Author Topic: Roman Republic vs. Lorenzo Chiaramonte  (Read 1884 times)

(RIP) John Furnam

  • General group
  • Baby Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Honour: 0
Roman Republic vs. Lorenzo Chiaramonte
« on: 12 November, 2012, 10:47:29 PM »
I, Judge of Rome - John Furnam, start this trial in the matter of Rome Republic vs Lorenzo Chiaramonte. The various roles for this Court Case have been assigned by me and will be as follows:

Magistrate: John Furnam
Prosecution: Duncan Hamilton
Defendant: Lorenzo Chiaramonte

The Defendant may assign his own Defense Attorney or he may act as his own Defense for this case. If Sir Chiaramonte would like a Defense Attorney, I ask that he announce his name as soon as possible.

The Prosecution may now proceed with this Court Case by reading the charge and presenting it’s evidence…
« Last Edit: 14 November, 2012, 02:17:54 AM by John Furnam »

(RIP) Duncan Hamilton

  • General group
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 56
  • Honour: 0
Re: Roman Republic vs. Lorenzo Chiaramonte
« Reply #1 on: 13 November, 2012, 10:50:29 PM »
Thank you your honour. The accused is a citizen of Sicily as we all know is a hostile state to Rome and such ones are forbiden to enter or stay in Rome. The accused is in fact an active member of an enemy army and have previously participated in battels agains Rome and Rome's allies. He must have somehow sneaked in Rome to most likely spy on us where he was restrained by our vigilant city guard. Lorenzo Chiaramonte has then violated statue 5 article 2, and statue 6a article 1 of Roman law:

Statute 5 - Foreign Soldiers and Enemy Combatants

Article II. Enemy Combatants - Any person within the city limits suspected of being an enemy combatant to Rome or her allies may be detained for up to two days while their intentions can be ascertained. Evidence of being an enemy combatant includes, but is not limited to, having previously engaged in battles against Rome or her allies; being a citizen of a country with current or eminent hostile intentions toward Rome or her allies; aligning oneself through words, actions or association with enemies of Rome or her allies.

Those accused will have all of their market items temporarily confiscated from the market and be barred from leaving the city until a trial is convened. Individuals found guilty will be punished by confiscation of all market goods and either three days of imprisonment or fine of 1,500 silver pieces.

Statute 6a - Closed Borders to Enemies of Rome

Proclaimed by: George Killian, Vassal - of
Proclaimed on: 12-September-1312

Article I - Foreign Hostile States
The borders of Rome are closed to any citizens from Foreign Hostile States (see list below).


Any citizen of a Foreign Hostile State found within the borders Rome will be punished by confiscation of all market items and either imprisonment for two days or a fine of 1,000 silver pieces.

I therefore ask your honour to sentence the accused to 3 days of imprisonment and a fine of 1000 silver pieces.

I present the following evidence to support the charges:

Let the accused speak now and tell us whether he choses to appoint someone to defend him and then proceed with the defence.
« Last Edit: 13 November, 2012, 10:58:37 PM by Duncan Hamilton »

(RIP) Lorenzo Chiaramonte

  • General group
  • Baby Member
  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Honour: 0
Re: Roman Republic vs. Lorenzo Chiaramonte
« Reply #2 on: 14 November, 2012, 01:23:25 PM »
Grazie Vostra onore, procedero' personalmente alla mia difesa.

Sono stato accusato da questa corte di aver violato l'articolo 2 dello statuto 5 e l'articolo 1 dello statuto 6.

Gli articoli sono chiari, come e' chiaro il fatto che sono cittadino Siciliano e che i nostri Regni sono probabilmente nemici.
Ma le prove presentate dal capitano della guardia, Messere Hamilton, non possono colpevolizzarmi.
Mi spiego meglio Vostra onore:
- il primo screenshot [ ] presentato da Messer Hamilton non dimostra in nessun modo
che io mi trovavo all'interno dei territori Romani.

