HomeHome  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  Log inLog in  

Share | 

 [Public Disorder] Wiltshire vs. Wulfric- Guilty

Go down 

Number of posts : 164
Registration date : 2005-12-16

PostSubject: [Public Disorder] Wiltshire vs. Wulfric- Guilty   Thu 9 Nov - 12:07

Bill of indictment wrote:
The defendant is charged with violation of Wiltshire Law 007 - Public Disorder, Section 004 - Abuse of Power

We charge that the defendant, Wulfric, ex-Mayor of Salisbury, has abused the power of the office of Mayor. As per the law:
Any official, appointed or elected, who shall

- abuse the powers of their office;
- grossly neglect their duties;
- act in a way disadvantageous of the people of Wiltshire or any town in Wiltshire;
- and/or commit any deed punishable under the Laws of Wiltshire

When Wulfric placed all items in the Town Hall for 1 pound each, he positioned the town hall to lose money. The money that would be lost belongs to the entire town of Salisbury, not Wulfric alone. We feel that this is grossly neglegent in the duties of the office of mayor. We also feel that this disadvantages the people of Salisbury by depleting the Town Hall and preventing future mayors from being able to purchase goods from and for the Salisbury citizens. Evidence has been posted in the Wiltshire Inn for all to see.

First defence pleading wrote:
I freely admit to selling all Town Hall goods at 1 pound each. I, however, accept no responsibility for the rich folks plundering it all for their own profit and gain. The poor, as per usual, got next to none of those GIFTS from me while the rich made off like bandits, and will no doubt never be brought to trial for THEIR part in this.

As far as preventing future Mayors from buying and selling goods, I think not. It is explained quite clearly by Sajan (on forums) how they will retrieve the goods from anyone honest enough to return them. Of course, I already know enough of you are not honest enough to return most of the items.

Prosecutor indictment wrote:
Your Honor,
The Defendant has admitted to placing the Town Hall goods at 1 pound each. However, he is trying to cloud the issue before us by bringing in the actions of other citizens before you. We are here to determine Wulfric's guilt, not the possibility of the guilt of others.

Let me now address his comments of the 'rich' and 'poor'. He decided not to define the characteristics of these people, thus allowing for ambiguity to be part of his defense. As I surmise from his statement, the 'rich' citizens would be those who have some money on them. They are most likely citizens who have been a part of society for a while, cultivate one or two fields and may even ply a profession like baker or carpenter. The 'rich' have invested plenty of their time and money into their living and society and would have a large amount of Charisma associated with themselves.

The 'poor' would be those citizens who are releatively new to our society, have not firmly established themselves in a town and are working to improve their position in life. Since they are new, they have not had as much opportunity to build up a large amount of Charisma for themselves.

His statement that the 'poor' were not able to get any of the 'GIFTS' due to the 'rich' being able to buy them shows some disrgard for fellow citizens. Our markets are open for anyone to purchase any items that are available. When two citizens independantly choose to purchase the same item, the market sells to whomever has more Charisma. Shall we penalize people for having spent more time and effort in bettering themselves? We cannot.

As for the 'rich' and their part in this, if a law was broken and the county has evidence of this, we will pursue it. If the defendant has that information, we would be most glad to pursue action against the 'rich'. However, we are not here to debate if others are guilty, we are here to determine Wulfric's guilt.

The facts are plain: He sold all the Town Hall good for 1 pound each, thus losing money for the Town Hall and the citizens of Salisbury. This action then places Salisbury at a financial disadvantage if the need to import necessary goods arises. This is one of the conditions required for a guilty verdict in the Abuse of Power law.

Last defence pleading wrote:
The defendant didn't present to the Court.

Statement wrote:
The defendant has been proved guilty of public disorder.
Wulfric, your actions have had a disastrous impact on the economy of Salisbury. That you would take the important position of mayor just to bring this kind of destruction constitutes abuse of power of the highest order.

I order you to pay a fine of 3000 pounds. You are also sentenced to 'time served' in jail.
The defendant has been sentenced to 3000 pounds fine.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
[Public Disorder] Wiltshire vs. Wulfric- Guilty
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
» Does anyone in Melbourne know of any free shower/bathroom facilities?

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Archives of England :: Wiltshire County-
Jump to: