[RP] Trial by Peer ... Lord Elmix - January 1458

Arthur_loxley wrote:Arthur rose to address the court after Elmix's arrival, a deep sigh the only indication that he heard the insults that Elmix continued to heap upon him. Addressing Lord Aandra with respect, Arthur spoke.

Aandra wrote:turning towards Lord Loxley .. "a simple question M'Lord, what do you consider would be suitable redress for the somewhat petty name calling ?"

Lord Aandra, the charge I have levied against Lord Elmix is not only about the demeaning names he insists and continues to address me with; though that alone is behavior that a lord of the realm should be above. By his own words here, he has called me a traitor, yet there is no evidence that was presented that collaborates this besmirching of my name. Nor have there ever been charges levied against me for traitorous behavior. He has cast aspirations against my honor, and that of my family. But even that is not at the crux of the charge.

My charge also outlines the threats issued by Elmix against me, which he has admitted to in these proceedings. Plotting and planning, and even organizing to have me killed by placing me on his enemy roster. Also, plotting to overthrow a legally elected county council to complete his assassination plot against me and enforce his military force and ideas upon a county which has never given him sanction.

Would this behavior be acceptable by any other individual? Would this panel of peers accept these plots and threats from JuliusOctavious, Anto_capone, Evilwolf - leaders of criminal activity? Why would Elmix not be held accountable for his actions and behaviors when we seek to hold the others, who hold no peerage, to that standard?

As is evident by his continued behavior, he shows no remorse for any of his actions or behavior; in fact, he has reiterated his stance here in this courtroom. I would like to note that while I was away on my travels, I contacted a mediator who spoke to Lord Elmix concerning his behavior. I was hoping that the distance and time along with these proceedings would have given him the opportunity to reconsider his actions and behaviors. Unfortunately, the mediation attempts appear to have fallen on deaf ears and instead more insults, accusations, and suspicions are spouted without any proof - real or fictitious.

As for the question of redress, I would not presume to do the job of the panel. I knew when levying the charges against him that others would decide what should be done, and I am willing to accept your recommendations. I ask that you not decide that a letter of apology is sufficient redress from Lord Elmix; his attitude within this very courtroom, both in the past and even now, would make me question his sincerity if he did write one. I believe we can all say with certainty that he is in fact not sorry for anything he has said or done towards me.

OOC: Apologies for the delay. It has been a busy weekend for me IRL with birthdays and mother's day.

Ladyjennet wrote:The sudden flooding that seemed to be localized to the river that wound near Bryn Madn Manor had finally receded, though the roads were treacherous and it had taken some considerable time for the High Chancellor's coach to make it through the muck and return to London. In truth, she had never seen so much water in her life, and her steward had cautioned against travel, but the lady would hear none of it. Insisting that she would not offer slight to either Lord Elmix nor Lord Arthur by continued delay, they pressed on until, at last, they arrived, slightly soggy, but in good spirits, to the Judges' Chambers.

Hearing the court reconvened, she entered quietly, nodding once at Prince Chris for his understanding of the situation, and took her accustomed seat to observe the proceedings.

Aandra wrote:Standing a moment to acknowledge Lord Loxley's answer ..

"Thank you Sir Arthur" he says nodding sagely
with a wrinkle on his brow as he considers the reply .. taking his seat .

Chris_braveheart wrote:Thank you Lord Loxley for your reply to the question asked of you. (ooc: Indeed this past weekend was busy for many, I am more than understanding that you didn't answer right away...just didn't want you to miss the question in the chaos. )

Lady High Chancellor.....welcome and I see the messenger finally was able to reach you. That was some flood I heard near you, I hope you were not too inconvenienced by the water or your property was too damaged. Glad you are back. (ooc: Welcome back....sorry to hear you got flooded. )

Lord Balintyne, thank you for your question. We will allow Lord Elmix to answer before we proceed to any further questions from the Jurors. Are there others with questions?

