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

Arthur_loxley wrote:Arthur cleared his throat before addressing the panel, Apologies again for interrupting proceedings, but I am confused as to what the hold-up is now. Are we, gesturing to Elmix and himself, waiting on questions to be presented collectively, individually, or... a different aspect of procedure? I do not mean to rush the jurors, I would simply like to know where we and this panel of jurors currently stand. Thank you for allowing me to speak.

Artur_le_breton wrote:Lord Artur le Breton rises to hold up the parchment of the relevant section of the Charter of the House of Lords as distributed earlier by the Lady High Chancellor. Making use of a quill he speaks an added single word for each line in turn as he reads them.

Trial Procedure of a case tried by a Jury of Peers:

i. A room shall be opened in the House of Lords Judges Chambers .
Done

ii. The Lord High Chancellor will call the trial to order and state the names of the jurors, the Chief Juror, the name of the defendant and the matter to be tried.
Done

iii. The Chief Juror will call the trial to order.
Done

iv. The Lord High Chancellor will supply the jurors with the law governing the issues at trial, and the Jurors will have two full days (reset to reset) to become familiar with said laws. Not necessary if a Scandalum Magnatum Trial by Peer.
Done

v. The parties shall present opening statements at the end of this two day period.
Done

vi. The jurors may ask questions which the principals have one full day to answer.

Here he pauses. Not done, but I formally request we proceed in allowing the jurors to ask their questions. If the Chief Juror feels the Charter should be changed to require jurors to submit up to four questions to her with a deadline of 24 hours in which to do this, as I note she requested of this panel, then I would suggest such a change be submitted for discussion on the floor of the House itself.

As it stands, the Charter reads that the jurors may ask questions that the principals then have one full day to answer. One full day from when the jurors ask the questions, not one full day from when the Chief Juror elects to read them. I formally request that I as a juror now be allowed to ask my questions of the principals, and not be required to submit to the Chief Juror being the sole one to ask the questions I wish answered. Or at least allow other members of the panel who have their questions ready to begin in turn, recognizing that we can't all speak at once. In that case, with my questions ready I shall await my turn.

When the rounds of questions and responses are complete, the Charter's procedures continue as follows:

vii. The Chief Juror may call witnesses who will each have one full day to report and one full day to answer questions posed. Witnesses shall provide documentary evidence as requested.

viii. At the conclusion of the trial each member of the jury shall post his or her recommendation publicly to the trial thread. The Chief Juror shall in addition provide a summary of the evidence. The Jury shall be granted two full days to do so.

ix. The case shall be decided by the majority opinion. If no such majority is evident, the Jurors shall be given a further two days to discuss and produce a joint opinion. Any Juror not in agreement with this majority opinion may publish a dissenting opinion.

With lips closed and a solemn demeanor the baron returns to his seat on the bench.

Ladyjennet wrote:As she opened her mouth to speak, Lord Artur interjected and the High Chancellor’s face registered a touch of shock at the sudden and rather lengthy answer.

“Thank you, my Lord Baron,” she said evenly, “though, perhaps, it would have been far more appropriate for either Lady Deerhurst or myself to have answered Lord Arthur. In future, I would appreciate it if questions of this nature were handled thus, for the sake of order in the courtroom.”

“Lord Arthur, at present we are actually waiting on a response from Lord Artur, though I believe he might have overlooked it in his eagerness to answer your question. Lord Artur, if you will be so kind, the court awaits clarification on your objection so that we might go forward. I believe we are all aware of what the Charter states. The issue lies with what it does not. I know that we are all anxious to get the questioning underway. As soon as you have responded, I will address the issue at hand, per Lady Deerhurst's request.”

Arthur_loxley wrote:Thank you for answering my questions. Arthur was handed a note from a page and nodded to thank him. Lord and Lady Jurors, Will there be time to present more evidence against Sir Elmix at a later point in these proceedings? If not, I would like to provide more documentation at this time.

Maladicta wrote:Mala had been fairly quiet so far, making notes and listening to the evidence presented by both parties involved. As Lord Loxley spoke again, mentioning further evidence, she said 'Might it not be better to present this evidence now before the questions are asked?'

Arthur_loxley wrote:Arthur nods in acknowledgment to Lady Maladicta. He offers a brief document for the jurors to consider. This was uttered by Elmix just yesterday. With permission from the Earl Marshal, Lady Trisalene, I present this for my peers to consider. His actions and behavior have not ceased, and in fact continue to escalate despite the repeated warnings. I believe drastic measures should be taken in this situation; Elmix does not act or behave as a noble and will probably continue the way he behaves regardless of being a peer. I respectfully request this panel to consider whether England and her peers will continue to accept disrespectful behavior or will take action against this consistent and disruptive behavior.

Elmix wrote:Milady Gabrielle_

You all are on my army safe list. Seems Dewaugh not comming then.

Regarding prestige, it is indeed the most powerful weapon which makes a huge difference in battle. It would really benefit all counties giving one supplies so 1 county hold this prestige.

However, from all counties i would like to advise NOT to relly on Stafford doing it and having a high prestige.
Stafford elected officials already turned against england not too long back while denying any to travel pass it county and defending England at same time putting all who were traveling through Stafford in danger from doing theyr duty and defending England. The responsible for it is the very same worm Arthut loxley from Stafford which the Stafford Duchess still keep in these halls.

It just shows theyr true colours and theyr real intentions.

So, lady Rain, its really hard to trust you and your elected officials from Stafford right now. And i would much rather advise to choose Somerset for getting it up to 5 stars. We all can sleep much better at nights knowing they will not turn on us.

In my mind, this is not acceptable. A noble should know when and how to express themselves despite political disagreements; clearly, Elmix either does not understand this concept or does not care. He may wish to sway your opinions by stating that he is no politician, and is military minded; however, consider that I am a founder of the Stafford Guard and current Knight in the organization. I also am military-minded and have contributed both locally and nationally to collaborate in military matters. Even those who are military minded understand the concept of respect. In fact, I would venture to say that those who are of a military leaning have this concept drilled even further into them than the average citizen, as military organizations are founded on the concept of a clear chain of command, and demand respect from any of their subordinates. Were he to treat one of his peers within a military organization with such lack of respect, he would immediately be called to task for such behavior. Elmix and I are both military individuals and so it has no relevance to these proceedings; we are both peers of this country, and I deserve respect just as much as any other peer.

