• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Your Majesty,

I truly apologize for my actions in negotiating with the Restorationists. I did not realize at the time that they were wrong, but now I understand. As I was unaware of the consequences of my actions, I humbly request that you show mercy. Is it possible to have the charges against me dropped in exchange for a reduction of my voting privileges for several years and a large fine paid? It would be a shame and a disaster if one of the most powerful families in all of Hispania, one which has consistently stood by the Emperors and served the Empire with distinction throughout the years, to be destroyed and pushed out of relevance by a foolish mistake I made. If my request is unacceptable, I would gladly accept a fair trial by my peers to clear my name.

Once again, I apologize for my mistakes and ask for your mercy.

Your repentant and always loyal servant,

Fernando de Leon

((Again, is it possible to ask for bail in the form of reduced VP? Also, is there another legal way to get the charges against me dropped?))

JpsioAG.png

I'm afraid that it is not my place to dictate the outcome of any trial nor what punishment they choose to put in place. I was not the one to lay the charge against you and thus cannot drop them. It would be overreaching on my part, especially since Parliament passed a law stating that the administration cannot overturn the decisions of the courts. You will have to plead your case to your accuser and settle it with them if you want to avoid a trial. You are guaranteed a trial by peers, and a conviction cannot occur without that.

Despite that, I wish to give you my reassurances that I do not blame you for your actions. In the past I agreed to allow others to attempt negotiations with rebels in Byzantium. Your only mistake was to agree to a settlement as though you had the authority to do so. In the end, it doesn't harm Hispania, for it was never binding, although it may have given the nobles false expectations. I have the uptmost confidence that you shall be found innocent, and if you require me to speak on your behalf, I shall provide what assistance I can.

- His Imperial Highness, Alfons IX de Trastámara, Emperor of Hispania, Caesar of Rome, King of Transdacia, Duke of Bavaria, & Protector of the Greeks

((Bail is usually reserved for someone awaiting trial, and seeing as the trial will happen before the next update, it shouldn't impact any votes. The only way I can think of to get charges dropped is for the one accusing to change their mind. I do have an alternative in mind though....))

The recent allegations against you are quite unbecoming of one of your stature, an insult to a noble man. You attempted to seek peace for Byzantium by negotiating with the Greek nobility, and now the Minister of Justice attempts to punish you for your actions. This cannot be tolerated. I am willing to assist your cause, but it could be at great risk to my person, for if you end up falsely convicted then my reputation may be tarnished as well. However, I believe action must be taken. All I ask is that you remember this favour and that we may share a healthy level of respect and loyalty to each other going into the future. Are you willing to accept my help in exchange for that?

- Prince Joan de Trastámara, Minister of War
 
((Byzantine Revolutionaries: Intervene
Byzantine Nobles: Intervene

[Fénix]


As I won't be home over Christmas, it might be better not to include me in the jury - or to assume that Faixòn would find him guilty, but without knowing the quality of the arguments, that wouldn't be fair.))

Your Majesty, I shall explain why there is no hypocrisy in our actions when we declare that these revolts are not some we should negotiate with. The revolution has been a product of decades, centuries of oppression and ignorance of demands. A long time during which the previous government should have taken steps to avert it. The current revolts are against a young government that could hardly address the grievances as is only a product of its initial weakness. Furthermore, Hispania decided to back the creation of this new government merely a few years ago - and it would be a great blow to Hispania should we turn around and say the contrary now. The decision has been made and we should continue to support it.
And for negotiations, let me present a very similar case. We have three men who hate each other passionately, who all covet one object. They are in the same room in Iberia, a room filled with weapons. There is a fourth man, who has guards with weapons aimed at the three. After some time of discussion, he makes a fair decision that the object should be shared. Then he leaves with his guards, takes a ship for Sanchonia. What are these three men going to do? It is the same in Byzantium on a greater scale.

((Malta))

As you listen to the Dowager Empress' words, always keep in mind that she is a person clearly in favour of restoring as much power to Basileus and nobility as possible, always has been an enemy of the revolution. While most of Hispania's Parliament has decided in favour of the revolution. So she is hardly a representative of Hispania as much as she claims to be.
The demands of the nobility are a full return to aristocracy, merely disguised as reform. And the Dowager Empress would again love to operate with her favourite method of appointment to cover it. Strong voices in Hispania see the nobility's uprising as what it is, a power grab using the Turks' disgruntlement for their own purposes, without giving it any legitimation. Unlike the revolution with its legitimate cause.
Equality is said revolution's lead ideal as I understand it. Then the nobles should be satisfied with this equality. Guaranteeing their titles, the their estates (without feudal rights) is already more than they deserve. If they want to enter politics, they have the same way of doing it as any other Greek. And any other minority in Byzantium, to pass a reform that is needed.
Who does the noble army consist of? Mainly Turks who felt wronged. If their wishes are respected, then what should remain of their army? The nobles should happily accept anything that doesn't punish their uprising. Without the common ground of being a noble, the restoration movement should find no support.
 
