A lawyer representing General de Leon stands up. It just so happens that he is a Camponista.
This fragment, while small in size, provides in itself the necessary instrument of the crime of which the Lieutenant General is being accused, as well as a potential mark of his own disreputable behavior. In this letter he plainly states that 'the cause' of a revolutionary group - Byzantine Restorationists - will be 'triumphant.' This alone should arise concern, no? If there was any independent individual who was promising radicals that their cause would be triumphant, would that not be a charge against the law, at least in part?
"This is simply a matter of semantics," he says, "Anybody who wishes to negotiate a deal with another party would say such words in order to reassure the other party and increase the chances of reaching a deal. It is nothing but meaningless reassurance to keep the Greek nobles happy; if you were the one negotiating, would you have omitted the sentence and looked callous, or would you have said "you will not succeed" and look like a hypocrite? What individual engaged in negotiations of any kind wouldn't express support for a positive conclusion as the dealmaking reaches its conclusion? It is nothing more than my client expressing a desire for the nobles and the Kapodistrias government to reach a final settlement; since as stated previously my client had no legal power to enforce a deal, nothing he agreed to was binding and thus could be changed at any time by either the nobles or the Kapodistrias government. In addition, it is to my knowledge that some of the nobles' concerns are already being addressed by the government in Constantinople; to them, my client is seen as a man who had helped along the negotiation process and would be instrumental to the achievement of a final compromise. If he were to be tried and convicted for his actions, potential negotiating parties such as the nobles would likely be less inclined to negotiate with anybody from Hispania in the future, seeing how anybody who wishes to work with them would be convicted as a traitor. My client's comment fits with a man who desires reconciliation and understnading between two conflicting sides, and in that regard he has mostly succeeded. If he has done only good so far, why should he be punished? Is that not a bad example for our legal system?
I must ask the jury, does this not speak of a man who believes he wields power far beyond himself? He speaks of 'being able to grant [their] request,' and quite clearly implies that he has the capacity to, as stated in Exhibit A, ensure that their cause is triumphant. As a lieutenant general in His Majesty's Army, what power does he hold to be able to ensure such matters? A diplomatic power? Nay, a martial power! And as Hispania prepares to enter a war in defense of Byzantium, what does such power enable?
"Objection! You are implying that a lieutenant general in the Hispanian army, a young man of the Leon family, would be as brazen as to launch a coup against the Hispanian or Greek government. This is thoroughly false. Observe the family records of the Leon family since the 15th century. Not a single member of the Leon family has committed any crime whatsoever, let alone commit treason. In every instance where an individual started a coup or civil war, the Leons immediately declared their loyalty to the Crown, as demonstrated by the impeccable service record of my client's grandfather, the late Marshal Alejandro de Leon. No Leon has ever attempted to seize power for themselves through unscrupulous means. My client is not an exception; many of his friends and family members can attest to the fact that he is quite satisfied with his current occupation as duke and general and looks upon coups with horror.
"On to the next point. When my client speaks of
'being able to grant [their] request,' he obviously does not mean it literally. This is again a matter of semantics. What kind of negotiator wouldn't say this phrase when dealing with another party? This is just to affirm to the nobles that their demands are reasonable to him. However, since it has been established that no agreement in the letters is final and binding, my client does not have the legal authority with which to enforce said agreement. In addition, when he says that he will ensure that the cause remains triumphant it is not an implication for military takeover. Instead, it is an affirmation that he will take the matter to the Hispanian government for their advice and potentially approval and implementation, which he clearly tried to do when he handed over his letters to the cabinet.
His willingness to praise the Basileus, even as he should prostrate himself solely before the Emperor is not significant in its own right, but it plainly reveals a man who is quite willing to cast aside his obligations and responsibilities. Quite plainly, it was his intention to use his military post in order to strengthen the Restorationist cause, even if such a cause interfered with our own national interest.
"Objection again! This is yet another matter of semantics and is not relevant to the proceedings! You speak as though praising the Basileus is a bad thing. He is the Greek head of state. The basileus is closely tied, both in blood and in politics, with our own Emperor, moreso than any other monarch. As the Minister of War pointed out previously, and I quote, ' I'd be more concerned if he condemned the man to Hell instead.' If anything this statement shows that my client has nothing but the utmost respect towards the basileus; if a Greek subject wrote 'God save the Emperor (of Hispania)', would the Greek government consider the statement treasonous? I don't think so. Furthermore, as he was corresponding with the Restorationist leadership it emphasizes that he would like to see a reconciliation between the Restorationists and the Basileus.
Thus, I ask you, the jury, to assess the case against Lieutenant General De Leon in this light: that he holds in his grasp the keys to aid in the success of a foreign revolutionary organization, and that he has expressed, in his own writing, a promise to do just that, even in defiance of governmental decision-making.
"I ask the jury to consider the following in response: the prosecution has based their case on the wording and phrasing of two pieces of evidence. I have provided evidence that refutes both arguments as being flimsily based on semantics and thus inappropriate for these proceedings. Anybody would have used those words should they be found in a similar situation.
"I refute the claim that my client is attempting a coup against one or both of the Hispanian and Greek governments with the fact that were that his intention, he would never have released the letters. What sort of coup plotter would release all documentation pertaining to his plans before he carried him out? And should you be right and my client was conspiring to overthrow the Kapodistrias government, why didn't he explicitly tell the Restorationists he would do that? Any sane conspirator, as history attests, would make sure his fellow conspirators understand what he would be doing. Go ask a Restorationist leader what they thought my client was doing!
"I refute the claim that my client subverted or attempted to subvert one or both of the Hispanian and Greek governments with his actions. These letters were never binding to begin with. Building on my previous point, his writing served to reassure the other party and increase the chances of reaching a deal. My client's intention in corresponding with the Restorationists was not to overthrow the Kapodistrias government, but to lay the foundations for a rapprochement between the Kapodistrias government and the Restorationists with terms that were not binding but rather were a template from which to start. As a result, this would save both sides much time in negotiations and increase the chances of reaching a compromise. And has this not been the case in negotiations? Have my client's efforts not benefited the process? And should he be punished for performing an action that has only brought benefits so far? A conviction would set a bad example for the Hispanian legal system and deter future organizations such as the Restorationists from even working with us.
"I ask the jury to consider the case for my client as such: that he successfully sought the reconciliation of the two more moderate parties in the Greek crisis, with the intention of restoring peace and order to the Greeks without further bloodshed, and that he expressed, in his writing, the proper respect for both the Restorationist leadership and the Basileus in order to reach a conclusion. The prosecution, on the other hand, asks you to condemn this man for doing good, using phrasing and wording common to negotiations to construct a wholly fictitious scenario in which my client seeks to violently overthrow the Greek government and blindly install a Restorationist government (which if not reformed in the ways my client suggested would only lead to further bloodshed) at the expense of everybody else, which absolutely does not fit his or his family's profile once you closely observe the evidence. If the profile does not fit, you must acquit.
"I rest my case. Thank you."