Chris_braveheart wrote:Lady Chief Juror, it appears we are not getting any further along here in this case and are stuck at an impasse. No matter the way we proceed, there will be someone not satisfied, so I would suggest us just continuing ahead with a clear path. Since it is unclear as to the exact method, I will just state that I find jurors asking their questions directly to the Lords here in a group so they are not lost in the cross questioning by multiple jurors and allowing the Lords 24 hours to respond to the set of questions and then jurors be allowed to offer up another round of questions and follow-up questions directly to the Lords would be my preferred method to continue here.

However, we either need to have a ruling given to us on how we are going to proceed or we need to be given options and put it to a vote among the jurors. But, we need to proceed here I believe.

Artur_le_breton wrote:

vi. The jurors may ask questions which the principals have one full day to answer.

Here he pauses. Not done, but I formally request we proceed in allowing the jurors to ask their questions. If the Chief Juror feels the Charter should be changed to require jurors to submit up to four questions to her with a deadline of 24 hours in which to do this, as I note she requested of this panel, then I would suggest such a change be submitted for discussion on the floor of the House itself.

As it stands, the Charter reads that the jurors may ask questions that the principals then have one full day to answer. One full day from when the jurors ask the questions, not one full day from when the Chief Juror elects to read them. I formally request that I as a juror now be allowed to ask my questions of the principals, and not be required to submit to the Chief Juror being the sole one to ask the questions I wish answered. Or at least allow other members of the panel who have their questions ready to begin in turn, recognizing that we can't all speak at once. In that case, with my questions ready I shall await my turn.

For those who allege they are waiting for me to speak my objection, I submit quoted here in writing so they can be reminded that I have already spoken the objection.

The formal procedures for a Trial by Peer clearly state the next step is for the Jurors to ask questions they might have of the principals and for the principals to respond. I have repeatedly stated that I as a Juror have questions to ask the principals and am ready to do so now. Why is our charter-granted right as jurors to do this being denied at this point? If it is not being denied, then I urge the questions from the jurors of the principals begin, voiced from the bench now by the jurors to the principals.

Elmix wrote:

Darienbalintyne wrote:Darien watched Lord Elmix's reaction and in the pause between discussion spoke "I would remind Lord Elmix to show conduct becoming of a noble in this proceeding and not treat us all with scant disrespect, insubordinate actions from yourself do not and I repeat do not reflect kindly on one so experienced and of the military way such as yourself".

Darien motioned to the page to wake the man.

As he hears Lord Darien speaking he opens his eyes and wakes up.

My apologies but i am not used to this and i try never take part in something similar as this.

Hearing worm speaks up again hecovers his mouth with his left hand to not laugh out loud not show it to others and worm once again speaks up and says he actually is also a military way and military minded. That was really joke of the day.

He sat more comfortable waiting for questions to be asked and thought whoom to tell this new joke as soon he will be able to meet his friends after this will be over.

Revandenizen wrote:Revan sighed and lightly rested her head on the desk in front of her. "My lords, my ladies, this was not my intent to delay such matters, nor to start a debate about policy and procedure. My sincere apologies in delaying the actual procedures of the trial from commencing as they should, and more to the matter that we are here today about - Lord Elmix Degas, Lord Arthur Loxley, and the situation between the two. I completely agree that we need to move on and ask such questions of them, so may the first question be asked?"

Artur_le_breton wrote:Quietly and with the steadied calm now much like that of a scholar, the Baron of Cannock offers to Lady Revandenizen,
Thank you, Madame Chief Juror.

With a turn to the two parties to the Scandalum Magnatum dispute before the bench, Artur first speaks to Lord Degas.

Lord Degas, a few questions at this time. At a later time I'll have followups to ask.

I. First, Lord Arthur Loxley has entered a number of quoted statements into evidence before us, in his opening statement, that he attributes to you. Of the quotes he spoke of you presenting, either by spoken word or written ink, do you deny any of what is presented as having been spoken or written by you originally?

Simply, did you write or say what Lord Arthur Loxley has claimed you said?

II. Secondly, when you used the term 'worm' before this panel, and it is in the transcript that you used it multiple times, were you referring to the accuser, Lord Arthur Loxley?

III. And finally, my third question is this: What is your meaning of the word 'worm' as it was used? We don't need a dictionary's definition, and I know English may not be your best spoken language, but simply what does it mean to you in the way you used it here in these proceedings?

Giving Lord Degas time to prepare his response and to ponder the questions, Lord Artur le Breton then turns to the Duke of Northumberland.

Lord Arthur Loxley, a few questions to begin with.

I. First, have you ever in a public manner used the term 'worm' to describe yourself?

II. Second, are you offended by the use of the word 'worm' when referring to you, and if so please tell the panel why.

III. Finally, my third question is if you were to single out one single statement as most grievous you allege Lord Degas has made that is both false and casts scandal upon your character, what is the one public statement you would single out? Rather than simply restate it here, though, I'd ask that in addition to highlighting the statement in question you also give specific documentation as to when and where you allege Lord Degas made the statement.

Drawing in a deep breath and slowly releasing it through his nostrils, Artur le Breton nods to both men and relaxes a moment as he awaits the responses of both.

Elmix wrote:As he notices if finally begins and the first juror asks him questions, he stands up to speak first.

I. First, Lord Arthur Loxley has entered a number of quoted statements into evidence before us, in his opening statement, that he attributes to you. Of the quotes he spoke of you presenting, either by spoken word or written ink, do you deny any of what is presented as having been spoken or written by you originally?

Simply, did you write or say what Lord Arthur Loxley has claimed you said?