As he voluntarily turned himself in, Fernando de Leon humbly requests to the authorities that he be placed under house arrest until the trial can be convened.

((The following letters were written and sent before Fernando turned himself in.))
I appear to have made a grievous mistake. By the time you receive this, I will be under arrest by the Camponistas in control of the Ministry of Justice. If something is not done they will likely use their power to strip me and my family of our titles and honors, thus destroying both my house and the Reconquista Party for good. Is the purpose of the Illuminati not to help its members? I humbly request your assistance in exonerating me and, if that is not possible, containing the damage to my family's reputation. I do not wish for my children to be stripped of their titles and dignity for my mistakes.

My fate is in your hands.
Leon

Your Majesty,

I truly apologize for my actions in negotiating with the Restorationists. I did not realize at the time that they were wrong, but now I understand. As I was unaware of the consequences of my actions, I humbly request that you show mercy. Is it possible to have the charges against me dropped in exchange for a reduction of my voting privileges for several years and a large fine paid? It would be a shame and a disaster if one of the most powerful families in all of Hispania, one which has consistently stood by the Emperors and served the Empire with distinction throughout the years, to be destroyed and pushed out of relevance by a foolish mistake I made. If my request is unacceptable, I would gladly accept a fair trial by my peers to clear my name.

Once again, I apologize for my mistakes and ask for your mercy.

Your repentant and always loyal servant,

Fernando de Leon

((Again, is it possible to ask for bail in the form of reduced VP? Also, is there another legal way to get the charges against me dropped?))

*De Salcedo speaks on the Assembly floor*

"While some may see the ongoing effort to find General de Leon guilty of crime to be a political maneuver, I can assure all that he shall be granted a fair trial, and that the Ministry of Justice is not pushing for a draconian penalty in this case. It is our objective to find justice under any circumstance, and I would hope that the quiet murmurs of those who might think that an effort to appropriately punish an individual for a crime is a matter of politics might remain silent until after the conclusion of the hearing, in coordination with proper legal procedure.

"It should also be remembered that any individual with a vested interest in this case can not serve on the jury, nor can any individual who has spoken out in regards to this matter outside of an objective opinion. Once again, while I am a Camponista, we have many members and officials within this Ministry who belong to countless political stripes, including members of the Imperial and Reconquista Factions. I would hope that it is recognized that fairness and right judgment transcend political lines.

"I yield."

((Private - Ministry of Justice))

*Due to the ongoing nature of the investigation against Fernando de Leon, the Minister of Justice requests that any potential communications he made before being put on house arrest are to be found and considered in the case against him, as well as any communications which may have arrived in his hands*
 
JpsioAG.png

I'm afraid that it is not my place to dictate the outcome of any trial nor what punishment they choose to put in place. I was not the one to lay the charge against you and thus cannot drop them. It would be overreaching on my part, especially since Parliament passed a law stating that the administration cannot overturn the decisions of the courts. You will have to plead your case to your accuser and settle it with them if you want to avoid a trial. You are guaranteed a trial by peers, and a conviction cannot occur without that.

Despite that, I wish to give you my reassurances that I do not blame you for your actions. In the past I agreed to allow others to attempt negotiations with rebels in Byzantium. Your only mistake was to agree to a settlement as though you had the authority to do so. In the end, it doesn't harm Hispania, for it was never binding, although it may have given the nobles false expectations. I have the uptmost confidence that you shall be found innocent, and if you require me to speak on your behalf, I shall provide what assistance I can.

- His Imperial Highness, Alfons IX de Trastámara, Emperor of Hispania, Caesar of Rome, King of Transdacia, Duke of Bavaria, & Protector of the Greeks

((Bail is usually reserved for someone awaiting trial, and seeing as the trial will happen before the next update, it shouldn't impact any votes. The only way I can think of to get charges dropped is for the one accusing to change their mind. I do have an alternative in mind though....))

