Kingdom of Spain v. Kingdom of Reitzmag
-
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 -
Do you have access to the content of the Cabinet Resolutions?
YesCan 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?
No other people except me or authorized personnel may access the vault of the National Archives.Are the National Archives opened 24 hours a day, the 7 days of the week?
We are open everyday, but we are only open from 5am to 8pmWho has access to it apart from you?
I have already mentioned that only authorized personnel are the ones apart from me that can access the archives. Furthermore, these authorized personnel may only access the vault upon orders from higher authority such as the court. But I may refuse the orders to access these vaults.When you are on a rest, who's in charge of the National Archives?
As a servant of HM George I, I humbly say that I have never been absent and my only rest days are during holidays.Is there any other person that is in charge of the archives?
I'm sorry, but I am the only person who has the responsibility and rights to the security of the archives. -
Your honor, I consider I have nothing else to ask Mr. James. Thanks you very much.
Julián Sánchez Melgar
Spanish General Attorney -
Thank you. We will now move to the final phase of the oral arguments. Solicitor Melgar, you may now deliver your closing statement.
Andreas EKKA
Chief Justice of the ECoJ -
Thank you your honor.
Justices, your honor, I think that in this trial I have been able to show enough evidence to consider that the actions made by his Majesty King George I and the Kingdom of Reitzmag as institution, menaing with this the Government, are guilty. The Condemnation of the Coup was absolutely clear about what member states could and couldn't do. About the European Union recognisement, I herebry believe that the EU is formed by every member state and in fact, they must accomplish with the measures taken by the European Council.
The Nyettem accords, specially the agreements between the Kingdom of Reitzmag and the Union of Nicoleizian Soviet Republics are out of the law as no military assets could remain after the condemnation was passed. Even if both, the agreements and the Condemnation were passed in the same day, I'm pretty sure the Kingdom of Reitzmag would have been able to step back the next day, when we all knew about the Council resolution. Moreover, they did not step back but continued with the agreements by recognising the UNSR days later and even got money from the UNSR to replace a ship that later on they had to return and recognised it was illegal. The money, as confirmed by Mr. Sanders, who was also kidnapped in order to get another deal with the Reitzmic Government after the Condemantion, was part of such Accords.
I hope this court has been able to see how a member state has broken the law many times and that a response is given to such actions. I think we can't allow these things to happen anymore and that we shall accomplish the European law, because we all make the European Union.
Thank you.
Julián Sánchez Melgar
Spanish General Attorney -
Thank you Solicitor Melgar.
Advocate Temm, you may now deliver your closing statement.
Andreas EKKA
Chief Justice of the ECoJ -
Your honor,
In my conclusion, I see that the DEFENDANT, HM The King George I and the Government of the Kingdom of Reitzmag, is not guilty. It is very clear that the voting period for Condemnation of the Coup in Icholasen Act has not yet elapsed while the Nyetthem Accords were signed, hence, the contents of the Nyetthem Accords with regards to military deals with the UNSR is hereby automatically void. That being said, the travel of Mr. Bernie Sanders to the Kingdom of Reitzmag should have nothing to do with the Nyetthem Accords. The issue with the incident of the kidnapping did not involve the government, hence no agreement was made between the two parties. Mr. Sanders has clearly narrated to this court that there was no agreement reached, none of the alleged demands from Mr. Johnson or Mr. Coventry were accepted. There is no document that says that Mr. Sanders voluntarily gave the money, hence, the incident may be considered as robbery and kidnap for ransom. The document of the Nyetthem Accords shows that the demands made by the Reitzmic party was to replace the vessel and not to pay for the vessel, thus the money has no connection with the accords.
There isn't any document or official statement released by the Government of the Kingdom of Reitzmag that recognizes the illegitimate government in Icholasen. Hence, the alleged message made by HM George I is mainly based on personal opinion. Therefore, a guilty verdict would mean that this court is depriving HM George I of the freedom of expression which is thus against the Constitution of the European Union.
I wish this court to consider that I and my client is telling the truth and only the truth. And that I hope that I have proven the reality that the DEFENDANT is not guilty of this case.
Sir Jonathan Temm, CMG
Member, King's Counsel
The Kingdom of Spain