Lord Artur Le Breton, i have watched these presentings and i myself have wrote and said all expect the letter which was wrote by all KoP.

II. Secondly, when you used the term 'worm' before this panel, and it is in the transcript that you used it multiple times, were you referring to the accuser, Lord Arthur Loxley?

Yes, refering to no other then him.

III. And finally, my third question is this: What is your meaning of the word 'worm' as it was used? We don't need a dictionary's definition, and I know English may not be your best spoken language, but simply what does it mean to you in the way you used it here in these proceeding

Beeing found him a traitor of England and someone who constantly change his opinion on how he please and for his selfishous and traitorous pruposes against ppl of England and not for the ppl who elected him, i was thinking of a word which can charactherize someone without a backbone and crawling. "Worm" charactherizes him from this point of view perfectly and really suits him perfectly.

My evidence is presented in my opening speech - his Stafford Neutrality proclamation accepted by ducal deceree.

Thank you.

He said it and sat down in his comfortable seat.

Arthur_loxley wrote:Nodding respectfully towards Lord Artur, Arthur clears his throat and begins to answer the questions asked of him.

Lord Le Breton, I have not ever used the term 'worm' to describe myself, neither publically or privately. I find it an extremely offensive and derogatory term, and do not appreciate someone who professes to be one of my peers using it.

It was bad enough when Lady Jealeaia referred to me with the term once, but for any noble, to whom higher standards are attributed to continue to perpetuate its usage. Well, frankly, it is disturbing and uncalled for.

Posted: December 18, 2009 1:57 pm

Arthur_loxley wrote:

Jealeaia wrote:

The 9th is a prime example of how bad a stigma a private organization can get.

Excuse me ???

This had nothing to do with the 9th for one thing...yet you have to throw out an unwarranted insult ...and I even sent you a full retinue plus two when you asked me personally in private for any that could help defend Stafford capital at the time 19 wolves were threatening...and you have the gall to insult me after...and still continue to throw us up in you bile of double talking out of you're backside...

THAT is the true reason any organizations get any bad rep is because of worms like you that spread misinformation and insult to any who try to do any good in this Country...

We all know what your "neutral" statement was really about...it was Anto deja vu all over again...

But yet the 9th even helped even a worm like you only to be trashed later and still look at how you continue with it even when the topic has nothing to do with us...

This wasn't an insult. It is interesting you take it that way. Thank you for the insults though.. I have never spoken about the 9th in a negative light, but your behavior and words do threaten the reputation of the 9th on a continuous basis; even you can't deny that. It has been stated publicly by many. This is what I meant to illustrate with my example.

Kulles, the way the KoP organization operates is the reason why I am against it. Kill lists based on suspicion and affiliations or "they insulted us, they must be wolves!" is not a proper way to handle such a list. Decisions made disregarding the advice of the military council, even that of Cumberland, is unacceptable when looking to be sponsored. In fact, the KoP approached Stafford for sponsorship. Because the organization could not guarantee accountability and responsibility to the Stafford council, it led to a denial of sponsorship.

As for your last question Lord le Bruton, it is very difficult for me to choose just one instance where Lord Degas has cast aspirations against my character, but if I were limited to one that was most scandalous, that was patently untrue and shows the contempt for which he treats not only me, but the country he professes to stand for, it is a more recent outburst from him. Why in the very halls of the House of Lord, even other nobles have called him to answer for the insults.

Elmix wrote:

Metanoia wrote:May I remind Lord Elmix that even if he dislikes Lord Arthur_Loxley, that to refer to a fellow peer as a "worm" is conduct unbecoming of a noble. Nonetheless, may I also remind Lord Arthur_Loxley (and whomever may feel likewise) that any comments made against Lady Jennet now, while she is the appointee of HRH Viceroy as High Chancellor, will be evidence in any future cases of scandalorum if and when she is recognized as a peer herself. As nobles in the nation of England, we are responsible for setting an example of decorum in our dealings with each other.

Metanoia of Chester

Milady Metanoia,

Nobles should be adressed with respect. However traitors of England can be called as any wish to call them. I just choose the name which can charactherize him the most.

And i cannot understand why he still beeing kept here.

Elmix wrote:

Beemo wrote:Lord Elmix you must first prove Lord Arthur is a traitor based on the laws not on your opinions before you can start calling him that. If you have evidence of his traitorousness then please present it to a court. Rules are important to be followed.

Thank you for advise Lady Beemo, i have it for some long time and it is presented in court and will present it just here to see for all.

Stafford Neutrality Proclamation

Stafford takes an official stance of neutrality in regards to the conflict between the legally elected Council of Chester and their allies, and the army of Corsairs, Wolves, et al and their allies.

- In recognition that Stafford does not wish to interfere militarily with the internal political disputes of its neighbors;
- In emphatic rejection of the hostile acts and attitudes the combatants have directed at Stafford;
- With concern over the ethical conduct of the hostilities and the disregard for the lives of citizens of England;
- In recognition that non combatants in Chester have the need to avail themselves of the serenity and safety of neutral territory;

The legal corpus of Stafford: Book 2 - County Council -

Quote:

Article 1. Make-up of Council
[1.1] The Duke *
- The Duke of Stafford is the highest authority of the county of Stafford. He may issue ducal decrees.
- The Duke appoints and removes councillors from specific council duties. He controls the maintenance of laws and is the only one with the authority to approve the Death Sentence.
- The Duke is charged with maintaining order in council chambers; opens all polls and declares when they are completed.


[4.2] Ducal Decrees
The Duke may issue temporary decrees or laws. These decrees or laws must be announced to the people and have a time limit specified. After a period of seven (7) days, the council must review to allow or revoke these decrees or laws. A resident of Stafford may request additional reviews of the decrees or laws at any time.