The recent allegations against you are quite unbecoming of one of your stature, an insult to a noble man. You attempted to seek peace for Byzantium by negotiating with the Greek nobility, and now the Minister of Justice attempts to punish you for your actions. This cannot be tolerated. I am willing to assist your cause, but it could be at great risk to my person, for if you end up falsely convicted then my reputation may be tarnished as well. However, I believe action must be taken. All I ask is that you remember this favour and that we may share a healthy level of respect and loyalty to each other going into the future. Are you willing to accept my help in exchange for that?

- Prince Joan de Trastámara, Minister of War
I agree. Thank you for your support.

((Edit: I thought I was awaiting trial right now? And by reduced VP I meant having it reduced for a number of updates and vote cycles.))
 
Last edited:
Byzantine Revolutionaries: Intervene
Byzantine Nobles: Intervene

(Getting back tomorrow so will be able to post with frequency again then)

Altair Spoleto, Chamberlain of the Cortz, Count of Cremona, Imperial Faction
 
Byzantine Revolutionaries: Intervene
Byzantine Nobles: Intervene
 
Byzantine Revolutionaries: Intervene
Byzantine Nobles: Intervene

Martí de Alvaro, Grand Duke of Sardinia, Corsica and Albenga, Minister of Finance and member of the Reconquista Party
 
((Malta))

As you listen to the Dowager Empress' words, always keep in mind that she is a person clearly in favour of restoring as much power to Basileus and nobility as possible, always has been an enemy of the revolution. While most of Hispania's Parliament has decided in favour of the revolution. So she is hardly a representative of Hispania as much as she claims to be.
The demands of the nobility are a full return to aristocracy, merely disguised as reform. And the Dowager Empress would again love to operate with her favourite method of appointment to cover it. Strong voices in Hispania see the nobility's uprising as what it is, a power grab using the Turks' disgruntlement for their own purposes, without giving it any legitimation. Unlike the revolution with its legitimate cause.
Equality is said revolution's lead ideal as I understand it. Then the nobles should be satisfied with this equality. Guaranteeing their titles, the their estates (without feudal rights) is already more than they deserve. If they want to enter politics, they have the same way of doing it as any other Greek. And any other minority in Byzantium, to pass a reform that is needed.
Who does the noble army consist of? Mainly Turks who felt wronged. If their wishes are respected, then what should remain of their army? The nobles should happily accept anything that doesn't punish their uprising. Without the common ground of being a noble, the restoration movement should find no support.

((Malta))

It would appear that Hispania's representatives are not all of the same mind. In light of this revelation and the possible motives that may impact Hispania's fairness as a mediator, I request an end to this Council and call for a second one on Greek soil without Hispanian representation. If Hispania is incapable of remaining neutral and feels the need to allow personal rhetoric to sway their opinion, we shall be better off negotiating ourselves. If the representatives of the nobility agree, we shall meet on neutral Greek ground, perhaps Crete, and continue negotiations.

- Prime Minister Alexandros Kapodistrias

* * * * *

((Malta))

I do not believe we should be so hasty in ending this Council. Despite the odd choices in diplomatic representatives, Hispania still provides an outside view and serves as an able intermediary to aid us in seeking a peaceful resolution. I wish for us to continue as is.

As for these claims that we should just accept not being punished for our uprising, then perhaps our grievances are not understood well enough. When the Revolution first began, it was the nobility who suffered the most. We were hunted down and brutally murdered. Those of us who survived usually had our wealth stolen and estates burnt down. Despite the claims of the current government, we are not so well off. We scrape by on what has not been taken or destroyed. Why should we be content not to be punished when we have already been punished once before? We want compensation for what was done to us. We want equal representation in government, which I can assure you will be denied under the current government. The Prime Minister claims we can simply run for election, yet that hides the reality that we are still ostracized and kept from power. They would never let us get a seat even if we wanted one. The only way to ensure we are respected is to receive our rightful position in government through guaranteed seats in the Senate. The common people have the Legislative Assembly, and we do not protest its existence any longer. We do not demand the return to feudalism, or even exclusive right to rule. We will be content with fair representation in government and the return of what was taken from us in the form of wealth and estates.

- Duke Constantine Katakalon

*De Salcedo speaks on the Assembly floor*

"While some may see the ongoing effort to find General de Leon guilty of crime to be a political maneuver, I can assure all that he shall be granted a fair trial, and that the Ministry of Justice is not pushing for a draconian penalty in this case. It is our objective to find justice under any circumstance, and I would hope that the quiet murmurs of those who might think that an effort to appropriately punish an individual for a crime is a matter of politics might remain silent until after the conclusion of the hearing, in coordination with proper legal procedure.

