Call to Assize: Mister Rhodri Taliesin

[Rhodri Taliesin]

Second set of questions.

1: Because it was assumed you were with the enemy Guttersnipes when I witnessed your character throwing a healing spell onto one of the blues in their group.

2: Through Kreager Stonewall only in hindsight.

3: This question was already answered previously

4: Because you were assumed to be with the enemy, I'm not going to waste words trying to negotiate for equipment looted, I will act and retrieve it myself.

5: You are repeating your previous question.

6: You have been known in the past to have had alternate characters that have been part of enemy guilds and even gone as far as to assist them. Anyone other than myself remember the character "Dreadmine(d)?

7: Investigating it myself I have spoken with Aly and Vyncent of the guild AA, though their collective memories are fuzzy since the time of the incident, the name "Kumiko" does ring a bell amongst those two and the rest of their guild. In what context is inconclusive.

8: Of course I am aware of this court, as I've been here before concerning an issue with another disgruntled Villein.

9: As a soldier it is lawful to deal with an assumed enemy with lethal force.

10: I object to this question, as to it's accusatory nature and has no place in this court of law.

11: I cannot claim to speak for Kreager Stonewall, if you are curious you should ask him yourself.

12: I shall repeat my previous answer.

13 & 14: This question is repeated twice. In short, No, if the enemy murders a person belonging to our people and take his property, the items and equipment still belong to the original owner, period.



Now that these questions are answered, I would request that we put this Assize on hold between the days of the 23rd of November when I leave for Thanksgiving road trip, through to the 1st of December when I am scheduled to return.

[Altus Whyte]

Plaintiff, post any follow-up questions or state that you do not have any. The defendant will then answer them when he returns 131201.

The plaintiff has until 131201 to do so.

[Dreadlust Shadow]

1o you have any evidence that I was healing any of the guttersnipes members? If I was indeed working with guts, wouldn't i have jeportised my standing with the alliance that was formed in order to destroy the guttersnipes in the first place?

2:Would it not have been a worthwhile investment in the long run to have had a few words with me back then, rather than murdering me and using the words that you have already used throughout in this court-case?

3o you have any evidence to prove your claims of me having alts in other guilds?

4.My understanding was that it is lawful for soldiers to deal with CONFIRMED enemies (such as wardec'd opponents, or people on the KoS list) rather than SUSPECTED enemies. Otherwise, are we not supporting chaotic vigilantism where we can murder people, even members of Wessex, based on suspicion without the need to produce evidence?

[Rhodri Taliesin]

I am returned as of 11/30/2013 at 10:51 PM

[Altus Whyte]

Defendant, answer the new questions within 24 hours.

[Rhodri Taliesin]

I object to this line of questioning; The Plaintiff is merely repeating himself at this point.

[Altus Whyte]

I do not see any question that has already been asked and clearly answered. If you still have objections then specify to which question it is that you object and for what reason.

Going forward everyone in this assize is instructed to address each question one by one when objecting.


Question 1 is actually two questions, so answer to following:

1. Do you have any evidence that I was healing any of the guttersnipes members?

2. If I was indeed working with guts, wouldn't i have jeportised my standing with the alliance that was formed in order to destroy the guttersnipes in the first place?

3. Would it not have been a worthwhile investment in the long run to have had a few words with me back then, rather than murdering me and using the words that you have already used throughout in this court-case?

4. Do you have any evidence to prove your claims of me having alts in other guilds?

5. My understanding was that it is lawful for soldiers to deal with CONFIRMED enemies (such as wardec'd opponents, or people on the KoS list) rather than SUSPECTED enemies. Otherwise, are we not supporting chaotic vigilantism where we can murder people, even members of Wessex, based on suspicion without the need to produce evidence?

Respond within 24 hours.

[Rhodri Taliesin]

1: No more evidence than you have with your claims of murder.

2: Due to mechanical constraints your so called "allies" wouldn't know that you were running around with Guttersnipes if you used an alternate character to do the deed, one that they were unaware of.

3: This question was already answered, please don't repeat your questions using different words. (Objection to this question)

4: Following this thread here, please read the original post carefully.

5:It is an unwritten mantra amongst veteran Garrison that it is better to act and ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission when regarding points that require immediate action to be taken.

Though it is entirely possible to argue that at the time in question the leadership of Kora Havion disavowed my association with Wessex and that I was not actively a member of Wessex in Mortal Online and therefore not subject to following a soldiers code of conduct.

[Altus Whyte]

Objection to question 3 overruled. Defendant, you have explained your reasoning behind the killing to us along with your general principles on the matter. Question 3 asks whether you in hindsight would rather have done differently and talked to the plaintiff.

As for the answer to 4, you have linked a statement contained in a restricted non-public section, unavailable to the plaintiff and the jury. What you can do is state that you intend to call the author of the statement to make the statement to this public assize, or request the original statement to be made public and available to this trial.

Answer questions 3 and 4 within 24 hours.

[Rhodri Taliesin]

3: I continue to object to this question as hindsight is based off of an opinion and not pertinent to my guilt or lack thereof as it pertains to the incident in question.

4: I do intend to call the Author Sir Otto Osterwind to make his statement public, though if possible and to save time I would also request the original statement be made publicly available. Or if it is permitted, I could also supply a screen-shot of the post referenced.