Stafford hereby declares and enacts the following laws by Ducal decree:

* Combatants, from either side of the conflict, are forbidden to move troops, or convoys of supplies across the territory of Stafford.
* Combatants, from either side of the conflict, are likewise forbidden to use the facilities of the county or towns of Stafford in the conduct of their hostilities.
* Groups cannot be formed nor recruiting agencies opened within Stafford to assist the combatants from either side of the conflict.
* Violations of Stafford's neutrality by combatants are acts of treason and may be punishable by a fine up to 500 pounds plus damages, up to 10 days in prison, writ of outlawry, and banishment.
* The fact of Stafford resisting, even by force, attempts to violate its neutrality cannot be regarded as a hostile act.
* Stafford reserves the right to send humanitarian missions into the area of hostilities in order to ensure that basic supplies of food stuffs are available, and to assist in and ensure the safe passage of non combatants through the area of hostilities.

This decree is in effect until the hostilities in Chester subside and the legally elected Council is returned to power.

In the best interests of Stafford,

Arthur Loxley Tudor
Duke of Stafford

No other word then "worm" charactherizes him so well and suits him so good.
Thank you for your opinions everyone.

Wolfaxe wrote:Lord Elmix may be a good military man , but that is not the question here. It is if he can act like a peer and stop calling names and acting like a young child because he does not like someone that "does things by the book" as Lord Elmix likes to put it. As long as he refuses to act like a peer both in here, in court and in public I must back those you feel are "witch hunting" him. If he can learn to at least stop insulting and threatening to kill someone that is a per, a acount and in fact was close to be elected regent with nearly every other sentence he makes us all look bad.

Personally I think he has done a fine job as a combat leader. He just needs to learn to curb his tongue a little, IMHO. I dislike pulling him away from his duties but he not only continues the insults, but also insults the court and the HOL with the way he treats this whole thing as if it is unimportant. If he insists on acting this way we'd all be better off if he returns the title to the pool so someone that can act like a proper peer can have it. That being said I do think if he would just try and hold his tongue especially the "worm" comments it would go a long way towards ending this whole charade. This is just my personal opinion as a neutral observer of the whole affair.

I have done my best for my country, taking an active interest in participating in many of our national institutions: College of Heraldry, Court of Appeals, House of Parliament, the National English Law Library and even worked with the original National Military Initiative to iron out difficult issues to aid us achieve unity between all counties in England militarily. I have worked to help Stafford, the county I reside in and hold most dear, prosper and grow by serving multiple roles and functions as necessary including many terms on council, a participant in the county militia - Stafford Guard, Stafford Parliament, the Embassy, etc. To be called a traitor and a worm cuts me deeply. Not only is it untrue, but my good works are documented across the Kingdom. Lord Degas does not stop, and will not stop. He has shown his contempt for this institution by his own actions and words, including threatening my very life by carrying on this travesty of smearing my good name, adding me to his very own kill list as if I were a common criminal.



Inclining his head once again, Arthur took a sip of the water beside him and waited for the next round of questions.

Artur_le_breton wrote:I thank both principal parties for their responses to my questions. It's my expectation that I will have additional questions for the principals after fellow jurors of the panel have had opportunity to ask and get answers to questions of their own.

There is one follow-up I'd like to ask of Lord Degas at this time.

Lord Degas, your response characterizes Lord Arthur Loxley as a traitor in your words.
What proof, if any, do you have of Lord Arthur Loxley having committed traitorous acts?

Is the Stafford County Proclamation of Neutrality, issued while Lord Loxley was the Count of Stafford, the only specific evidence you claim supports your charge?

Thank you.

With that the Baron of Cannock lowers himself back down upon his seat on the bench.

Elmix wrote:As lord Artur le Breton stood again and asked the follow up questions, a knight opens a door and comes in to deliver him a letter.

Elmix takes it and reads first and nodes his head so knight leaves quietly.

Some days back i asked with writing letters that my lawyer would be addmited in these halls. it has not been done yet, so, Lord Artur Le Breton, i will wait to answer your question until such time that my lawyer Dame Millicent Lenoir is allowed in these halls as my defense. Thank you!

Artur_le_breton wrote:Hearing the statement that one of the principals wishes to wait for a legal counselor to be admitted before proceeding to answer questions, at this late phase where opening statements were already completed, Lord Artur le Breton frowns and a low nasal grunt can be heard as he looks over to where the Chief Juror and Lady High Commissioner are seated.

The baron remains seated, though, not offering any added words. It appears there are no further questions coming from him as a juror of the panel at this time. There is a silent look down the bench then given to see if another juror of the panel has questions to ask.

Chris_braveheart wrote:looks through my notes I have written during the opening presentations....

I'd like to thank you two Lords for appearing here today and taking this matter seriously, you are to be commended for that.

It seems there may be a lawyer for Lord Degas appearing here before us, so while we wait for Dame Millicent to appear if she is granted access, I can proceed with my questions for you both.

Lord Loxley, my questions to you...

I understand that you have stated that you were offended by Lord Degas' words in calling you a worm repeatedly and found it demeaning. I notice from the evidence you presented to us here that you referred to Lord Degas as 'confrontational, sneaky, and two-faced when it comes to issues'. Do you feel your words to Lord Degas were less offensive and demeaning, equally as offensive and demeaning, or more offensive and demeaning than the words he used to describe yourself? And under what context did you describe Lord Degas in these words?

You have provided evidence that Lord Degas had stated on a few occasions that he made battle plans against Stafford in response to your Ducal decree on armies allowed in Stafford in order to free those who would be prosecuted and also to come after you personally and kill you. Can you give us some background and thoughts on your initial proclamation? It is my understanding that you later made a statement regarding your proclamation as well. We have a copy in evidence, so no need to resubmit it unless the copy we have is not true to form..but speak more to your intentions at the time of initial decree and subsequent statement on the decree.

I have noticed in evidence presented that Lord Arkrantos also made statements about 'having your head' over stopping help arriving in Chester. Can you share with us if you consider Lord Arkrantos as guilty as Lord Degas in regards to actions unbecoming of a noble or words he used against you and why you chose to bring Scandalum Magnatum charges against Lord Degas and not Lord Arkrantos? I do not wish to put words in your mouth, so please guide me on the correct path, but is it due to the repeated words of Lord Degas or is it due to his words being more severe that he is the Lord here today and not Lord Arkrantos?

