Kingdom of Spain v. Kingdom of Reitzmag
-
Objection your honor! The witness narrated an alleged incident where the defendant, His Majesty George I, is not present nor involved.
Sir Jonathan Temm, CMG
Member, King's Counsel -
While I acknowledge the objection in relation to the individual DEFENDANT, as the suit was placed ex rel to the Kingdom of Reitzmag, the individual is thereby under suit for their responsibilities pertaining to their position in the Reitzmic government. As both the individual George Montreal and the entity Kingdom of Reitzmag are named as the DEFENDANT in the suit, I will allow for this testimony to be accepted with the acknowledgement of a degree of separation between the events in the testimony and the individual named. The CLAIMANT's witness testimony is thereby accepted as a means to establish a pattern of behaviour in the entity thus named.
We will now move to the cross examination of the witness.
I now call on the CLAIMANT to open the cross examination of the witness, to be followed by the advocate for the DEFENDANT.
Andreas EKKA
Chief Justice of the ECoJ -
Thank you Mr. Ekka. Mr. Sanders, first of all I would like to thank you for your brave testifying here. Now, I would like to get an answer to these questions, if possible:
- Was his Majesty George I involved on the events of your kidnap? If yes, what did he do?
- What was the agreement to develop the Reitzmic region of New Moreland? Did both defendants take part on achieving it? If yes, what were their plans to keep this aside from the European law, if any? If not, who took part and what plans were there to invert that money?
- About the money incident, was that related with the ship mentioned on Nyetthem Accords or with the New Moreland development fund?
- Did the Reitzmic Government said HM George I would recognise the UNSR?
- I also want to ask about the planes. What were the UNSR and the Reitzmic Government plans to achieve a deal that, according to the European Council Condemnation, is illegal?
- The recognition of the UNSR by the Reitzmic King; was it a move to improve relations? If yes, what other deals or secret deals were done? If no, what was the purpose of this, if you know there was actually some?
That's all by me at the moment. Thank you very much.
-
Was his Majesty George I involved on the events of your kidnap? If yes, what did he do?
I have no memory of him doing anything. However, the actors acted in the name of the Reitzmic government, which is a defendant in this case and also which represents George. We can call George from now on. He holds no titles recognised by the UNSR.
What was the agreement to develop the Reitzmic region of New Moreland? Did both defendants take part on achieving it? If yes, what were their plans to keep this aside from the European law, if any? If not, who took part and what plans were there to invert that money?
I don't think that that goes against the Condemnation, as the UNSR is free to engage in any trade and investment with anyone, except military goods.
About the money incident, was that related with the ship mentioned on Nyetthem Accords or with the New Moreland development fund?
Nyetthem Accords.
Did the Reitzmic Government say George would recognise the UNSR?
Yes. And we accepted that with the understanding that that meant Reitzmag and its government would recognise us.
I also want to ask about the planes. What were the UNSR and the Reitzmic Government plans to achieve a deal that, according to the European Council Condemnation, is illegal?
That is illegal in the condemnation, yes. Though I am under no obligation to follow EU rules. Just FYI. But their government would have broken the condemnation by trading arms with us, yes.
The recognition of the UNSR by the Reitzmic King; was it a move to improve relations? If yes, what other deals or secret deals were done? If no, what was the purpose of this, if you know there was actually some?
Yes it was done to improve relations.
-
Thank you Mr Sanders.
I remind everyone that this witness testimony and all evidence presented is given as such under oath under penalty of perjury.
The DEFENDANT will now have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Advocate Temm, you may present your questions when ready.
Andreas EKKA
Chief Justice of the ECoJ -
Thank you Your Honor,
Mr. Sanders, here are my questions:
- Were the actions of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Coventry, based on your testimony, was an official internal decision from the Reitzmic Government entirely? If so, do you have any solid evidence (video/audio record, official document, etc.)?
- Was there an agreement reached in what you stated that Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Jirluchuz for aircraft? If so, I request this court to summon Mr. Jirluchuz to testify.
- Did you give the money, that you brought to the area, to Mr. Johnson without any force or harm? If so, was there a document that acts as a receipt or proof of such transaction?
This would be the first part of my cross-examination, I may ask questions later after the witness has answered these questions. Thank you!
Sir Jonathan Temm, CMG
Member, King's Counsel -
Were the actions of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Coventry, based on your testimony, was an official internal decision from the Reitzmic Government entirely? If so, do you have any solid evidence (video/audio record, official document, etc.)?
How can the head of the government and one of its senior members not be acting on behalf of the government? They are in the government, all their foreign policy and other actions are all on behalf of the government. If they were not acting on behalf of the government, I feel that the onus is on that government to provide evidence that these two senior members of the government had gone rogue. If they had not gone rogue, then they were part of the government.
Was there an agreement reached in what you stated that Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Jirluchuz for aircraft? If so, I request this court to summon Mr. Jirluchuz to testify.
The Chairman does not need to testify as we have an audio recording of Coventry requesting planes:
Min. Coventry: "Okay, here's the deal. We'll release Sandals, I mean Sanders, to you. But you should give us 5 squadrons of your SU-57 planes immediately. Then, you shall surrender the power over Icholasen to the legitimate monarchy."
This is an illegal act committed by a member of the government, in close cahoots with Johnson, the leader of said government. Though I must add I don't think it should be illegal. But that's politics.
Did you give the money, that you brought to the area, to Mr. Johnson without any force or harm? If so, was there a document that acts as a receipt or proof of such transaction?
