Atlasia v. Ogis/Tyrion

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I have agreed to represent the defendant. He will be entering a plea shortly.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Your Honour, members of the Jury, I will begin the case for the defence tomorrow.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Honourable Justice, members of the Jury... I must say that I am surprised to be presenting the case for the defence so early. I had expected the prosecution to have prepared a detailed case against my client, and I had expected the prosecution to argue this case forcefully. Instead we have a brief and totally irrelevant narrative about the political crisis that resulted in my client ascending to the Presidency, followed by a repetition of the claim made against my client in the original indictment and little else of substance. My client, your former President, is on trial on what amounts to a technicality. As such, the case for the prosecution is paper thin. It is a joke. It is an embarrassment. Member of the Jury, it is an outrage, a genuine outrage (and one that is, I suspect, possibly politically motivated. I remember well the snickering remark about how my client "was banned, but not prosecuted in the Atlasian Judicial System" - the implications of that are quite clear), that my client has been hauled into the dock on such nebulous and flimsy grounds.

The case for my client's innocence is, however, anything but flimsy and anything but nebulous. I am about to present to you incontrovertible evidence that my client is not guilty of the charges brought against him. I could argue (and present evidence) that at no point did he intend to commit voter fraud and that, therefore, he could not have committed it (one can hardly accidentally commit fraud of as serious a nature as this), but I shall instead present to you an even stronger argument, one that calls into question the decision of the Justice Department to even consider pursuing this ridiculous prosecution.

The Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia grants certain powers to the holder of its highest office, and this includes the power to pardon. Indeed, in a Constitution that has been noted for its circumscribed nature, the President's right to pardon is remarkably sweeping. Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 states that:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These are sweeping and awesome powers and they are granted with but one restriction, that of impeachment. You will notice that nowhere is it stated that a President cannot pardon himself. We can, therefore, infer from this that a sitting President can indeed pardon himself. On this matter the Constitution is, I believe, coruscatingly clear.

Why is this relevant? Because on the 4th of October 2014 (note the date), President Tyrion issued the following Executive Order:

I pardon all citizens of Atlasia, former and current, for any crimes against Atlasia committed in the last decade.

At this point all crimes sentences in the Republic of Atlasia that occurred before the 4th of October 2014 became null and void, while immunity from prosecution was given to all those who committed crimes before said date. Whatever you may think of President Tyrion's motivations for issuing this blanket pardon, that he issued it, and issued it legally and in accordance with the Constitution, cannot be denied. No offence committed before the 4th of October 2014 can thus be subject to a prosecution in Atlasia.

I ask to note again the date of this Executive Order: the 4th of October 2014. When did the most recent alleged offence take place? On the 24th of January 2010. As such not only is my client not guilty, but he shouldn't even be sitting in the dock as he has no case to answer.

I intend to call my client as witness because I believe that, even though the case against him is a patent joke, he has a right to his day in court... but before I do so I wish to make a request of you, Mr Justice. Former President DemPGH has just yelled a statement of sorts from the gallery, and it is possible that the jury may have heard him. I request for his remarks to be stricken from the record and for the Jury to be specifically instructed to ignore them. He was not called as a witness for the prosecution, he will not be called as a witness by the defence, and it appears that he is attempting to influence the outcome of the trial.

Finally, I confirm (again) that I wish to call the defendant, Tyrion, as a witness.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

My client wishes to be placed under oath, Your Honour.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Mr Tyrion, would you care to provide to the jury a brief outline of your history in Atlasia, paying particular attention to your attitude to the game when you were (if you forgive me) a juvenile delinquent, and to your attitude towards it now that you are an upstanding citizen?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Thank you, Tyrion. I have no further questions.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Objection! The reasoning behind my client's decision to issue a sweeping pardon was a) explained by him at the time and b) has no bearing on his guilt (or otherwise) as regards this present trial. This is a point of law, your honour. The pardon cannot be ignored merely because the prosecution regards its morality as suspect; our society is governed by the rule of law, not the rule of moral panic.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Objection! That is a loaded question. My client does not believe himself to be guilty of any crime and is considered by the law to be innocent until proven otherwise.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

May I sum up the case for the defence, your honour?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I have no further questions, your honour.

Given my recent nomination to a federal cabinet poster my active role in this trial must now cease else run the risk of a serious conflict of interest. I wish to remind the Jury of several things. The first is the principle case for the defence, made by myself earlier in the trial. You will note that the prosecution has failed to refute any of the points raised therein. You may take this as a tacit acknowledgment by the prosecution that a conviction in this case would not be constitutionally sound and as such would likely be a miscarriage of justice. Secondly, you will note the articulate and honest manner in which my client gave evidence and the failure of the prosecution to demonstrate his guilt of the crimes of which he is accused. Thirdly, I would like to point out that the conventional standard of proof in the common law systems from which the justice system of Atlasia is ultimately derived is very high. It is widely accepted that a jury should only find a defendant guilty in a criminal trial if they believe that the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, and that not only must evidence be produced by the prosecution of a guilty act, but that the prosecution must prove a guilty mind. As such I believe that the case for the acquittal of my client is overwhelming.

Your honour, I rest my case.