Again, thank you Lord Loxley for your being forthcoming here today with us in our attempts to resolve this matter. I may have further questions for you or follow up questions at a later time.



Lord Degas, my questions to you..and feel free to wait to answer them until your lawyer is present or a ruling has been made concerning her entry here. I would ask that your 24 hour time period begin upon your lawyer's entry or upon ruling on the subject of your lawyer being present here. If this presents a problem, I will withdraw my questions to you and present them when your lawyer is present or a ruling has been made.

Lord Degas....

When you stated that 'you had no respect for worms like Loxley who put procedure above the people'....do you consider all people who put procedure above the people as worms or just Lord Loxley? In what way did Lord Loxley put procedure above people?

Was your purpose in saying that you planned to kill Lord Loxley in response to his decree preventing Armies in Stafford or due to something else?

Did you take Arthur's decree on Armies in Stafford as a threat to England's safety and if so, why do you?

Do you consider the term 'worm' as harassing, demeaning, insulting, or slandering?

You have stated that you called Lord Loxley a worm because you were 'thinking of a word which can characterize someone without a backbone and crawling'. Was your calling Lord Loxley a 'worm' also an attempt by you to cause a disagreement or commotion which could possibly hurt England in any way?

Again, to you, thank you Lord Degas for your being forthcoming here today with us in our attempts to resolve this matter. I may have further questions for you or follow up questions at a later time.


At this time, I have no further questions for either Lords and would like to again state that I am agreeable for Lord Degas to wait for his lawyer to appear for the 24 hour window to begin or begin when a ruling has been made as to her admittance here. It does us no good to have a Lord not answer questions while waiting for their lawyer or a ruling, so I can re-submit my questions later to Lord Degas if necessary.

Arthur_loxley wrote:I formally object to a lawyer being allowed into these proceedings. This is a trial by peers not a case in a judicial system. The Charter makes no mention of a defense counselor or a prosecution counselor.

Proceedings of a Jury of Peers wrote:The seated jurors shall choose among themselves one person to act as Chief Juror. The Chief Juror shall direct the proceedings and endeavor to ensure that the case is handled expediently. The Chief Juror shall be responsible for contacting witnesses and procuring their testimony. Jurors will investigate the law and evidence, including the questioning of witnesses and examination of relevant documents. The Jury shall have the right to ask for such testimony or documents from anyone whether or not a member of the House of Lords. At the conclusion of a trial the Chief Juror shall write a summary of the evidence and will ask all members of the jury to post their recommendations publicly to the trial thread.

Trial Procedure of a case tried by a Jury of Peers:

i. A room shall be opened in the House of Lords Judges Chambers .

ii. The Lord High Chancellor will call the trial to order and state the names of the jurors, the Chief Juror, the name of the defendant and the matter to be tried.

iii. The Chief Juror will call the trial to order.

iv. The Lord High Chancellor will supply the jurors with the law governing the issues at trial, and the Jurors will have two full days (reset to reset) to become familiar with said laws. Not necessary if a Scandalum Magnatum Trial by Peer.

v. The parties shall present opening statements at the end of this two day period.

vi. The jurors may ask questions which the principals have one full day to answer.

vii. The Chief Juror may call witnesses who will each have one full day to report and one full day to answer questions posed. Witnesses shall provide documentary evidence as requested.

viii. At the conclusion of the trial each member of the jury shall post his or her recommendation publicly to the trial thread. The Chief Juror shall in addition provide a summary of the evidence. The Jury shall be granted two full days to do so.

ix. The case shall be decided by the majority opinion. If no such majority is evident, the Jurors shall be given a further two days to discuss and produce a joint opinion. Any Juror not in agreement with this majority opinion may publish a dissenting opinion.

He acknowledged the questions asked by Lord Braveheart, and directed his attentions to him.

I understand that you have stated that you were offended by Lord Degas' words in calling you a worm repeatedly and found it demeaning. I notice from the evidence you presented to us here that you referred to Lord Degas as 'confrontational, sneaky, and two-faced when it comes to issues'. Do you feel your words to Lord Degas were less offensive and demeaning, equally as offensive and demeaning, or more offensive and demeaning than the words he used to describe yourself? And under what context did you describe Lord Degas in these words?

First, not offensive at all as they were stated in regards to particular situations and encounters with Elmix. The context of the statement presented was when KoP soldiers were found to have been sneaking around on nodes in Stafford County without informing the legally elected council. As far as the council was concerned, there was no reason or situation that required military movement within our borders. No permission was granted, nor was it requested. In point of fact, not even a polite message was sent to inform us they would be in the neighborhood. At the time, Stafford and KoP had a treaty of recognition in effect governing what was expected of both Stafford Council and any KoP armies coming into the county. This underhanded behavior was not looked upon favorably, nor was it what was agreed upon within the treaty of recognition. One of our councilors, Dewaugh, at the time being a soldier in the KoP, approached the group and was met with harassment and rude words for bringing up the issue in the private KoP forums. Elmix, particularly, was very confrontational with Dewaugh. In reference to being 'two-faced' about issues, this was in reference to rumors being spread by Elmix using a different medium (ooc: msn), stating that I was/is part of criminal organizations and have been passing information to criminal groups or individuals to weaken the security of England. I believe this was in reference to the Chester conflict, but much time has passed and I cannot be more certain.

You have provided evidence that Lord Degas had stated on a few occasions that he made battle plans against Stafford in response to your Ducal decree on armies allowed in Stafford in order to free those who would be prosecuted and also to come after you personally and kill you. Can you give us some background and thoughts on your initial proclamation? It is my understanding that you later made a statement regarding your proclamation as well. We have a copy in evidence, so no need to resubmit it unless the copy we have is not true to form..but speak more to your intentions at the time of initial decree and subsequent statement on the decree.

