EXTERIOR OF THE CARRINGTON ESTATE;

EXHIBIT K: A SKETCH OF 2 D’ARKENT PLACE;

EXHIBIT L: EXTRACT OF THE ORIGINAL SUBPOENA;

EXHIBIT M: THE TESTIMONY OF SOFIYA BARUCH;

EXHIBIT N: THE TESTIMONY OF VORION STURMHOLM;

EXHIBIT O: THE SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY OF MARY LUCILLE.

---

IN REFUTE OF THE ALLEGED WRONGDOING:

 

ON THE FIRST COUNT OF DEFAMATION;
I beg to refer to EXHIBIT N and EXHIBIT O - the written testimonies of Sofiya Baruch and Vorion Sturmholm - in tandem with their eyewitness accounts as evidence that the alleged harassment consists of little more than an argument owing to business rivalries. Vorion Sturmholm, Sofiya Baruch and the Defendant travelled to Helena to advertise their bee-shop. Greatly upset by the condition by which bees, among other animals, were being treated in the local bee-shop, they advertised their own Haeseni bee venture as superior.

 

I beg to refer to the above named testimonies as proof that what transpired henceforth constituted as little more than an argument between the local bee proprietor, one Mary Lucille, and the Defendant, owing to the business rivalries. Tempers were stoked, and insults were exchanged on both sides; the Court cannot reasonably interpret such an argument to constitute an act of Defamation. The Oren Revised Code (hereafter the “ORC”) defines Defamation as the deliberate dissemination of false information; the Prosecution is invited to demonstrate wherein the Defendant knowingly disseminated information that can be considered an objective falsehood. Furthermore, as this alleged act of Defamation was little more than an argument, the Court is warned that convicting the Defendant of such a charge would establish the dangerous precedent of any common argument becoming worthy of a Defamation charge. Not only does this pose a flood-gate threat to the Court, but it is also an unreasonable injustice.

 

The same logic persists when examining this alleged Defamation in a professional capacity. The Prosecution has on this occasion failed to provide any alleged defaming acts other than ‘mean advertisement’; for the purpose of specificity and, again, the vague precedence this would give rise to, this cannot be reasonably construed as a convictable act of Defamation. The Defendant claimed that Baruch Bees were superior owing to their more ethical conduct, though, again in reference to the ORC, this is insufficient to constitute an act of Defamation. The Defendant was expressing a personal opinion, the likes of which are expressed in every corner of the Empire at every hour. This cannot be construed as a deliberate dissemination of false information.

 

In light of this, this charge cannot stand.

ON THE FIRST COUNT OF DEVIANCY;
The prosecution have failed to adequately define the alleged deviancy. The Court cannot reasonably accept a blanket statement of deviance to be appropriate to justify a charge of this nature. I beg to refer to the eyewitness accounts and EXHIBIT N and EXHIBIT O, the written testimonies of Sofiya Baruch and Vorion Sturmholm, as evidence that an argument transpired between the Defendant and Mary Lucille. The Court cannot construe a common argument as an act of deviancy. While regrettable, arguments, wounded pride and stoked tempers are a common sight in every corner of Arcas, but do not give rise to a suit of deviancy. 

 

In light of this, this charge cannot stand.

ON THE FIRST COUNT OF EXTORTION;
The Prosecution have, again, failed to adequately outline the alleged act of Extortion in a sufficient capacity. I beg to refer to EXHIBIT N and EXHIBIT O and the eyewitness accounts of Sofiya Baruch and Vorion Sturmholm as evidence that the truth of what transpired in Pontian Place was a common argument stemming from a business rivalry and far from a one-sided attack; as such, heated words exchanged in an argument cannot be reasonably construed to constitute an act of Extortion. I beg to refer to the above named Exhibits and EXHIBIT  H, the testimony of Siegmund Corbish, that others present, including local guardsmen, did not interpret this as a genuine threat.

 

In light of this, this charge cannot stand.