"It should also be remembered that any individual with a vested interest in this case can not serve on the jury, nor can any individual who has spoken out in regards to this matter outside of an objective opinion. Once again, while I am a Camponista, we have many members and officials within this Ministry who belong to countless political stripes, including members of the Imperial and Reconquista Factions. I would hope that it is recognized that fairness and right judgment transcend political lines.

"I yield."

((Private - Ministry of Justice))

*Due to the ongoing nature of the investigation against Fernando de Leon, the Minister of Justice requests that any potential communications he made before being put on house arrest are to be found and considered in the case against him, as well as any communications which may have arrived in his hands*

All letters sent out by Leon prior to his arrest have already been revealed by himself, although an exchange of letters occurred after his arrest. While the letters themselves could not be acquired, it was discovered that they were sent to and from the palace, suggesting correspondence with a member or members of the royal family.

I agree. Thank you for your support.

((Edit: I thought I was awaiting trial right now? And by reduced VP I meant having it reduced for a number of updates and vote cycles.))

I find these charges placed against Duke Leon to be troubling. The man attempted to seek a peaceful solution to this conflict and is to be punished for it instead. There are those who undoubtedly claim that he betrayed the government and Crown by negotiating a settlement with the nobility of Byzantium, yet are we not negotiating with those same men as we speak? The only difference is that he had not been given the authority to organize such negotiations, and in there lies the crux of the issue. He did not have permission, so the claim is he should be punished. Yet the fact he did not have permission means he did not have the power to make such an agreement anyway, so anything agreed to was never binding to begin with. If anything, he provided a starting point for negotiations with the Greek nobles. From what I've heard, these nobles even used the agreement they reached with Leon as their demands at the Council of Malta. Thanks to him, less work was required in getting the Greek nobles to the negotiation table and fleshing out potential points to consider.

We must also consider that this isn't the first time individual actors were used to flesh out agreements with rebel forces. I'm sure His Imperial Highness can attest to permitting various individuals to commence negotiations outside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Leon's only fault then was to agree to a deal rather than state that it could then be brought before the Crown for consideration. In the end, no harm was done, because as I said it was never binding. The Greek nobles haven't complained or raised a fuss about us lying to them, so why make it an issue.

There is also another issue to be raised with this trial. Leon may be a member of the Cortz, but he is also a lieutenant general in the army. While not explicitly stated, it would be logical to assume that when the current judicial system was created, the intention was for it to be for civilians. The military has always been held to separate standards, and quite frankly I find it disturbing that civilian authorities can try a general for his actions. A military tribunal would be preferred. The Ministry of Justice may be overreaching here, and this could well set a dangerous precedent. If civilian courts can try members of the military instead of placing those individuals under military jurisdiction, we could see conflicting interests at work soon enough. What's to say that the civilian courts won't start putting soldiers on trial for murder or anything else that would be considered a crime if it wasn't done in the line of duty? I am sure that there are those who say Leon's actions do not fall under that category, but then where is the line drawn? What or who decides when a crime committed by a member of the military places them under military or civilian jurisdiction? We would be better served to ensure that those in the military were subject solely to the protocols and laws of the military, not the whims of civilian judges.

- Prince Joan de Trastámara, Minister of War

((You are awaiting trial, but the trial will happen before the update so reducing VP for bail is pointless. Losing VP over several turns to avoid punishment is more akin to bribing authorities to drop the charges than being given bail.))
 
((Malta))

It would appear that Hispania's representatives are not all of the same mind. In light of this revelation and the possible motives that may impact Hispania's fairness as a mediator, I request an end to this Council and call for a second one on Greek soil without Hispanian representation. If Hispania is incapable of remaining neutral and feels the need to allow personal rhetoric to sway their opinion, we shall be better off negotiating ourselves. If the representatives of the nobility agree, we shall meet on neutral Greek ground, perhaps Crete, and continue negotiations.

- Prime Minister Alexandros Kapodistrias

* * * * *

((Malta))

I do not believe we should be so hasty in ending this Council. Despite the odd choices in diplomatic representatives, Hispania still provides an outside view and serves as an able intermediary to aid us in seeking a peaceful resolution. I wish for us to continue as is.

As for these claims that we should just accept not being punished for our uprising, then perhaps our grievances are not understood well enough. When the Revolution first began, it was the nobility who suffered the most. We were hunted down and brutally murdered. Those of us who survived usually had our wealth stolen and estates burnt down. Despite the claims of the current government, we are not so well off. We scrape by on what has not been taken or destroyed. Why should we be content not to be punished when we have already been punished once before? We want compensation for what was done to us. We want equal representation in government, which I can assure you will be denied under the current government. The Prime Minister claims we can simply run for election, yet that hides the reality that we are still ostracized and kept from power. They would never let us get a seat even if we wanted one. The only way to ensure we are respected is to receive our rightful position in government through guaranteed seats in the Senate. The common people have the Legislative Assembly, and we do not protest its existence any longer. We do not demand the return to feudalism, or even exclusive right to rule. We will be content with fair representation in government and the return of what was taken from us in the form of wealth and estates.