The proclamation of Stafford is a political document issued by the legally elected Council of Stafford, not just myself as nobility, and should bear no relevance in these proceedings. As it was referred to, let me explain that it was made after a few days of rumors and panic-mongering had been occurring. In the timeline of events, a discussion was held between PaddytheScot, then Earl Marshal, Dragonflame, then leader of the KoTR, Lorddragon and LadyJennet, representatives of Chester, and myself about logistics and tactics regarding the Chester conflict. This was a few days after the successful revolt against the Chester government by the Corsairs and WoS. The following day, rumors had been circulating around Stafford and through various venues that Stafford was in cahoots with the Corsairs, that we planned and plotted this event to occur, that we had a signed treaty with the groups, and that I had leaked battle plans or what have you to the Corsairs/WoS. Information was gathered that those spreading rumors and circulating false information was mainly from a political rival of mine, Salter, and friends of his. It was also determined that Elmix was circulating the information within the KoP embassy. This is not the first time that Elmix would support and circulate information regarding the 'true intentions of Stafford' in military conflicts. This led to my attainder as traitor of the crown of England by Regent Gabrielle, which was lifted when it was proven to be false allegations.

As a result of the hostilities encountered and circulated by Chester representatives (friends of Salter) and all issues surrounding the Chester conflict, a long conversation was held among the councilors of Stafford. Understandably, councilors were upset that our offers of aid were rejected, not well received, or believed to be made under false pretenses. These rumors lead to the introduction of a stance of neutrality within Stafford council, and was supported by the majority of Stafford councilors. As Duke, I requested a formal decision by the council with regards to the Chester conflict. After which, the council drafted a proclamation to be announced to the people of Stafford as well as the nation. As the representative of Stafford and legally elected Duke, it was under my authority that the proclamation was issued. Stafford councilors knew what the proclamation was detailing based on the internal conversations held; however, it was brought to my attention by an outsider, ChrisiusMaximus, that the document was not as clear as I had explained to him privately. Those not in Stafford were not privy to the internal discussions held and did not know all of the issues surrounding the Chester conflict. He advised that I should issue a clarification on the proclamation.

From other comments directed towards me after that conversation, I believed that ChrisiusMaximus was correct in his summation. From there, I spoke with several councilors to ensure that I understood the proclamation correctly and my thoughts were confirmed. The following day, I issued a clarification to the nation to ensure their understanding of the stance that Stafford council had decided to take regarding the Chester conflict.

Arthur_loxley wrote:I have been trying to work on this all day because of all the misinterpretations. Thank you Chrisius for catching me online and discussing the decree instead of jumping to conclusions about my motives, intentions, etc. To all those who have jumped the gun and assumed the worst, shame on you.

Stafford Neutrality Proclamation

Stafford takes an official stance of neutrality in regards to the conflict between the legally elected Council of Chester and their allies, and the army of Corsairs, Wolves, et al and their allies.

- In recognition that Stafford does not wish to interfere militarily with the internal political disputes of its neighbors;
- In emphatic rejection of the hostile acts and attitudes the combatants have directed at Stafford;
- With concern over the ethical conduct of the hostilities and the disregard for the lives of citizens of England;
- In recognition that non combatants in Chester have the need to avail themselves of the serenity and safety of neutral territory;

The legal corpus of Stafford: Book 2 - County Council -

Article 1. Make-up of Council
[1.1] The Duke *
- The Duke of Stafford is the highest authority of the county of Stafford. He may issue ducal decrees.
- The Duke appoints and removes councillors from specific council duties. He controls the maintenance of laws and is the only one with the authority to approve the Death Sentence.
- The Duke is charged with maintaining order in council chambers; opens all polls and declares when they are completed.

[4.2] Ducal Decrees
The Duke may issue temporary decrees or laws. These decrees or laws must be announced to the people and have a time limit specified. After a period of seven (7) days, the council must review to allow or revoke these decrees or laws. A resident of Stafford may request additional reviews of the decrees or laws at any time.

Stafford hereby declares and enacts the following laws by Ducal decree:

• Combatants, from either side of the conflict, are forbidden to move troops, or convoys of supplies across the territory of Stafford.
  
• Combatants, from either side of the conflict, are likewise forbidden to use the facilities of the county or towns of Stafford in the conduct of their hostilities.
  
• Groups cannot be formed nor recruiting agencies opened within Stafford to assist the combatants from either side of the conflict.
  
• Violations of Stafford's neutrality by combatants are acts of treason and may be punishable by a fine up to 500 pounds plus damages, up to 10 days in prison, writ of outlawry, and banishment.
  
• The fact of Stafford resisting, even by force, attempts to violate its neutrality cannot be regarded as a hostile act.
  
• Stafford reserves the right to send humanitarian missions into the area of hostilities in order to ensure that basic supplies of food stuffs are available, and to assist in and ensure the safe passage of non combatants through the area of hostilities.

This decree is in effect until the hostilities in Chester subside and the legally elected Council is returned to power.

In the best interests of Stafford,



Arthur Loxley Tudor
Duke of Stafford

Combatants:
–noun
1. a nation engaged in active fighting with enemy forces.
2. a person or group that fights.
–adjective
3. combating; fighting: the combatant armies.
4. disposed to combat; combative.

In my decree, I used the word combatants to refer to Chester's armies and the Corsair army. We cannot, realistically, restrict travel through our county as we have many entry points - Shrewsbury, Stafford, Ludlow, Birmingham, and Coventry. It would be unwise and foolish to cover and screen all entry to prosecute all travelers heading to Chester. I cannot condone the use of the judicial system to attempt to discern the motives of any individual or group.

- We as a county will remain neutral in all aspects.
- We will not provide military aid or support, allow recruitment or formation of any army on our soil.
- We will not allow any wars to spill over on our soil or allow pursuit of an army on our soil. If any army crosses into Stafford territory, we will not hesitate to use physical force to squash the threat. No armies will be allowed to pass through or standby in Stafford.
- We have no closed borders. People or groups may move through the county unhindered.