Chris_braveheart wrote:No answer to Lord Balintyne's question from Lord Elmix, so we will proceed by rule as one full day has passed. If Lord Elmix does answer, Jurors can use that information or disregard it at their wish as they interpret the rules.

Final call for questions.....If there are no further questions, we will proceed to seeing if any Jurors wishes to call any witnesses in 24 hours.

Maladicta wrote:I have no further questions Mala said quietly.

Chris_braveheart wrote:Lord Loxley and Lord Elmix, the Jurors will now take a moment to confer with each other to determine if any witnesses should be called, so a moment of patience is appreciated....

turning to the Jurors...

Ok, is there anyone any of you would like to be called on as a witness here to testify before us and answer questions we may have? I will be glad to issue the summons, so just provide me a name so we can start the process. If you have no need for a witness to be called, please let me know as well.

waits on responses by the Jurors....

Aandra wrote:No Further need for question m'lord, except perhaps from yourself,
i would like a clearer definition of Scandalum Magnatum, as opposed
to words of scorn or disparagement that may be spoken upon the streets
or upon the field of battle..

and perhaps were the words actually used within the House of Lords,
or upon the streets in some moment of frustration ?

Elmix wrote:Hearing Lord Darien has asked him a question,

"you refer to treason against Lord Loxley for reasons you have alluded to but can you advise if this treason is your belief or if it has been determined by the appropriate authorities and announced to the community at large"?

Lord Darien, answering your question, there has no other authorities announced it. However, this is 1 such process of determination we have currently and i gave my points. As for Evidence, should i repharse what worm said exactly in these chambers?

The evidence is clearly shown on worm's traitorous acts. Its all what is needed to put him on same criminal and traitor list as all others.

Worm speak on some apology letter, so there will be no apology to traitor. Only apology for him will be apology for allowing him to live so long for his betrayal towards english bravest

Hope it answers your question. Since i was late, its your choice to take it in account or not.

OOC: Was away on mission in Scotland so no English forums were visible for me those few days. Missions on safety of England come first, this case, just after them.

Chris_braveheart wrote:Lord Aandra,

The Lady High Chancellor presented us with the legal requirements of Scandalum Magnatum before your arrival, so I will restate them for your benefit and the other Jurors as this definition will be important during our deliberations.

Scandalum Magnatum

1. Definition
Any peer found to have harassed, demeaned, insulted or slandered another by language which is both false and malicious, insulting, inflammatory or vulgar and for the purpose to create discord which may result in danger to the Realm."

And your second question depends on what part you are asking about. For the record, Lord Loxley's claim of Scandalum Magnatum against Lord Elmix was made for comments outside of the House of Lords though it does not play into the discussion on whether or not it reaches the requirements of Scandalum Magnatum as that can occur inside or outside of these Halls.

Thank you Lord Elmix for you answering of Lord Darien's question.

And Jurors, last call for witnesses to be called to testify here......

Darienbalintyne wrote:Darien listened to Lord Elmix's response and made notes before nodding his head.

Lord Braveheart spoke and Darien stated "no further questions" before resuming reading his papers.

Arthur_loxley wrote:Chief Juror, I think you are understating the claims by which I have called Scandalum Magnatum.

Not only have charges been levied for comments made, which were stated across England (HoL, London Commons, Military Council of NEA, etc.), but also threats were levied as well as an assassination plot was discovered and corroborated by Elmix himself.

I request the panel address Elmix continued behavior within this court. Is nothing to be done?

Chris_braveheart wrote:Lord Loxley, thank you for making it clear for the Jurors exactly what you wish to claim under Scandalum Magnatum. That will again be very helpful during deliberations.

As to behavior within the Judge's Chambers, the only thing we can do by rule is admonish to which we have done to some degree as Jurors. The GUBR is the one to arrest someone for their conduct within the House of Lords and unfortunately the GUBR does not have entry by rule to these proceedings thus preventing her from her job. I do take notice that she is watching the proceedings from above with interest however.