- Duke Constantine Katakalon



All letters sent out by Leon prior to his arrest have already been revealed by himself, although an exchange of letters occurred after his arrest. While the letters themselves could not be acquired, it was discovered that they were sent to and from the palace, suggesting correspondence with a member or members of the royal family.



I find these charges placed against Duke Leon to be troubling. The man attempted to seek a peaceful solution to this conflict and is to be punished for it instead. There are those who undoubtedly claim that he betrayed the government and Crown by negotiating a settlement with the nobility of Byzantium, yet are we not negotiating with those same men as we speak? The only difference is that he had not been given the authority to organize such negotiations, and in there lies the crux of the issue. He did not have permission, so the claim is he should be punished. Yet the fact he did not have permission means he did not have the power to make such an agreement anyway, so anything agreed to was never binding to begin with. If anything, he provided a starting point for negotiations with the Greek nobles. From what I've heard, these nobles even used the agreement they reached with Leon as their demands at the Council of Malta. Thanks to him, less work was required in getting the Greek nobles to the negotiation table and fleshing out potential points to consider.

We must also consider that this isn't the first time individual actors were used to flesh out agreements with rebel forces. I'm sure His Imperial Highness can attest to permitting various individuals to commence negotiations outside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Leon's only fault then was to agree to a deal rather than state that it could then be brought before the Crown for consideration. In the end, no harm was done, because as I said it was never binding. The Greek nobles haven't complained or raised a fuss about us lying to them, so why make it an issue.

There is also another issue to be raised with this trial. Leon may be a member of the Cortz, but he is also a lieutenant general in the army. While not explicitly stated, it would be logical to assume that when the current judicial system was created, the intention was for it to be for civilians. The military has always been held to separate standards, and quite frankly I find it disturbing that civilian authorities can try a general for his actions. A military tribunal would be preferred. The Ministry of Justice may be overreaching here, and this could well set a dangerous precedent. If civilian courts can try members of the military instead of placing those individuals under military jurisdiction, we could see conflicting interests at work soon enough. What's to say that the civilian courts won't start putting soldiers on trial for murder or anything else that would be considered a crime if it wasn't done in the line of duty? I am sure that there are those who say Leon's actions do not fall under that category, but then where is the line drawn? What or who decides when a crime committed by a member of the military places them under military or civilian jurisdiction? We would be better served to ensure that those in the military were subject solely to the protocols and laws of the military, not the whims of civilian judges.

- Prince Joan de Trastámara, Minister of War

((You are awaiting trial, but the trial will happen before the update so reducing VP for bail is pointless. Losing VP over several turns to avoid punishment is more akin to bribing authorities to drop the charges than being given bail.))

"Your Highness, to whom does a general owe his duty? To himself? Nay! To the Emperor alone! It is necessity, then, that he not develop a conflict of interest by openly supporting foreign political movements. Certainly, it would not be the intention of this Ministry to prosecute General De Leon if it was not for his own words towards the Restorationists, stating, and I quote: 'Rest assured your cause will be triumphant and your ideals will be heard and implemented by a new government in Constantinople.' Certainly, if the general does not reveal such a crisis of conscience with this statement, at what point may we call this what it so plainly is?

"Furthermore, as if his loyalty was not already in question both through what we have already established is his operation in a diplomatic capacity without the support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as well as his support for a revolutionary faction against our own ally, he goes on to say, in that same letter, 'God save the Basileus!' Would one loyal primarily to the Emperor speak in such a manner towards a foreign nation's ruler? Would we turn such a blind eye to those who would glorified the Austrian monarchy? Or the French? Or the Scottish? Is this a manner of speech appropriate of a Duke and a General?

"As for the matter of military tribunals, I believe that they ought to be reserved for crimes executed in the capacity of being a member of the military, so as to ensure that civil crimes are rendered in a consistent manner. There is no need for us to have two separate legal systems deciding the same cases, particularly when the Justice Act of 1773 grants the Ministry of Justice the authority to 'manage the court system.'