Simply, we are not getting involved military wise, and are creating an army for self defense in case the war extends to our territory.

This is true neutrality.

Neutral
–adjective
1. not taking part or giving assistance in a dispute or war between others;
2. not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy;

By providing humanitarian aid, Stafford recognizes that the people of Chester are more important and should not be made to suffer because of a political dispute between forces.

I have noticed in evidence presented that Lord Arkrantos also made statements about 'having your head' over stopping help arriving in Chester. Can you share with us if you consider Lord Arkrantos as guilty as Lord Degas in regards to actions unbecoming of a noble or words he used against you and why you chose to bring Scandalum Magnatum charges against Lord Degas and not Lord Arkrantos? I do not wish to put words in your mouth, so please guide me on the correct path, but is it due to the repeated words of Lord Degas or is it due to his words being more severe that he is the Lord here today and not Lord Arkrantos?

To be quite honest with you, I do hold Arkrantos as guilty for the assassination plot as Elmix. However, the continued behavior and actions on the part of Elmix has been a big factor in my decision to pursue SM charges. Proof presented in my various statements show that he is not repentant for his behavior, words, or actions. That he has no plans to correct his behavior, and continues to support an assassination plot by placing my name on his enemy roster. If I were to venture into Cumberland, I would have been seriously injured (OOC: or killed IG). I am not now, nor have I ever been proven criminal, nor have any charges ever been placed on me bringing this into question. We all know the practices of the KoP and their stance on the use of enemy rosters. As a result of their operations, Stafford County chose not to support this and canceled the recognition treaty in place. I am not a criminal and yet Elmix supports my assassination for what has been perceived as political reasons. Elmix’s actions show him no better than criminal masterminds such as Anto_capone. Anto_capone seriously injured former Regent Richard Degas because of political reasons. Now Elmix seems to be following in those same footsteps. Instead of casting a renown military leader to the side and to prevent larger issues should Elmix succeed in injuring me, I would rather he understand and be informed that his behavior is not acceptable and unbecoming of a noble. I do not wish Elmix to become an enemy of England for political issues as Anto_capone was. Had Anto_capone and Richard Degas not had political animosity, NNGO would most likely be on England's side and not against our country. As a result of Elmix’s behavior and running of the KoP, Stafford County issued a letter:

Arthur_loxley wrote:

Knights of Phoenix,

For some time now, we have felt animosity between our county and your esteemed organization. The rumors, innuendos, and hostility some members of your organization have directed to Stafford is a great concern. During the controversy surrounding the Stafford Wargames, Stafford sent a KoP Corporal as a liaison to resolve the issue and allay any concerns. After discussion, we believed there to be a misunderstanding which had been resolved through communication. We also invited the Knights of Phoenix to participate in our War games, and were happy to welcome those who came. However, with the Chester conflict, there is now a renewal of the same hostility and mistrust previously shown by high command officers of the Knights of Phoenix.

Stafford can no longer ignore or dismiss these issues. We had given the Knights of Phoenix special recognition within our County, and feel that the actions of high commanders in your organization have threatened our relationship. Therefore, it is with deepest regret, the decision of our Council to discontinue the special recognition we afforded to the Knights of Phoenix within our county.

It is our decision that Stafford no longer grant special recognition to any private military organization, no matter the renown of the organization. The change in our policy is not a brash decision. It has been discussed previously, and is more important now that sea lanes have been discovered. In times when all of England should be working together militarily, we feel that recognizing certain organizations will cause detriment to the 'unity' mentality and believe it best to afford every private military the same treatment.

In friendship and on behalf of the Stafford Council,



Arthur Loxley Tudor
Duke of Stafford

Chris_braveheart wrote:listening intently and taking down copious notes while Lord Loxley was speaking....

Lord Loxley, thank you so much for your answering my questions. Your answers have both jogged my memory of the timeline of events and given me more detail that I was unaware of. Your testimony here has been most helpful to me, thank you again.

turning to the Jurors...

Do you have any questions for the Lords? Lady High Chancellor or Lady Chief Juror, do we have a ruling or any discussion concerning the entry of Dame Millicent?

Darienbalintyne wrote:I will withhold my questions until Lord Elmix responds to earlier questions.

Chris_braveheart wrote:Do we have any indication of when Dame Millicent will be joining us and have the guards allowed her to enter the Judges' Chambers yet? Chris asks the question looking both at the Lady High Chancellor and the Lady Chief Juror while standing and stretching a bit

Arthur_loxley wrote:My Lords and Ladies of the juror panel, again I must formally object to the presence of a lawyer in these proceedings. This is a trial by peer and the Charter makes no mention of allowing a defense or prosecution attorney. We are all peers of this realm, able to express our own thoughts and opinions quite clearly. This is not a matter before a judicial court.

Ladyjennet wrote:The High Chancellor holds her tongue, and holds it some more, and finally presses her lips into a thin line before she speaks.

My lords and ladies, on the issue of Dame Millicent's admittance, please allow me a moment to confer with the Chief Juror, if you will be so kind.

Darienbalintyne wrote:Darien was looking at his documents when Lord Arthur again made his objection to Lord Elmix having his lawyer present, nodding his head slightly he looked up and spoke "I hear your objection Lord Arthur as I am sure my colleagues have as well, while I recognise this is a trial by peers as stated in the charter and we the jurors ultimately will make a ruling in this matter can I ask where it states in the charter a person is not allowed a legal representative or a support person because I can't seem to locate this"?

Arthur_loxley wrote:He acknowledged the question by Sir Darien and responded promptly to prevent further delay the proceedings. Sir Darien, the Charter of the House of Lords makes no mention of a representative when detailing the procedure of this trial as I noted before. It directly mentions the defendant, and not a legal representative.