Unfortunately, Lord Elmix's actions here in this Chamber neither implies guilt or innocence to the charges against him in the matter before us and though some or all on the Jury may find his words here disturbing or unbecoming of a Peer, we do not have the authority in my reading of the rules to take action. The Lady High Chancellor may correct me if I have interpreted the Charter incorrectly. However, what is within our right as Jurors is to forward any matter we think may be against House Rules that happens within these Chambers to the GUBR who can take further action against any Peer appearing before us.

Again, the matter before us is a question of Scandalum Magnatum as defined in our laws and as Lord Loxley has again laid out the complaint before us to judge.

Chris_braveheart wrote:Lord LeBreton,

You indicated earlier that you may wish to call a witness. Do you wish for me to issue them a summons or do you no longer need a witness?

Arthur_loxley wrote:

Chris_braveheart wrote:Lord Loxley, thank you for making it clear for the Jurors exactly what you wish to claim under Scandalum Magnatum. That will again be very helpful during deliberations.

As to behavior within the Judge's Chambers, the only thing we can do by rule is admonish to which we have done to some degree as Jurors. The GUBR is the one to arrest someone for their conduct within the House of Lords and unfortunately the GUBR does not have entry by rule to these proceedings thus preventing her from her job. I do take notice that she is watching the proceedings from above with interest however.

Unfortunately, Lord Elmix's actions here in this Chamber neither implies guilt or innocence to the charges against him in the matter before us and though some or all on the Jury may find his words here disturbing or unbecoming of a Peer, we do not have the authority in my reading of the rules to take action. The Lady High Chancellor may correct me if I have interpreted the Charter incorrectly. However, what is within our right as Jurors is to forward any matter we think may be against House Rules that happens within these Chambers to the GUBR who can take further action against any Peer appearing before us.

Again, the matter before us is a question of Scandalum Magnatum as defined in our laws and as Lord Loxley has again laid out the complaint before us to judge.

I'm sorry if I misunderstand but are you indicating that his behavior in these chambers does not indicate guilt of one of the charges levied against him, specifically using language to insult me?

If so, I believe that your interpretation is inaccurate. It further provides evidence that my claims are true! Quite possibly it could also indicate bias on your part, Chief Juror, for suggesting that it holds no relevance to these proceedings.

Scandalum Magnatum

1. Definition
Any peer found to have harassed, demeaned, insulted or slandered another by language which is both false and malicious, insulting, inflammatory or vulgar and for the purpose to create discord which may result in danger to the Realm."

It is also sad to see that nothing will be done about his behavior. Perhaps the Jurors should make an exception to the rules to allow the GUBR be granted access to these proceedings to allow her to do her job properly? The continued insults, and the allowance of them, without penalty to Elmix will serve as precedent to allow this type of behavior in the future. Is that truly the statement that this panel wishes to convey to the rest of the nobility of England? No safeguarding from Scandalum Magnatum even during the trial!

He was angry. Not only were his peers refusing to take action, hiding behind rules, but also diminishing the obvious behavior of his peer. He was about to sit down when his anger got the better of him. This trial is of a serious nature; and yet, it is being treated with immaturity and childish antics by Elmix. And what's worse... my own peers allow the behavior to continue without interference save repeated empty warnings. I urge the panel to recommend strict sanctions against Elmix for his behavior and actions, both across England and in these very chambers. Hold him accountable!!

Chris_braveheart wrote:It is problematic that our GUBR does not have access to these Halls. That is something I plan on speaking to the House about after this trial. Frankly speaking, only the GUBR is charged with enforcing our House Rules and indeed we as Jurors are powerless to enforce them. However we do have the power to report all possible rule violations to the GUBR which I do plan to do for further inquiry. It will be up to the GUBR to enforce them however. Again, the GUBR needs access to our trials to be able to enforce rules. It would take a change in our Charter to allow that unfortunately.

