Your honour,

A foundational principle of justice is that the accused is always innocent until proven guilty. It is never the case that the defendant must be proven innocent; it is always the case that they must be proven guilty, and then beyond reasonable doubt.

In this matter the defendant, Cormac, has been accused of Treason. It is our most serious crime - the only one to carry a mandatory and immediate sentence of banishment - and as such the burden of proof for this crime must be the highest, beyond what expected of other crimes. It is not sufficient for the prosecution to make a case that the defendant may have committed treason; it must be shown that the defendant has committed treason.

Treason is defined as "plotting against the Coalition, seeking to lower the delegate's endorsement count without his or her consent, breaking the endorsement cap after receiving an official warning, aiding any entity in which the Coalition is taking defensive action against, or any entity in which a state of war exists with."  This is a list of four specific acts; it must be demonstrated by the prosecution that at least one of these has been committed by the treason. Of these it is immediately evident that the defendant has not committed three of these acts; indeed, the prosecution has not even attempted to demonstrate such. The only act that the prosecution accuses the defendant of is the first; plotting against the Coalition.

Another foundational principle of justice is the elements of a crime; those facts that must be proven for a safe conviction. These are, in brief; intention, action and concurrence. It must be shown that the defendant had the intention of committing a criminal act; it must be shown that the defendant committed a criminal act; it must be shown that the intent and the act existed at the same time.

Your honour, at no point has any evidence been submitted even suggesting that a criminal act occurred; whilst evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the defendant possessed the intent to plot against the Coalition, demonstrated by a series of threats and declarations made in a public forum, no evidence has been submitted that shows such plotting occurring. The sole prosecution witness was unable to provide any testimony to demonstrate such, and actively evaded answering such a question. Declarations of desire and intent in a public forum does not rise to the necessary level for a criminal act to have occurred. This failure to submit any evidence of an act makes conviction impossible; the very definition of treason requires the accused to be plotting against the Coalition, not merely to express a desire or intent to overthrow it at some indistinct moment in the future. The desire or intent to overthrow GCR governments is expressed in NSGP on a daily basis; were such to be considered sufficient in of itself to qualify as treason then we would be criminalising speech and thought, much of it ill considered and rarely acted upon.

That this trial has proceeded as far as it has is already an absurdity; in the absence of any evidence of a criminal act it should have been dismissed long ago, and that it wasn't reflects poorly on your honour and calls into question your objectivity and impartiality. There is little question that this case would never have been brought against an individual better liked than the defendant who had made the same comments, or that if brought would have been allowed to continue in the absence of any evidence of a criminal act.

This matter is simple. What specific act does the prosecution allege the defendant committed? When did it occur? What effect did it have? Who witnessed it? Where is the evidence of it? If these answers cannot be answered positively then there is no case to answer. It is never possible to prove a negative, to demonstrate somethings non-existence; that is why the burden lies with the party making an allegation, and never with the party contesting it. In the absence of a single piece of evidence of an act - indeed, in the absence of even an allegation of an act - this court has no choice but to find for the defense.