Crim253-1

King's Brief: Crim253-1p

=================================================
 Docket Number: Crim253-1p - Rex vs. Sevir
=================================================
 Brief for the King, submitted by Karahd
=================================================

Charge:

Assault upon Lamorak the Paladin of Vishnu by Sevir the Respected Bishop of Set

Statement of Fact:

On Serenus 16th, 253 there was an existing unrelated semi-volatile environment within the Green Griffon Tavern. As such, there were present numerous patrons including Lamorak the Paladin of Vishnu and the defendant Sevir the Respected Bishop of Set.

Sevir and Lamorak began to exchange a verbal volley of observations, insults, and commentary with respect to each other's character, activities of church and each offering thinly veiled allusions to the possibility of physical conflict. During their discourse Sevir prayed to the God Set upon which Lamorak was nearly immediately afflicted with a painful anguish and torment. Finishing that Sevir vacated the premises with Lamorak suffering from this affliction for a bit of time before the prayer's hold upon him was released.

Excerpted from the interview on file with Lamorak:

Lamorak says, "We bantered back and forth, whereupon he bade me grow a spine
     and offered to provide one with a bar of steel"
Lamorak says, "I offered to return the favor"
Lamorak says, "The usual thing"
Karahd says, "Interruption."
Karahd says, "Would you have been prepared to follow through if the
     situation called to battle?"
Lamorak says, "I had no arms nor armor, if called to battle I would have had
     little choice, but would have fared poorly"
Lamorak says, "His chants against my fists, I think I might lose that one"

It is this justicar's impression that Lamorak's intent was not necessarily toaggrevate the situation.

From a later interview with Sevir, the bishop had this to say about theevents:

Sevir says, "[...] He made repeated, credible threats to my life, to which no
     reasonable individual could have been asked to discount. I acted using
     non-lethal force appropriate in scale and duration to the threat [...]
     I am very certain you recall the repeated insults and threats to both
     my person, church, and character in the course of the exchange. [...]"
Karahd says, "Were you also offering similar threats and words to discredit him
     and the church to which he belongs?"
Sevir says, "Of course not. Everything I said was -accurate-. At no time did
     I threaten his life. I did make statements as to the nature of his
     church: however, they were to the effect that they had -no- active
     clerics, which is accurate, that they were more than 9000 orb lesser to
     our amounts, which is accurate, and that the Vishnavs asserted tithes
     mattered as a symbol of devotion, which is accurate. Again, the Judge
     has ruled that the truth is an absolute defense against a charge of
     slander, which I can assure you that my comments, unlike those of
     Lamorak, Holy Paladin of Truth, were."

This type of engagement is very common and is usually a form of "combat" in which each side attempts to belittle each other utilizing whichever tools they may about another person's faults, be they personal or of the organizations to which they belong. I would like to re-iterate that Lamorak was in no position to retaliate physically.

Sevir, in his testimony cited Rex vs. Bandle in saying:

    "I invoke the established Honor Defense under Rex v. Bandle. My
     behavior falls beneath both the temporality component - namely,
     that a response must be sufficently speedy to qualify beneath
     the law - as well as that of degree: I did not slay Lamorak,
     merely inflicted pain upon him."

The fact remains that at no time did Lamorak offer any viable evidence that he would actually come to blows with Sevir. He offered retaliatory jibes. Sevir raised the stakes by utilizing a god given power and provided a very physical threat to Lamorak. It is true that Sevir did not remain in the tavern, thus his intent was not to kill however but to cause torment and physical strife upon Lamorak.

In response to Sevir's invocation of Rex vs. Bandle, in this justicar's opinion that there existed no real threat to Sevir, only words from an unarmed paladin. Sevir was in fact already satisfying the precedent by continuing the heated argument. When he attacked Lamorak physically he raised the stakes to a new level, to which Lamorak, had he chosen to pursue Sevir, would have been justified in physical retaliation. It is thus my recommendation that Sevir is guilty of intentional aggrevated assault and he should make redress as appropriate.

