Philip Bradly-Lashawn v. Sebastian Noble trial

Trial

Starting the trial

Judge Ismagiloff: This is the case in the matter of the Lovian succession. Present in the court room are the Supreme Court Judges, the plaintiff, defendant and their legal representatives. I invite the plaintiff to introduce his accusations to the court. 13:27, September 12, 2013 (UTC)

Accusations

• Violation of Article 1B.2 of the Constitution
  • Neither Prince Dimitri or King Sebastian legally inherited the throne after the death of King Arthur III in 2007. As the throne must pass to the first child (if any) of the ruling king or queen, the throne should have rightly gone to Philip Bradly-Lashawn, the eldest child of King Arthur III.

• Violation of Article 1B.4 of the Constitution
  • King Sebastian did not sign the Constitution on becoming Monarch of Lovia, therefore he cannot legally be King.

--- Anthony Valbuena - 19:49, September 23, 2013 (UTC)

Parties and representatives

• Plaintiff: represented by Anthony Valbuena.
  • Philip Bradly-Lashawn
• Defendant: represented by Lukas Hoffmann and Christopher Costello.
  • Sebastian Noble

Lawsuit

Reading the case

Judge Ismagiloff: The plaintiff Anthony Valbuena, on behalf of Philip Bradly Lashawn has requested the Supreme Court to give its opinion on the matter of the Lovian succession. Sebastian Noble, acting King of Lovia, and Dimitri Noble, former acting King of Lovia, are accused of a violation of article 1B.2 regarding the correct line of succession. Sebastian Noble is further accused of a violation of article 1B.4 regarding the ceremonial process the heir apparent undergoes prior to coronation. Mr. Valbuena demands the deposal of Sebastian Noble from his current position as acting King and institution of Philip Bradly-Lashawn in his place.

Note that for the duration of this case Sebastian and Dimitri Noble shall be designated 'acting King' and 'former acting King' in the courtroom, in acknowledgement of their de facto position while withholding judgement on its legality until the end of the trial. 20:51, September 23, 2013 (UTC)‎

Plaintiff's first round

Judge Ismagiloff: Mr. Valbuena, you may now proceed with his initial argument. You may bring forward witnesses and any other pertinent evidence in order to convince the Supreme Court of the truth of your charges, including questioning the defendant, as the Constitution allows. 20:51, September 23, 2013‎ (UTC)