ON THE FIRST COUNT OF THEFT CONSPIRACY;
The Prosecution, in their efforts to stretch out an argument to consist of multiple ill-founded charges, have rendered this count liable for the same rebuttal; the Prosecution have unreasonably, and most dubiously, miscontrued a common argument, which was not one-sided, as evidence for a serious charge.

 

I beg to refer to EXHIBIT O, the written testimony of Vorion Sturmholm, and ask the Court to note the witness’s claims that Mary Lucille threatened that her family was “rich, and they were going to make Siegmund regret it”, as evidence that the argument was far from a one-sided attack, and that similar threats of violence were articulated by Mary Lucille, yet the Defendant, as a reasonable person one, did not construe this to constitute a threat with sufficient Mens Rea.

 

In light of this, this charge cannot stand.

ON THE FIRST COUNT OF VANDALISM CONSPIRACY;
The Court is directed to the defense cited in refute of the above charge as consistent in refuting this charge. 

 

ON THE SECOND COUNT OF DEFAMATION;
The Prosecution’s attempt to cite a personal opinion as an act of Defamation constitutes a grave insult to the intelligence and integrity of this Court. I beg to refer to the definition of the ORC, which defines Defamation as the deliberate dissemination of false information. The Defendant’s opinion that Baruch Bees was a superior enterprise is a personal expression of speech - since the Court cannot be asked to determine whether an opinion is an objective truth, the Prosecution have failed to provide adequate grounds for this charge.

 

In light of this, the charge cannot stand.

ON THE SECOND COUNT OF DEVIANCY;
The Court is asked to refer to the previous defense of deviancy, citing that an argument in which both sides participated in cannot reasonably be construed as an act of deviancy. I beg to refer to EXHIBIT G and EXHIBIT H as evidence of the duality of this argument, the likes of which, once again, cannot be reasonably construed as an act of deviancy.

 

In light of this, this charge cannot stand.

ON THE FIRST COUNT OF TRESPASSING;
It is submitted to the Court that no trespassing, alleged or otherwise, occurred on the property named in the Subpoena - that being 2 D’Arkent Place, a sketch of which is submitted under EXHIBIT K. An extract from the Subpoena, outlining the false claim of trespassing of 2 D’Arkent Place, is submitted under EXHIBIT L. I beg to refer to EXHIBIT O as evidence as the location where the alleged wrongdoing occurred.

 

Submissions are prepared regarding other alleged trespasses. However, as the Prosecution have submitted a charge on a property where no alleged trespassing occured, they will not be filed until the matter is remedied in a separate Subpoena or by judicial order.

 

In light of this, this charge cannot stand.

ON THE FIRST COUNT OF BURGLARY;
I beg to refer to EXHIBIT L of evidence that the Prosecution have submitted this charge in relation to a property in which no alleged trespassing, burglary or disturbance of the peace occured. I beg to refer to EXHIBIT O as evidence as the location where the alleged wrongdoing occurred.

 

Submissions are prepared regarding alleged wrongdoing on other properties. However, as the Prosecution have submitted a charge on a property where no alleged burglary occurred, they will not be submitted until the matter is remedied in a separate Subpoena or by judicial order.

 

In light of this, this charge cannot stand.

ON THE FIRST COUNT OF DISTURBING THE PEACE;
I beg to refer to EXHIBIT L of evidence that the Prosecution have submitted this charge in relation to a property in which no alleged trespassing, burglary or disturbance of the peace occured. I beg to refer to EXHIBIT O as evidence as the location where the alleged wrongdoing occurred.

 

Submissions are prepared regarding alleged wrongdoing on other properties. However, as the Prosecution have submitted a charge on a property where no alleged disturbance of the peace occurred, they will not be submitted until the matter is remedied in a separate Subpoena or by judicial order.

 

In light of this, this charge cannot stand.

[Volous 24]

As per effort by the Ministry of Justice to archive old cases I hereby recapitulate that a judicial opinion has been given and the case has been closed. It is now scheduled to be archived within the saint’s week. Herein dated on the 12^th of Snow’s Maiden (Horen’s Calling), 1774. 

 

Maud Cassowary, Esq.
Crown Solicitor