Defense Brief: Crim253-1d

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
 Docket Number: Crim253-1d - Rex vs. Sevir
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
 Brief for Bishop vin Krahsys, submitted by Vilantio Wrenthal, Attorney
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

To the Honorable Court and the Judge, Avatar of Lord Bilanx:

Herein I, having been retained by the accused for his defense, shall respond on the behalf of Sevir vin Krahsys as to both the charge of aggrevated assault and the Brief by the Prosecution; the facets of the submission to the court by Justicar Karahd I find relevant are fourfold. As a result, I shall reply to them in turn, in discussion of the events which occurred on or about Serenus 16, 253, within the Green Griffon Tavern as well as their relevance to the Rex v. Bandle decision relating to the honor defense.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

  I.    Response: Statements of Fact
 II.    Response: Discussion of Events
III.    Response: Recommendation
 IV.    Rex v. Alexander (Crim183-2j)
  V.    Conclusion

I. Response: Statements of Fact

The prime objection to the 'Statements of Fact' as displayed by the prosecution is simple: it is incomplete. Ought the Prosecution had gone to the trouble of interviewing individuals who were either not involved in the incident in question itself or blood-oathed to one of the two relevant parties, it may have discovered that the 'thinly veiled assaults' upon one another's character were, in fact, not as such. Lamorak made intentionally insulting references to the defendant and his blood-oath, such as asking where Bishop vin Krahsys' "boyfriend" had gone. In contrast, Sevir's 'assaults upon his character' were simply true statements: that there were no active Bishops of Vishnu, that the Church of Set was more than nine thousand orb above the Church of Vishnu in tithes, and that Lamorak, as per his own admission, was once a large factor in causing the God of Light to eclipse the sun for a period of time. I submit for the defense that the accuracy of Sevir's statements is the key factor which differentiates Sevir's 'attacks' from Lamorak's direct, intentional assaults to the Bishop's personal honor.

More relevant, however, in omission is the fact that Lamorak, who in his interview (this shall be discussed more in-depth later) claimed he was unprepared for a physical conflict, was seeking armor and weaponry with which to enforce his bold claims to "take your [Sevir's] head." Lamorak was observed examining known compatriots and friends, such as Seraphia, Dhelta, and the Justicar herself, audibly asking if any individual had armaments to spare - for his noble quest to liberate Sevir of his life. I submit on behalf of the defense that the fact that Lamorak's search was incomplete at the time of the incident in question is irrelevant - and that the fact he made such a query invalidates the statements he made to the Prosecution that he had no intent to follow through on his claims.

II. Response: Discussion of Events

The Defense is similarly concerned by the excerpts of interview by Lamorak, Paladin of Vishnu. To read the statements made by Lamorak, one would assume that Bishop vin Krahsys was the instigator of the incident in question. In reality - and ought the venerable court wish for confirmation of this statement, the defense submits Evana and Mepharel as witnesses to that effect - Lamorak was the first to issue such threats, even going so far as to seek out weaponry and armor from his surrounding friends before the defendant ever was pressed in kind. He [Lamorak] made such claims as, "I'll be glad to take your head, sweetie", and, paraphrased, that he was prepared to 'go outside and settle this right now'. The defense feels that it does not require great labors of interpolation to construe these as threats upon Sevir's person. Combined with the fact that Lamorak was seeking tools with which to accomplish this goal, as well as the violent history of aggressive interaction towards Sevir on the behalf of Lamorak, I submit to the court that Bishop vin Krahsys had no choice but to consider these threats a realistic, plausible threat upon his safety.

Furthermore, through this time, Lamorak continued to press his prior assaults upon the defendant's honor by repeatedly referring to Sevir's bloodoath as [alternately] his 'boyfriend' or 'girlfriend', and so forth. These statements are worth note, both for their empirical value as well as for their lack of mention by the Paladin in interview. The defense submits, once more, both Evana and Mepharel for interview or voir dire to this effect.

III. Response: Recommendation

The Defense takes objection to the majority of statements made by the Prosecution in the section labelled as 'Recommendation.' First of all, Justicar Karahd states that she does not feel the burden for Rex v. Bandle as per the honor defense was met - however, she then refers to the credibility of the threats by Lamorak as the governing issue in meeting Rex v. Bandle's standard - which, as is shown by Rex v. Balak (Crim199-1j) and Rex v. Mabelbrode (Crim195-3j), is not. As was stated in Rex v. Balak,

"Balak was insulted. The vomiting and butt pinching were most likely
enough to constitute an insult under Rex v. Bandle. However, this
was not a GRAVE insult, thus the response must be somewhat proximate
to the insult.

It is a well known facet of Rex v. Bandle that the degree of the
insult is the crucial factor when determining how long a legal right
to retaliate shall sustain."