Quindi, non potendo dimostrare questo, non ho infranto in alcun modo l'articolo 1 dello statuto 6 il quale evidenzia il fatto che i confini di
Roma sono chiusi ai cittadini Siciliani.

- il secondo screenshot [ ] presentato da Messer Hamilton, dimostra che io ero in
DIFESA di un territorio "amico" da un attacco da parte del Granducato di Urbino.
L'articolo 2 dello statuto 5 dichiara che "uno e' nemico se combatte contro Roma o i suoi alleati oppure ha intenzioni ostili contro Roma
o i suoi alleati", la mia era solamente una azione di difesa e non una intenzione ostile nei confronti di Roma.
In piu' Roma non viene minimamente citata nella battaglia che vede il Granducato di Urbino attaccare la regione di Salerno (Regno di Napoli).
Infine, non c'e' nessun documento, attestato che dichiari una alleanza tra la Repubblica Romana ed il Granducato di Urbino, quindi, come cita la legge,
non possiamo considerare gli Urbinati "alleati".
Di fatto, anche questa legge non e' stata infranta.

Per concludere, vostra onore, volevo evidenziare il fatto che Messer Duncan ha postato la sua accusa oltre il tempo massimo di 24h.
Da regolamento:

Every Trial concerning cities of each Kingdom will take place in this sub-forum. Each step should be concluded within 24 hours of the previous step.

ogni passo del processo deve essere concluso entro le 24h. In piu', sempre da regolamento:

If the Prosecution or the Defense does not post within the expected time for a given step, the Judge MUST proceed to the next step in the process as soon as he can.

In questo caso le accuse di Messer Duncan non dovrebbero essere tenute in considerazione e questo implica che il processo non ha capi di accusa
e che quindi non posso essere processato.

Questo e' tutto Vostra onore. Grazie per avermi dato la parola.


Thank you your honor, I will proceed 'personally to my defense.

I've been accused by this court to have violated Article 2 of the Statute 5 and Article 1 of the Statute 6.

The articles are clear, and as' clear that I am a citizen Siciliano and our kingdoms are probably enemies.
But the evidence presented by the captain of the guard, Sir Hamilton can not blaming.
Let me explain your honor:
- The first screenshot [] by Messer Hamilton does not in any way
that I was inside the territories of the Romans.

So, we can not prove this, I have not broken in any way Article 1 of the Statute 6, which highlights the fact that the boundaries of
Rome closed to citizens Sicilians.

- The second screenshot [] presented by M. Hamilton, shows that I was in
DEFENSE of a territory "friend" from an attack by the Grand Duchy of Urbino.
5 Article 2 of the Statute states that "one and the 'enemy if he fights against Rome or its allies or has hostile intentions against Rome
or its allies, "mine was only a defensive action and not a hostile intention toward Rome.
More 'Rome is not mentioned at all in the battle that sees the Grand Duchy of Urbino attack the region of Salerno (Kingdom of Naples).
Finally, there's' no document, certificate declaring an alliance between the Roman Republic and the Grand Duchy of Urbino, then, cites as the law,
we can not consider the Urbinati "allies."
In fact, this law is not 'been broken.

Finally, your honor, I wanted to highlight the fact that Messer Duncan posted his indictment beyond the maximum time of 24 hours.
By regulation:

Every Trial Concerning cities of each Kingdom will take place in this sub-forum. Each step Should be Concluded within 24 hours of the previous step.

every step of the process must be completed within 24 hours. In addition, 'always Regulation:

If the Prosecution or the Defense does not post Within the expected time for a Given step, the Judge MUST proceed to the next step in the process as soon as he can.

In this case the charges of Sir Duncan should not be taken into account and this implies that the process has not accusations
and therefore can not be processed.

That 's it your honor. Thank you for allowing me to speak.

(RIP) John Furnam

  • General group
  • Baby Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Honour: 0
Re: Roman Republic vs. Lorenzo Chiaramonte
« Reply #3 on: 14 November, 2012, 11:00:51 PM »
Thank you both.

