Your Honor,
I begin by quoting the prosecution: "The law is clear." At least on this, we can agree.
For the past 30 days, the prosecution has built its case on assumptions, filing a complaint full of speculation. Despite the defense repeatedly disproving their claims, they persisted until their closing statement.
To conclude this case, the defense presents undeniable facts, supported by evidence, to put these baseless accusations to rest once and for all.
1 No Abuse of Power - All investigations were lawful
Investigations into Wetc, LukeTheGreat, and MilkCrack were initiated based on the evidence presented in Exhibits E, J, and K, respectively. All of this evidence was lawfully obtained, and the prosecution has failed to provide evidence to the contrary. The defendant has testified under oath that each investigation was based on valid evidence and that there was no strategizing aimed at disbarring political opponents. This testimony was further corroborated by Nanicholls.
Naturally, as Minister of Justice, the defendant had the authority to initiate these investigations, as they were legitimate criminal matters.
2 Selective Prosecution – False Equivalence
It is absurd to assume all evidence in these cases is identical. Each case is handled independently, and the prosecution has failed to prove that the evidence against LukeTheGreat and OverlordOfPeonys is the same. Furthermore, OverlordOfPeonys has not been declared innocent, as the statute of limitations still allows for their arrest.
The prosecution claims that 'deprioritizing' a case is the 'textbook definition of corruption.' However, Criminal Code Section 2.4 defines corruption as 'refusing to fulfill one's duty' or using a position for personal gain. Prioritizing cases due to an understaffed department is not corruption—it is necessary governance.
Finally, the defense rejects the term 'political opponents' in reference to the defendant’s actions. As the defendant testified: 'Yes, I discussed suspensions, but regardless of political preference or position.'
3. No coercion– LukeTheGreat’s Decision Was Voluntary
The prosecution points to LukeTheGreat's belief that joining the party would lead to his case being dropped. But belief is not fact. Both the defendant and LukeTheGreat testified that no explicit offers were made.
The prosecution presents no evidence beyond coincidental timing. The defense acknowledges LukeTheGreat’s feelings of pressure but maintains that the defendant was unaware of this—no concerns were ever communicated. Even those with the authority to question him failed to do so, instead rushing to file a lawsuit. The defendant cannot be held accountable for an assumption he neither knew of nor acted upon.
4. No Corruption, No Treason, No Crime
The prosecution insists that intent is irrelevant, yet their entire case depends on claims of deliberate misconduct—without proof.
But without clear, indisputable proof of these deliberate acts, their case collapses.
- There was no abuse of power—only legal investigations.
- There was no selective prosecution—only prioritization.
- There was no coercion—only circumstantial timing.
To claim treason is outright absurd. Treason is the highest crime against the state, involving betrayal, espionage, or acts of war. Political disputes and investigative decisions do not constitute treason.
Conclusion
Your Honor, to quote the prosecution once more: ‘the evidence is overwhelming.’
But the law demands more than accusations—it demands evidence. It demands that guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed to meet this standard. Their case is built on speculation, assumptions, and political theater, not concrete proof. They have presented no direct evidence of corruption, coercion, or intent.
The defendant acted fully within the scope of their duties, and there is no lawful basis for a conviction.
For these reasons, we respectfully ask the court to deliver a verdict of not guilty on all charges.
Furthermore, this trial has placed an unjustified burden on the defendant. A case built entirely on speculation, assumptions, and baseless allegations—without sustainable proof—should never have been brought to trial. Over the course of a month, the defendant has been forced to divert time, energy, and resources to defend against unfounded claims. This has resulted in significant legal fees, damage to reputation due to bad publicity, and undue personal and professional stress.
Thus, the defendant seeks compensatory damages of no less than $20,000 and up to $50,000 for legal expenses, reputational harm, and other damages incurred due to this state-sponsored act of malicious prosecution.
As we’ve seen, Your Honor, one side is based on evidence, while the other relies on speculation, accusations, and assumptions. The defendant has acted lawfully, impartially, and with integrity. The charges are unsupported by credible evidence, and we trust the court will recognize this.
Thank you, Your Honor.