"While I do understand that there is a certain precedent for individuals engaging in diplomatic efforts independent of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it is important to remember that most prior exceptions to that Ministry's role have been rooted in a approval from His Majesty, the Emperor - not from the momentary wants of a military commander. Would we allow such actions if a lowly Andalusian merchant was to be negotiating separately from the government? For the sake of our nation's stability, I would sincerely hope we would not.

"I yield the floor."
 
It seems then that this is entirely an issue of semantics. What you find troubling, another may find harmless. The first comment to me is nothing but meaningless reassurance to keep the Greek nobles happy. What person engaged in negotiations of any kind wouldn't express support for a positive conclusion as the process wraps up? It is nothing more than Leon expressing a desire for the nobles and the government of Byzantium to reach a final settlement. We are already seeing some of the nobles' concerns addressed by the government in Constantinople. His comment fits with a man who desires reconciliation between two conflicting sides.

You speak as though praising the Basileus is a bad thing. He is the Greek head of state, and is more closely tied to my family than any other royal family in Europe. I'd be more concerned if he condemned the man to Hell instead. It is nothing but a sign of proper respect towards the Basileus. I would like to think the Greeks would treat His Imperial Highness with similar sentiment.

It seems to me that the thin line between civil and military jurisdiction will need to be clarified in the future to avoid conflicts.

- Prince Joan de Trastámara, Minister of War
 
((Malta))

It would appear that Hispania's representatives are not all of the same mind. In light of this revelation and the possible motives that may impact Hispania's fairness as a mediator, I request an end to this Council and call for a second one on Greek soil without Hispanian representation. If Hispania is incapable of remaining neutral and feels the need to allow personal rhetoric to sway their opinion, we shall be better off negotiating ourselves. If the representatives of the nobility agree, we shall meet on neutral Greek ground, perhaps Crete, and continue negotiations.

- Prime Minister Alexandros Kapodistrias

* * * * *

((Malta))

I do not believe we should be so hasty in ending this Council. Despite the odd choices in diplomatic representatives, Hispania still provides an outside view and serves as an able intermediary to aid us in seeking a peaceful resolution. I wish for us to continue as is.

As for these claims that we should just accept not being punished for our uprising, then perhaps our grievances are not understood well enough. When the Revolution first began, it was the nobility who suffered the most. We were hunted down and brutally murdered. Those of us who survived usually had our wealth stolen and estates burnt down. Despite the claims of the current government, we are not so well off. We scrape by on what has not been taken or destroyed. Why should we be content not to be punished when we have already been punished once before? We want compensation for what was done to us. We want equal representation in government, which I can assure you will be denied under the current government. The Prime Minister claims we can simply run for election, yet that hides the reality that we are still ostracized and kept from power. They would never let us get a seat even if we wanted one. The only way to ensure we are respected is to receive our rightful position in government through guaranteed seats in the Senate. The common people have the Legislative Assembly, and we do not protest its existence any longer. We do not demand the return to feudalism, or even exclusive right to rule. We will be content with fair representation in government and the return of what was taken from us in the form of wealth and estates.

- Duke Constantine Katakalon

((Malta))

Indeed we aren't of the same mind and thus hardly suited as mediators, all the Hispanian representatives can do is to attempt to support the cause they deem preferable; I trust the Byzantines to achieve any negotiations should they be started on their own. As long as we are here however, I will share my opinions on the current situation in Byzantium.

This talk of punishment is hardly useful. Why was there the revolution? Because of centuries of oppression from the nobility, in ignorance of countless demands made. Why is there a noble revolt? Because of a few years of moderate retribution against that past, without any previous demands, but merely an opportunistic attempt to seize power again. Moderate, yes. Because if you were all hunted down and brutally murdered as you claim, then how come you are standing here, Duke Katakalon? You survived and then lost what the past unjustly provided you.
If you would try to run for a seat, then I do not doubt you would have equal chances. That nobody would elect a man responsible for his past oppression is the only obstacle you have. And this is an obstacle that will take a lot of time and change of mentality to overcome, certainly not achievable through the use of force. You already have fair chances.
And if it is truly fair representation without return to feudality that you desire, then the status quo will hardly change. For how many nobles are there compared to the common man? This many seats would make a fair representation.
The Byzantine nobility is paying the price for its past negligence. And don't claim that it would be wrong to talk about the past - without said past, you would not be nobility and able to claim anything.
 
((Hey all, sorry not been around this week, despite being away from uni, i am now saddled with computer issues- i.e fudged up screen- through this it is hard for me to participate- Coupled with seeing family i am pretty busy these next few days, but i may get my laptop back by 28/29th if all goes well. Sorry once again and holiday wishes to all))
 
  • 1
Reactions:
((Malta))

Let us get back to the issue at hand. It is imperative that an agreement be reached between the current government and the nobility, preferably with the help of Hispania's official representatives.