And Lord Arthur, we are not dismissing his actions or words. We are following the rules the House has given to us and we are here to determine the matter of Scandalum Magnatum against you by Lord Elmix as you charge him, not any other matter including possible rule violations in the House. That is what is a separate matter and will be handle by the GUBR, not by this Jury. We are not charged with enforcing House rules nor can we. If the GUBR finds his words or actions against the rules, he will indeed be held accountable for those I assure you. The GUBR will receive a full report from myself directly on all matters before this Jury rest assured.


Now, your concern about myself Lord Loxley. I am indeed stating that Lord Elmix's words and behavior in Trial here has no bearing on your charge of Scandalum Magnatum and his guilt. Just like your words and behavior in Trial here and cooperating behavior does not indicate his guilt. My words are meant to say either Lord Elmix is guilty or he is innocent of Scandalum Magnatum as you charge him. His actions here do not prove his innocent or guilt for what you accuse him of. It is up to the Jurors to determine if him calling you a 'worm', along with the other things you levy against him, constitutes Scandalum Magnatum and it will not matter how many times he utters the word.

It would be equivalent as if Lord Elmix were to punch you here in Court and he was on trial here for assaulting you. Though it would indicate that he potentially assaulted you in the past, it does not prove he did it initially as charged and you would still need to provide evidence as to such before us. The assault within Court would be a matter for the GUBR to handle as the enforcer of House rules.

And just to be clear Lord Loxley, this is specifically a trial to determine Scandalum Magnatum as was your charge. That is what we as Jurors are now charged to determine, nothing else. That is the purpose of this Trial today. We as Jurors take the evidence presented before us by all parties and apply that to the strict definition we have been given by the Lady High Chancellor of Scandalum Magnatum. We will determine if the evidence presented has reached the qualifications of Scandalum Magnatum or not.

We are not here to determine if anyone is a nice person, if anyone is cooperative here, if anyone has a bad or good attitude before us or any other matter than we are charged with. We may find things individually as disturbing or a matter of concern, but as Jurors, we are charged with a strict duty and should put our personal feelings aside and be neutral to both parties.


Now, I have been passed a note to call Lord Slon or TheRedChef as witnesses by Lord LeBreton. Unfortunately, Slon is in retreat and TheRedChef is ill. I will issue the summons to them in h opes that they respond. However, should they not respond we can not compel them to attend nor will be delay the trial long term to determine if they come out of retreat or get over their illness.

Any other Jurors wish to call a witness?

Chris_braveheart wrote:Theredchef has agreed to testify before us and I am pleased to hear he is now well enough to testify. Lady High Chancellor, would you please have the Guards allow Theredchef entry into the Judge's Chamber in order to be questioned as a witness? My thanks Lady High Chancellor.

Artur_le_breton wrote:I have news on the other called witness as well. Lord Slon, Duke of Stafford, had left word that he'll be returned from his time away as of Wednesday the 19th of May. This schedule had been left before he'd been issued a call to appear as a witness, so I cannot say to what degree his schedule might be free to appear before this panel upon his return.

Chris_braveheart wrote:The Judge's Chamber was silent waiting for the witnesses to appear when Chris hears a voice he recognized as Lord Deekay from above.

laughing, Chris stands and addresses the Courtroom and balustrade above...

My Lords and Ladies, my apologies but it seems the King's animals have been up to their tricks again and our Guards' keys have been taken after they locked us in here after our long recess. Let's pray to Jah they find them before we all go hungry and starve in here! Otherwise, we might be at the mercy of one of the kind Lords or Ladies in our balustrade throwing us down a rope and us scaling up it to safety.

laughing again

It should only be a short moment more and I have heard from both witnesses that they have arrived at Westminster, they just need the Guards to find their keys to let them in now!

Chris sits again and waits for the Guards to find the keys from one of those scurrying animals of the King....