First of all I am going to accept the charges brought by prosecution as it is reasonable to say that the charges were presented in front of the court within 24 hrs from opening the trial.

The limit was exceeded by 2.5 minutes yet the forum time has not recently been changed to the winter time along with game time which causes 1hr time difference between game and forum times that caused confusion and contributed to the situation.

Secondly, what is a screenshot? I have no idea what the accused is speaking of but the evidence presented by prosecution clearly shows that accused was present in Rome. I have no doubts about it. I've got a report from the city guard saying that accused was detained in Rome. Does accused dare to lie to this court in such a low level fashion claiming that was not the case? Furthermore evidence clearly shows that accused is a member of

LEGIONE ITALICA - Compagnia I Titani (Military)
La Legione Italica è l'armata della Confederazione dei Popoli Italici che lotta per la Libertà e la Giustizia dei Popoli oppressi.

which is as above description say 'army of the Confederation of Peoples Italic' which is enemy of Rome and so proves that accused is an enemy combatant in terms of Statue 5 of Roman law.

Does accused want to add anything to his defence?

(RIP) Lorenzo Chiaramonte

  • General group
  • Baby Member
  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Honour: 0
Re: Roman Republic vs. Lorenzo Chiaramonte
« Reply #4 on: 16 November, 2012, 09:26:07 AM »
Messer Duncan ha avuto 24 ore di tempo per preparare l'accusa e per quei 2,5 minuti di ritardo il processo deve essere definito non valido.

Scusate per la parola "screenshot", intendevo le prove presentate dal capitano della guardia, sono sicuro che avevate comunque inteso.
Continuo a ribadire che le prove riportate non sono ammissibili perchè entrambe non dimostrano nulla.
Una è la mia immagine e nell'altra prova invece sono riportate le mie imprese in una battaglia dove difendo un territorio che non era nemmeno attaccato da Roma.

Per quanto riguarda la mia appartenenza a gruppi, non credo che a questa corte debba importare la mia affiliazione e non sono incriminato per questo motivo.
Ne io ne nessuno del gruppo da voi nominato ha alzato mai mano contro Roma, invece si è solo e sempre difeso.
Non siamo noi a dover essere chiamati nemici.
Per il transito siamo noi quelli che si devono guardare bene non il contrario, anche se da quanto vedo qui ci si diverte a processare tutti, anche gli innocenti.

Sperando di avere di fronte un magistrato imparziale e non due accuse che si aiutano a vicenda, attendo la vostra sentenza.
Volevo solo ricordare, Vostra onore, che il compito del magistrato è quello di emettere un verdetto finale e non di fare le veci del procuratore.


Sir Duncan had 24 hours to prepare the prosecution and for those 2.5 minutes of delay the process needs to be defined is not valid.

Sorry for the word "screenshot", I mean the evidence submitted by the captain of the guard, I'm sure you had understood however.
I continue to reiterate that the evidence are inconsistent because both do not prove anything.
One is my image and in the test instead shows my business in a battle where I defend a territory that was not even attacked by Rome.

As for my group membership, I do not think that this court has to import my membership and are not charged for this reason.
Neither I nor any of the group appointed by you has ever raised his hand against Rome, instead it is only and always defended.
Not to us to be called enemies.
For transit we are the ones that you have to look good not the other, though from what I see here likes to process all, even the innocent.

Hoping to get in front of a judge is not impartial and two counts you help each other, I await your judgment.
I just wanted to remind you, Your Honor, that the task of the judge is to issue a final verdict and not to take the place of the prosecutor.

(RIP) John Furnam

  • General group
  • Baby Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Honour: 0
Re: Roman Republic vs. Lorenzo Chiaramonte
« Reply #5 on: 16 November, 2012, 04:07:05 PM »
I hear by find that the defandant not guilty. I will release him, and he will have a choice of where to go. He will only have 24 hours to leave, so he'd better hurry. That is all.