The nobles have asked for compensation and I think it should be provided, as well as to anyone else who was wrongly treated during the Revolution, through loss of property or income. I think it a poor practice for a government to plunder the wealth of any of its citizens and then claim they have no right to compensation simply because they aren't in power. We also must consider the abrupt end to serfdom, which has likely damaged the income of most nobles. Of course such a practice will not be re-established, but it is another argument for further compensation.

As for the matter of the Senate, I believe a compromise can be pursued. The Prime Minister wants the Senate to remain as is, while Duke Katakalon and his fellow nobles desire the body to consist entirely of nobles. Neither choice is preferable to the other party. I believe Her Majesty, the Empress Dowager of Hispania, may have suggested at a possible alternative when she brought up the idea of appointed seats. Why not make the Senate an entirely appointed body? As to who makes the appointments, that can be up for debate. A certain percentage of seats could be determined by the Prime Minister and his government, another by myself, or perhaps some even appointed directly by the collective decision of the nobility. This, of course, can be worked out through further negotiations. With this system, the ruling party from the Legislative Assembly would have some influence over the Senate through the appointment of members under their portion of the house when seats became vacant, while the appointed positions chosen by me or possibly the nobility would ensure others had representation in the Senate as well. This would allow for the nobles to have a way to participate in government, although on a smaller scale than if the Senate was dedicated solely to them. This, however, would likely place the Senate in an inferior position to the Legislative Assembly, seeing as the government formed from their largest party would have influence over appointments in the Senate. Regardless, it seems a possible middle path to what has been proposed.

- Basileus Ioannes XI Palaiologos
 
((May as well get that trial going. I've used an RNG to determine which of the players will serve on the jury. For those chosen, you can turn down the jury position if you think you'll be busy or simply don't want to do it. All the jury members have to do is listen to each side plead their case and then decide if the accused is guilty or innocent. Then a punishment is decided if the accused is found guilty. Seeing as it's Christmas Eve right now and I expect many people to be busy for the next few days, no one should feel pressured to post anything right away. Just participate when you can and the trial will be dealt with eventually.

RNGesus has decided that @DragonOfAtlantis, @LostPatriot, @05060403, @wzhang29, and @Robban204 are our jury members. Any of the five can decline the position if they want and I'll randomly pick someone else. @zenphoenix can plead his case now if he wants and @Firehound15 can present evidence, although some has already been posted so that can just be used too.))
 
((Trial))

"Your Honor," said Fernando de Leon, "I would like to tell you that I respect the rule of law and will respect the outcome of this trial within the regulations of the law. With that said, I will plead my case.

I admit that I sent those letters; after all, I did turn them over to the cabinet of my own free will. However, I plead not guilty to charges of treason. It was to my understanding that any noble could attempt to negotiate with the Greeks provided that they do not sign a binding argument, which I did not.

My goal was to seek a peaceful solution to the conflict in the Greek empire. There were three factions fighting for control over there: the Kapodistrias government in Constantinople, the radical revolutionaries, and the nobles. Of the three, the radical rebels would have refused to negotiate with me and the Kapodistrias government would not have opened a dialogue. The nobles, though, had the support of the Turks and many non-Greek peoples. My reasoning was that if I could get the nobles to compromise and agree to terms that the Kapodistrias government would mostly agree to, I could avoid unnecessary bloodshed.

Many will claim that my unilateral action in opening negotiations with the nobility was treason, but is the government not doing the same thing right now? I understand that I did not have the authority to open negotiations, but at that point I was unaware of the consequences. In the past our Emperor agreed to allow others to attempt negotiations with rebels in the Greek empire. My only mistake was to agree to a settlement as though I had the authority to do so; I neglected to write that any terms that the nobles will agree to have to be cleared with the government in Valencia at subsequent state-level negotiations.

Hispania and its interests have not been harmed by my actions, for they were never binding, although it may have given the nobles false expectations. Is the definition of treason not to take hostile action against one's own government with the intent of harming said own government? I have not lifted a finger against my Emperor or the government of Valencia. I did not have the intent to subvert my own government. None of my actions have harmed my own government. Therefore, I have not committed treason.

If anything, as several individuals have pointed out I provided a starting point for negotiations with the Greek nobles, thus lessening the amount of work needed to come to an agreement. I can summon His Imperial Highness and His Excellency the Prince Joan de Trastamara, Minister of War, as witnesses to this.