OOC: Ladyjennet is not the forum moderator here, somehow Viceroy is still. I have sent him a message to add the witnesses, and remove some others actually who do not belong, but he has not picked up that mail as of yet. I have sent a message IG to see if that reaches him. I would suggest a moderator change, but that would bring on a lengthy discussion as to who it should be...the LHC or the GUBR or the Clerk when that section gets changed in the Charter....so it might not even be worth the effort yet. I have confidence that Viceroy will pick up his mail soon and let them both inside to answer questions.

Elmix wrote:Elmix keep sitting here and it seemed this case will really take even more longer time.

Worm seems again have some complaints. I suggest we all just get used to that name for him. It will most certainly save lot of time and nerves for all who are beeing keept here so long

Hearing TheRedChef will be called as witness he shrugs and remembers he was already executed once and is a dead meat already.

Could we not carry here the dead body of TheRedChef? I am sure others here also would not like the smell of it.
But well, i can understand worm. Worms are always first who feed on dead meet.

Ladyjennet wrote:Jennet nods at the Chief Juror's words and sets pen to paper herself. The keys to this chamber never having resided in her possession, the best she can do, as everyone else, is write to the former Prince and request his assistance in this matter. A short time later, she receives word of Theredchef's recovered health and his arrival at Westminster.

My lords and ladies, the former prince has been kind enough to admit Theredchef to these chambers, and so he should have no further troubles in entering. Slon appears not to have been included on the guest list, but I have sent additional correspondence and hope to have his keys sorted as soon as possible.

My apologies to each of you. I would have been delighted to let the gentlemen into these chambers if the keys had been mine to wield.

Jennet sits once more, waiting with the court, for news of Slon's admittance.

Chris_braveheart wrote:Welcome to the House of Lords Judges' Chamber TheRedChef. I see the guards have finally found their keys from the animals and some trickery must have been had as they left them in the Prince's possession. To sort them out later, we have more important matters to attend to here so we can wrap up.

TheRedChef, the matter before us today is one where Lord Loxley has accused Lord Elmix of Scandalum Magnatum in words and deed. Lord LeBreton has asked to call you as a witness to ask you some questions as you were the Judge of Stafford during the time these events took place and your legal knowledge of Stafford laws might be asked of you. I ask that you answer all questions from Jurors honestly and to the best of your ability here today. Should you not know the answer to a question posed to you, it is acceptable to indicate you have no knowledge of the matter or do not know the answer to the question posed. Again, this is an important matter before us and I, along with my fellow Jurors, appreciate your coming here today.


Jurors, you may now pose questions to TheRedChef, former Judge of Stafford. Just for your own knowledge once Lord Slon arrives, we will hear from him after TheRedChef. Lord LeBreton, and other Jurors, you may proceed with your questions to TheRedChef.....

Artur_le_breton wrote:Artur, Baron of Cannock and Brewood rises to speak. He squints a bit as if unable to spot the person he'd been requested to present questions to, but as directed presents the questions regardless.

Pardon if I get the proper given name wrong, but for the moment I'll simply make reference to the witness as The Red Chef. He clears his throat.
For the record, could you please state your status and position held in the Stafford County Council at the time Lord Arthur Loxley was Count of Stafford and had issued the announcement commonly referred to as the Stafford Neutrality Decree? The decree specifically issued at the time of troubles in Chester County. This is for the benefit of the fellow peers seated in this jury who are not residents of Stafford County and would not be familiar with the councillors of that time.

Slon wrote:Slon quietly arrives at the House of Lords Judges' Chambers, as he was summoned to appear as a witness for something.

Ladyjennet wrote:The High Chancellor nodded quietly to Lord Slon as he entered the Judges' Chambers and she waited for a break in the proceedings.

My lords and ladies, Lord Artur le Breton has written me privately to say that he has temporarily lost access to these chambers due to difficulties with travel. I am certain that he will return just as quickly as he can, and that the court can continue in his absence.