NADIA VS. EDWARD — DAY 2 PREP.

NADIA VS. EDWARD — DAY 2 DRAFT
October 20, 2026 • ? p.m. SLT
Presiding Magistrate: Kelli
Representing Nadia: Lady Kati Evans
Representing Edward: Jessika Roberts

◈◉◈ ══════════════ ◈◉◈

QUESTIONS FOR EDWARD — DAY 2

THE CONTACT NADIA DESCRIBED

1. Did you touch Nadia’s cheek?
2. Did you touch her lips?
3. Did you tug or pull her clothing?
4. Did you pull her closer to you?

If he admits any contact, ask:

5. What did Nadia say or do when you touched her?
6. Did she slap your hands away?
7. Did she try to move out of your hold?
8. What did you do in response?

If he denies the contact, establish his answer clearly and move on. Save the comparison with Nadia’s testimony for closing.

◈◉◈ ══════════════ ◈◉◈

NADIA VS. EDWARD — CLOSING STATEMENT
Lady Kati Evans, representing Lady Nadia

Magistrate, this case concerns Lady Nadia’s right to protect her home and person. Her testimony was that Edward entered without invitation, ignored her requests to leave, and touched her against her wishes. She described taking up a broom, resisting his contact, and calling for assistance. I ask the court to consider those specific actions when weighing the defense’s claim that she intended to seduce him.

Nadia did not claim that Edward pushed her through the doorway or caused a physical injury. She acknowledged that the passage was wide enough for him to walk past her and explained that she did not seek a physician because she was not hurt. Those answers do not withdraw her allegation of unwanted contact. Turmus law distinguishes between the two: Section 2.2.1.1 defines assault as “PHYSICAL ATTACK THAT CAUSES HARM,” while Section 2.2.1.2 defines battery as “NOT CONSENTED TO PHYSICAL CONTACT WITH ANOTHER PERSON.” I ask the court to assess the conduct she described under the applicable law, rather than treat the absence of injury as proof that no offense occurred.

Nadia testified that Edward caressed her cheeks and lips, tugged her clothing, and pulled her closer. She described slapping his hands away and struggling out of his hold. If the court accepts that testimony, those are acts of resistance to unwanted contact. Her anger does not establish consent, and her decision to stand near her home with a broom does not establish that she welcomed his attention.

Edward gave a different account. He claimed that Nadia invited him inside and removed his boots in an attempt to seduce him. Yet when asked for the words she used to invite him, he did not provide them. The fact that he was barefoot cannot, by itself, establish who removed his boots or why. Nadia testified that he removed them himself. The court must weigh those competing accounts rather than treat his bare feet as proof of an invitation or sexual intent.

The defense also argued that an innocent man would remain and an assaulted woman would run. Neither conclusion necessarily follows. Remaining at the scene does not establish innocence, just as calling for help while remaining near one’s home does not establish consent. The question is what happened between these two people, not whether either behaved according to an expected response.

The defense has asked the court to take Nadia’s freedom and award her to Edward or transfer her to a slave house. That request requires careful consideration of Turmus law. Section 5.7.5 states:

A FREE WOMAN CITIZEN OR RESIDENT OF TURMUS MAY ONLY BE COLLARED WITH AGREEMENT OF THE MERCHANT MAGISTRATE, BY SENTENCE OF A CIVIL MAGISTRATE OVER A CIVIL CRIME OR BY HER COMPANION UNLESS PROHIBITED IN THEIR CONTRACT.

Edward is not Nadia’s Free Companion. He therefore had no independent authority to collar her. An accusation of slavish behavior does not, by itself, establish lawful grounds for enslavement. The court must determine whether the conduct established by the evidence meets an applicable legal ground before taking a citizen’s freedom.

Magistrate, I ask you to uphold Nadia’s complaint to the extent supported by the accepted evidence, hold Edward accountable for any unlawful conduct you find established, and reject the request to enslave her unless lawful grounds are established. Nadia’s testimony describes a woman objecting to unwanted attention, resisting contact, and seeking assistance. I ask that her efforts to protect herself and her home be weighed fairly, and that her freedom be protected under the laws of Turmus.

◈◉◈ ══════════════ ◈◉◈