Procedure for a Jury of Peers wrote:The seated jurors shall choose among themselves one person to act as Chief Juror. The Chief Juror shall direct the proceedings and endeavor to ensure that the case is handled expediently. The Chief Juror shall be responsible for contacting witnesses and procuring their testimony. Jurors will investigate the law and evidence, including the questioning of witnesses and examination of relevant documents. The Jury shall have the right to ask for such testimony or documents from anyone whether or not a member of the House of Lords. At the conclusion of a trial the Chief Juror shall write a summary of the evidence and will ask all members of the jury to post their recommendations publicly to the trial thread.

Trial Procedure of a case tried by a Jury of Peers:
i. A room shall be opened in the House of Lords Judges Chambers .
ii. The Lord High Chancellor will call the trial to order and state the names of the jurors, the Chief Juror, the name of the defendant and the matter to be tried.
iii. The Chief Juror will call the trial to order.
iv. The Lord High Chancellor will supply the jurors with the law governing the issues at trial, and the Jurors will have two full days (reset to reset) to become familiar with said laws. Not necessary if a Scandalum Magnatum Trial by Peer.
v. The parties shall present opening statements at the end of this two day period.
vi. The jurors may ask questions which the principals have one full day to answer.
vii. The Chief Juror may call witnesses who will each have one full day to report and one full day to answer questions posed. Witnesses shall provide documentary evidence as requested.
viii. At the conclusion of the trial each member of the jury shall post his or her recommendation publicly to the trial thread. The Chief Juror shall in addition provide a summary of the evidence. The Jury shall be granted two full days to do so.
ix. The case shall be decided by the majority opinion. If no such majority is evident, the Jurors shall be given a further two days to discuss and produce a joint opinion. Any Juror not in agreement with this majority opinion may publish a dissenting opinion.

Please note that there is no mention of a legal representative in a trial by peer. While you may argue that by not including specific verbiage to disallow a legal representative allows for one to be used, I would argue that specifically it was not included for the purpose of nobles defending their own honor instead of allowing a representative to twist words, paint pretty pictures, or interpret the behavior of nobles. In the Court of Appeals charter, there is a definition of a defendant and public prosecutor and specific mentions of representatives found within allowing these representatives within the courtroom. No such exception is noted in the Charter of the House of Lords.

Charter of the Court of Appeals wrote:Article 2 – Definitions
Court of Appeals (CoA) – A judiciary body constituted of judges from across the realm to oversee the work of the County courts and guarantee its proper functioning.
Justice – One of the elected members of the CoA
Sitting Justice – A justice from the CoA specifically designated to the case at hand
Lead Justice – The justice chosen to lead the sitting justices
Chief Justice – The justice chosen from amongst all the serving justices to act as the leader of the court.
Judge – The county judge which originally heard the case brought before the CoA
The Defendant - The individual sentenced by the original trial in the County court – or where applicable his legal representative. Once the petition for appeal is accepted by the Court of Appeals, this individual is called the Appellant, and their counsel is called the Appellant's Counsel.
The respondent - The Public Prosecutor - (PP) the County Prosecutor who originally prosecuted the case, or Representative of the Respondent, if another individual instead of the Public Prosecutor is chosen to represent the County where the trial originally occurred.

Past precedence in a previous Trial by Peer against Lazy by Richard Morgan Degas did not promote, encourage, or allow a legal representative into these proceedings. In fact, Sir Chris_Braveheart clarified the procedure at the time of the trial by peer in his opening statement in the proceedings:

Chris_braveheart wrote:Members of the Jury...

I would like to start these proceeding off on the right foot and ask that we all proceed with that same spirit under the circumstances we are working under and the task we have been charged with. I thank you for serving on the Judicial Committee and I am more than happy to seat all members of the Judicial Committee at the time charges were filed. Based on the list provided and recommended by Chair Tiffanyanne, the following will serve as Jurors from the Committee:

Tiffanyanne (Juror)
Gabrielle (Juror)
Fugue (Juror)
Artur_le_breton (Juror)

A charge of Scandalum Magnatum has been issued against Lord Lazy by Lord Degas. Our duty is to objectively listen to the facts presented before us and make a determination as to whether or not the evidence presented fills the requirement of a guilty verdict on Scandalum Magnatum or any lesser charges in violation of House rules. We will give each Lord a chance to present their arguments and answer questions from the Jury in the matter. The burden of proof lies with Lord Degas and it is his job to prove his case before us. I ask that you put aside any prejudicial feelings positively or negatively against these two Lords and look at the facts and what do the facts presented to you say? That will be the key to reaching a fair verdict on this matter, the facts are found and judged to be in violation or not....not the individual Lords involved and how well they speak or present themselves to us.

I have also asked that Heripy, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, be present in the Chamber in order to provide order and decorum to the case. Should things get out of hand or become out of line, either he or the Regent may be called upon to moderate. I hope it does not come to that, but we need to be prepared. Remember, this is a trial and individuals are to conduct themselves accordingly.

Also the accused Lord and the accusing Lord are present and will be called upon to testify when the Jury is ready for them. I ask that the trial flow smoothly and it will not break out into a shouting match or debate, again this is a trial.

I will charge the Jurors with instructions now.

Also, I would like to remind the panel that these proceedings are public. Everyone in England: resident, visitor, diplomat, military leader, civil servant, merchant, farmer, peasant, etc. can view these proceedings. A representative is highly unnecessary as Elmix can consult other Lords, Ladies, etc. to aid him in understanding the language, should there be a need. A private missive could be sent, resent, etc. or Elmix could even seek clarification. None of these things are disallowed, or not encouraged. I question the motive for a legal representative at this time especially considering the behavior and lack of respect that Elmix has shown for these proceedings. As is evident from his behavior, Elmix has no issues insulting, demeaning, or using inflammatory language to bait and harass me; yet he requires a legal representative to defend his own actions? Again, I find this highly suspicious and I believe this is a tactic employed to delay proceedings even further.

Please note, my peers, that I have sent word to the Chief Juror to allow these proceedings to move forward. Elmix has not answered the last round of questions submitted by Chris_Braveheart and these proceedings, in my opinion, have dragged on long enough. Are there any other questions that other jurors of the panel would like to submit to me for an explanation or clarification?