I decline to answer the question on grounds it doesn't make sense.
-
Mr. Sanders, I asked you if there was an agreement. You gave us evidence of Mr. Coventry asking for the aircraft, but was there any aircraft given in response to the request?
-
Okay you rephrased the sentence so now I understand it. Of course we did not give the aircraft, that request and all the requests were totally unreasonable. Especially when Reitzmag was faced with a much more powerful opponent, the UNSR. Restore the monarchy? Give up our planes? There was no chance of it happening. That isn't even necessarily the point of the litigation.
-
Mr. Sanders, you refused the last of my initial questions, I think you are asking for a clarification. What I asked was if you voluntarily gave to Mr. Johnson the money you brought, as part of the Nyetthem Accords. And if you gave it without force, was there a proof of the transaction such as a receipt signed by both parties?
-
'No because I was transquilihsed' Bernie gesticulates 'But the will was there, and that's what I went to Reitzmag to do.'
-
Your Honor,
I have asked enough and had found that the witness had no solid evidence of the accusations linking to the defendant, His Majesty the King George I and the Government of the Kingdom of Reitzmag.
Sir Jonathan Temm, CMG
Member, King's Counsel -
Your honor, I object to the conclusions of Advocate Temm!
The Defendant is obviusly not interested on Sanders being heard by this court as they didn't get the ship signed in Nyetthem Accords and it's not good for the defendants, but there is enough evidence to proof:
- The treaty was actually signed and the witness has said there was an agreement to recognise the UNSR in exchange of a military agreement in which both, the Kingdom of Reitzmag and HM George I were both involved to achieve said deal.
- Sanders was kidnapped in order to agree another military deal, in which this time only the Government took place, and they kidnapped Mr. Sanders in order to force the deal in exchange of freedom for the witness.
Julián Sánchez Melgar
Spanish General Attorney -
Your honor, I object to the statement of the CLAIMANT!
The CLAIMANT is trying to force his own conclusion despite the clarity that:
- The Nyetthem Accords were signed while the Condemnation of the Coup in Icholasen was being considered.
- There is no solid evidence that the WITNESS can present to this court showing that the requests made by Mr. Johnson and Mr. Coventry were made after an internal decision within the Cabinet.
- There was no agreement reached in the request made by Mr. Johnson and Mr. Coventry.
Sir Jonathan Temm, CMG
Member, King's Counsel -
Your honor, I once again object to the statement of the DEFENDANT!
The DEFENDANT is not right about the consideration of the Condemnation. In fact, the Condemnation was being voted and the voting period ended the same day Nyetthem Accords were being discussed. Moreover, there wasn't an agreement about the jets but actually, there was one about the ship and Mr. Sanders and the Accords say so. Finally, it's impossible that the WITNESS could present a Cabinet resolution as he is not a member of the Reitzmic Cabinet and he has never been.
Julián Sánchez Melgar
Spanish General Attorney -
Your honor, I request this court to summon Prime Minister Simon Bridges of Reitzmag to testify whether the archives of the Cabinet of the Kingdom of Reitzmag contain any document that shows that an internal decision was made by the cabinet to do such action.
Sir Jonathan Temm, CMG
Member, King's Counsel -
ORDER! You both will only address this court when you are called upon to make such statements or when there is a valid, substantive objection to make. Your 'objections' are hardly that and instead resemble oral arguments. You will wait for this court to rule upon each objection before filing another. You cannot file an objection simply because you disagree with the conclusions of the opposed party, you must offer a valid reasoning for the court to strike the statements of the opposing party. This is the time for the cross examination of witnesses, not the time for you to further your individual oral arguments presenting conclusions through phony objections. You will have ample opportunity to further your oral arguments following the testimony and cross examination of the witnesses. You will respect each other and this court or you will be held in contempt. This is your only warning.
I will allow the DEFENDANT to call a witness to the stand if there is no substantive objection from Solicitor Melgar or the prosecution.
THE COURT HEREBY SUMMONS MR SIMON BRIDGES TO TESTIFY. I should remind both parties that each will receive the opportunity to cross-examine Mr Bridges. After the witness is sworn in, they will deliver their statement. Following the statement by Mr Bridges, Advocate Temm will perform the cross examination first, followed by the cross examination of the CLAIMANT.
Andreas EKKA
Chief Justice of the ECoJ((OOC: This and this this are pretty decent listings of common objections used in common-law courts— which like technically this isn't but like might as well be))
-
Objection!
Your honor, Mr. Bridges would be unable to say the truth on this trial, as he is leading the Government that ex rel is going under this trial. Also, he could try to protect the DEFENDANT by lying to this court and a conflict of interest between saying the truth and presiding his country would be given in case Prime Minister Bridges from the Kingdom of Reitzmag would testify.
Julián Sánchez Melgar
Spanish General Attorney -
SUSTAINED. This court hereby withdraws its summons to Mr Bridges based on the concerns cited by the CLAIMANT regarding the existing conflict of interest regarding the summoned witness' vested interest in the DEFENDANT, thus preventing them from offering just testimony on the events cited.
Advocate Temm, I will now give you the opportunity to call another witness to this proceeding.
Andreas EKKA
Chief Justice of the ECoJ -
Your honor,
I hereby request this court to call Mr. Jeff James of the National Archives to testify instead of Mr. Bidges. The National Archives is a Non-Ministerial Government Department and only has control over the security of the archives.
Sir Jonathan Temm, CMG
Member, King's Counsel
The Kingdom of Spain