The defense believes that repeated slander in reference to the Bishop's blood-oath as well as his faith qualify at least as an insult under the Rex v. Bandle defense, if not a "grave insult." Furthermore, the response - Sevir's prayer for anguish - happened not hours or days later, but mere minutes, thus acting within the "window for legal retalation" [ibid].

As Rex v. Balak (Crim199-1j) and Rex v. Mabelbrode (Crim195-3j) both demonstrate, the two governing factors in the invocation of the "honor defense" are as follows:

1) Response within a time window commensurate to the gravity of the insult in question.

2) Response appropriate to the level of insult which was displayed.

In this case, the defense proposes that Sevir is further exonerated by the fact he did not pursue Lamorak to the point of mortality, but merely, as was stipulated by the prosecution, prayed for anguish upon Lamorak and departed. Neither does the Prosecution assert that Bishop vin Krahsys' response was delayed sufficiently to be merely "cold-blooded" [as per Rex v. Mabelrode (Crim195-3j)], nor that Lamorak did not, in fact, intentionally insult Sevir's honor: in the Brief for the Prosecution, Justicar Karahd states,

"This type of engagement is very common in the world and is usually
a form of "combat" in which each side attempts to belittle each
other utilizing which- ever tools they may about another person's
faults, be they personal or of the organizations to which they
belong."

The Defense humbly submits, your Honor, that, as such - that Lamorak 'engaged...in attempts to belittle' - that Bishop vin Krahsys had met the burden required under the Rex v. Bandle defense.

IV. Rex v. Alexander (Crim183-2j)

The Prosecution has referred to, in multiple occurrances, the credibility of the threats by Lamorak upon Sevir's life as an issue as to why Sevir's behavior was not justified. While the fact Lamorak sought weaponry and armor was nowhere included in the Brief by the Prosecution, on five separate instances, Justicar Karahd made allusion to the fact that Lamorak began said verbal sparring while visibly bearing no such armaments. The nearest relevant precendent to such an issue of self-defense the defense can divine is the case of Rex v. Alexander (Crim183-2j), in which Alexander, a fighter, was assaulted by a thief by the name of Lenora. It was ruled that...

"...the deference of this court to the integrity of the person is
evident. Property is the most important and a citizen's property is
entitled to the greatest protections."

Indeed, the Court has shown the greatest latitude towards citizens invoking their right to defend themselves, and has made several statements to this effect, such as the 'right of retaliation' to assault, as displayed also in Rex v. Alexander (Crim183-2j):

"This court holds today that the privilege of retaliation in the
face of actual bodily harm extends to the theft of property as well.
When a citizen's property is harmed or stolen, he may defend that
property through great force or retaliate with great force even to
the extent of causing death."

One must only infer that if the right to retaliation extends to the right to pursue an attacker to the death in defense of property, such defense is also afforded most generously by the court to the body of a citizen. Furthermore, the right to defend oneself is alluded to in Rex v. Chanur (Crim183-1j), where the penalty of "Vigilante Justice" is established - in which...

"...The usual protections afforded citizens to defend themselves do
not apply to citizens sentenced to vigilante justice.  They may not
lawfully pursue and retaliate against those who attack, maim, harm,
or kill the sentenced individual."

This might well be seen as the prototype for the Writ of Foras Lex Legis, in which affected individuals are similarly stripped of said rights. The defense submits that, based on prior incensed histories with Lamorak, combined with the fact that Lamorak was actively seeking a vehicle by which to fulfill his offer to liberate Sevir of his skull, Sevir had a good faith reason to believe his life was in immediate danger - and, thus, was acting in accordance with the generous rights the Court provides to a man who is defending himself against assault upon his person, honor, or property.

V. Conclusion

The Defense realizes that the Judge does not appreciate briefs which waste the time of the court due to lack of substance or length, and most genuinely apologizes that such a discussion of the legal issues at hand was required in order to defend the actions of Bishop vin Krahsys. We feel that, contrary to the allusions made by the Prosecution, Sevir was acting in accordance with the Rex v. Bandle decision, as his actions meet the tests stated by precedent; furthermore, that Lamorak's insults and assailings were more keenly honed when framed within the viable and immediate threat to Sevir's person that Lamorak presented. We thank the court for its time and patience, and ask that the charge of Aggrevated Assault against Sevir vin Krahsys be dismissed.

Judgment: Crim253-1j

No judgment on record.