Kingdom of Spain v. Kingdom of Reitzmag
-
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 -
Again, this court 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 JEFF JAMES TO TESTIFY. I should remind both parties that each will receive the opportunity to cross-examine Mr James. After the witness is sworn in, they will deliver their statement. Following the statement by Mr James, Advocate Temm will perform the cross examination first, followed by the cross examination of the CLAIMANT.
Andreas EKKA
Chief Justice of the ECoJ -
Jeff went to the witness area to begin his testimony.
"Good morning to everyone, your honor. I'd like to testify that there is not a single record from the National Archives that a Government Resolution was made to push Mr. Johnson and Mr. Coventry to do such acts. During the said day of the alleged incident, I was in the archives and was preparing to close it. No one was there to report anything that the National Archives should record. Commonly, any new Government resolution was immediately reported to my office. So, that's all for my testimony."
-
Your honor,
I have nothing else to ask Mr. James as I think that his testimony is very clear. Thank you.
Sir Jonathan Temm, CMG
Member, King's Counsel -
Thank you Mr James.
The CLAIMANT will now have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Solicitor Melgar, you may present your questions when ready.
Andreas EKKA
Chief Justice of the ECoJ -
Thank you your honor. Mr, James, these are my questions:
- Do you have access to the content of the Cabinet Resolutions?
- Can the Prime Minister access the National Archives without being asked why is he or she there? Could he also access the archives without being seen by anyone?
- Are the National Archives opened 24 hours a day, the 7 days of the week?
- Who has access to it apart from you?
- When you are on a rest, who's in charge of the National Archives?
- Is there any other person that is in charge of the archives?
Thank you Mr. James.
Julián Sánchez Melgar
Spanish General Attorney
The Kingdom of Spain