Let me ask a question for all of you: why did I reveal those letters? Surely if I had knowingly committed a crime I would not have revealed them. The logical conclusion is that I did not knowingly commit a crime. Instead, I believed that my actions would help the government in its negotiations with the rebels, saving it time and effort. I genuinely wanted to help out the Empire. Granted, I overstepped my boundaries in acting unilaterally and not letting the nobles know that the negotiations weren't final. That I will admit. But I did not commit treason. I did not intend to subvert my government, nor was my government subverted. Therefore, I did not commit treason.

I rest my case. Thank you for listening."

((Let the games begin.:cool:))
 
((Trial))

*A Ministry of Justice Prosecutor gives his opening remarks*

"The case brought against Lieutenant General De Leon is not directly built upon a criticism of his effort to engage in diplomatic activities which were, while negligent, hardly worthy of being prosecuted on their own demerits. Rather, the Ministry of Justice is trying the Duke on account of his collusion with foreign revolutionary organizations - that is, that rather than placing the interests of Hispania first, separate from his own wants, he clearly chose to grant them promises with the intention to oppose any policy which did not directly align with that faction with which he conspired.

"To aid in the understanding of this situation, the prosecution would like to present Exhibit A, taken from the General's own published letters."

-EXHIBIT A-
We have a deal, then. It was nice working with you. Rest assured your cause will be triumphant and your ideals will be heard and implemented by a new government in Constantinople.

Long live the Roman people! God save the Basileus!

- - -
"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?

"Now, it is our effort as the prosecution to prove that the Duke did not simply make such statements idly, but did so with the express intention of using all of his powers - stepping far beyond the confines of his office - to promote and push for the success of a foreign revolutionary group against an allied government, an action which was done not with governmental approval, nor with a love for Hispania and its ruler in mind.

"It is the first of these claims upon which this case is built. That is, that he had the direct intention to use his office beyond its parameters to aid in their cause. This premise is shown clearly in Exhibit A, as he states quite clearly that 'your ideals will be heard and implemented by a new government in Constantinople.' To clearly reflect his intention to aid the Restorationist cause, we present Exhibit B."

-EXHIBIT B-
I am able to grant your request with regards to the second clause. Would forcing the numbers of the Legislative Assembly to be restricted to match those of the Senate be acceptable instead? Everything else will remain in place.

- - -
"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?

"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.

"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.

"Thank you."
 
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."
 
A lawyer representing General de Leon stands up. It just so happens that he is a Camponista.


"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?


"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.

"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.

"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."

"Certainly, it is no surprise that an individual who is attempting to advance an agenda outside of the Hispanian government would be so willing to make such statements - they are, after all, quite plainly the words of an individual who we have clearly shown holds no respect or regard for stability. For what reason would he be seeking a 'good deal' if not for his own ends? It is quite clear that the Lieutenant General would not know how to properly conduct himself diplomatically, for the would-be ambassador was operating outside of the rational boundaries of the Crown!

"As for the matter of military position disqualifying the capacity or desire to engage in undermining activities, we need only glance towards our nation's own past. In our own Civil War, Field Marshal Fausto Villanova was one of the primary contributors to an outright act of treason against the Emperor! And we speak now as if military capacity precludes a tendency towards such scornful behaviors? Let us not forget that long before Montsegur was a revolutionary, he was a hand of the Emperor! Many shadowy men have esteemed families, but to argue that such a background would prevent human vice and the urge towards sin is a complete fallacy!

"The defense claims that they have refuted both of our claims with evidence, yet what evidence have they given? A generalized notion about heritage and an incorrect concept of statecraft? Setting aside the fact that the Lieutenant General jeopardized our national interests in his foolish maneuver, the defense has still completely failed to address our concern beyond vague hand-waving. Certainly, those words are clear, and we have presented them directly to the jury.

"If not for his own gain and the success of a foreign revolutionary group with whom he sympathizes, why else would he have engaged in this conversation? Mind you, out of every letter which he released, not a single one was addressed to Byzantine Radicals, nor to the Byzantine Government. Does this speak of a man earnestly attempting to mediate, or an individual stepping far beyond the boundaries of his office? It is clear that Fernando de Leon had his interests - just as he said - in assuring the success of the Restorationist 'cause.'

"It is with this in mind that I reiterate the charge placed against him: that he had colluded with foreign revolutionary organizations. The defense may claim that this was simply a matter of attempting diplomacy, but all our evidence very clearly paints a portrait of a man who intended to use his office to support and aid these Restorationists. If that is not criminal, then what is?

"The prosecution rests."