PLAN FOR NADIA’S DEFENSE

PLAN FOR NADIA’S DEFENSE — APPLICABLE TURMUS LAWS

"My defense will show that Nadia’s account is one of a Free Woman seeking to protect her home and person, not offering submission or inviting enslavement. Through her testimony and the accepted evidence, I will establish that she did not invite Edward inside, objected to his unwanted contact, and sought assistance when he refused to leave. I will also show that Edward had no independent authority under Turmus law to collar her, and that any accusation of slavish behavior must be supported by specific conduct and accepted proof."

SECTION ONE — QUESTIONS FOR NADIA

Establish Nadia’s status as a Free Woman of Turmus and whether Edward was her companion. 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.”

Questions for Nadia: “Lady Nadia, what was your status in Turmus at the time of this encounter? Was Edward your companion? Had you met him before that evening? Please explain how the conversation began.”

Have Nadia describe the encounter in order, using her own words. Separate what she personally experienced from anything others later told her. Section 3.3 states: “ALL EVIDENCE OF POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW WILL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE CIVIL AND MERCHANT MAGISTRATES FOR INVESTIGATION. HEARSAY WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.”

Questions for Nadia: “What were you doing when you first saw Edward? Where were you standing, and where was he? What did each of you say? Describe how he came to enter your home. What did you say or do when he entered? Please continue with what happened next.”

Address the alleged invitation, submission, and slavish behavior directly. Section 2.4.4.3 lists “b) SUBMISSION” and “e) SLAVISH BEHAVIOR, TO INCLUDE: PUBLIC DRESSING/ACTING IN A LEWD OR SCANDALOUS MANNER; PUBLIC PERFORMING OF A SENSUOUS DANCE; ADDRESSING A MAN AS ‘MASTER’; KNEELING OTHER THAN IN FREE WOMAN TOWER; INDECENCY AND VAGRANCY; PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS.”

Questions for Nadia: “Did you invite Edward into your home? Did you offer to bed him or submit to him? Did you address him as Master or kneel before him? Edward alleges that you behaved lustfully outside. Please describe that conversation and any gestures you made. Who removed his boots? What happened to the door, and who moved it?”

Clarify why Nadia obtained the broom and what she did with it. Section 5.7.7 states: “NO FREE WOMAN CAN CARRY WEAPONS SUCH AS: BOWS, SPEARS, SWORDS OR SHIELDS WITHIN THE CITY WALLS. THE ACCEPTABLE WEAPONS ARE: DAGGERS, FANS, AND HAIR PINS, OR ANY HOUSEHOLD WEAPON A SLAVE GIRL MIGHT USE (SUCH AS A FRYING PAN). ANY WOMEN CAUGHT CARRYING WEAPONS THAT ARE RESTRICTED ARE SUBJECT TO PUNISHMENT UNDER THE LAW.” The approved weapons rules also permit Free Women to use female slave weapons, including brooms.

Questions for Nadia: “Where was the broom? When did you pick it up, and why? Where was Edward at that time? What did you do with the broom? Did you strike him with it? Explain when you entered the home and when you returned outside.”

Establish the physical contact and the sequence of Nadia’s response. Section 2.2.1.2 states: “BATTERY: NOT CONSENTED TO PHYSICAL CONTACT WITH ANOTHER PERSON.” Section 2.2.1.1 states: “ASSAULT: PHYSICAL ATTACK THAT CAUSES HARM.” Present her admitted slap openly and ask the Magistrate to consider its circumstances.

Questions for Nadia: “Describe any physical contact Edward made with you. Had you given permission for that contact? What did you do immediately afterward? You have said that you slapped his hand away. Please explain exactly what happened and why you responded that way. Did you suffer any injury or pain?”

Establish what Nadia said when seeking help and distinguish her request for protection from any alleged threat to make a false accusation. Section 2.2.1.12 states: “FALSE ACCUSATION WITH MALICIOUS INTENT: CHARGES BROUGHT UP THAT ARE NOT BACKED UP BY ANY ACCEPTED PROOF OR WITNESS ARE CONSIDERED SLANDER.”

Questions for Nadia: “What did you say about calling the guards? What did you want the guards to do? How did Edward respond? Did you threaten to make a false accusation against him? Describe how help was sought and who arrived.”

Identify the people who might have firsthand knowledge without asking Nadia to speak for them. Section 2.7 states: “ANY FREE PERSON ACCUSED OF A CRIME MAY REQUEST AN ADVOCATE (LAWYER) TO REPRESENT THEM BEFORE THE CIVIL AND MERCHANT MAGISTRATES IN HEARING AND TRIAL. ANY INVESTIGATION REQUIRES A HEARING OF THE ACCUSER, THE ACCUSED AND THE NAMED WITNESSES TO THE MATTER. SLAVES TESTIMONIES WILL ONLY BE TAKEN UNDER TORTURE, IF NO FREE WITNESS CAN BE NAMED.”

Questions for Nadia: “Who else was present during any part of the encounter? When did you first notice Tayir, and where was she? When did Lady Jessika arrive? What was happening at that moment? Was any Free person present during the earlier contact inside your home?”

If insulting words are raised, establish their wording and context. Section 5.7.3 states: “IF A FREE WOMAN DELIBERATELY AND OUTRIGHT INSULTS, BELITTLES OR RIDICULES A FREE MAN TO HIS FACE, HE IS WITHIN HIS RIGHTS TO REPRIMAND HER ON THE SPOT. HOWEVER, THE COLLARING OF A FREE WOMAN FOR THIS OFFENSE IS NOT PERMITTED, AS SUCH POWER RESTS WITH THE MAGISTRATES. A POSSIBLE EXCEPTION WOULD BE THE RIGHT OF A COMPANION TO COLLAR HIS OWN FREE COMPANION, IF HIS CONTRACT DOES NOT DISALLOW IT.”

Questions for Nadia: “Did you say anything insulting to Edward? What were your words? What had happened immediately before you said them? How did he respond?”

If her confinement is raised, establish what she personally heard and did without treating detention as proof of guilt. Section 4.1 states: “CIVIL MAGISTRATES AND ANY MEMBER OF THE WARRIOR CASTE OF TURMUS—EMPLOYING AND REPRESENTING THE AUTHORITY OF THE HIGH COUNCIL—MAY DETAIN OR ORDER THE ARREST OF ANY CITIZEN OR VISITOR FOR BREACHES OF THE PEACE OR INVESTIGATION OF VIOLATIONS OF THE APPLICABLE LAW. ANY ORDER ISSUED BY A MEMBER OF THE WARRIOR CASTE MUST BE OBEYED, INCLUDING REMOVAL OF WEAPONS.”

Questions for Nadia: “Who directed you to the cell? What explanation were you given? Did you comply with that direction? Were you told that any finding of guilt had been made?”

SECTION TWO — QUESTIONS FOR EDWARD

Require Edward to describe the specific conduct behind his allegation of submission or slavish behavior. Section 2.4.4.3 lists “b) SUBMISSION” and “e) SLAVISH BEHAVIOR, TO INCLUDE: PUBLIC DRESSING/ACTING IN A LEWD OR SCANDALOUS MANNER; PUBLIC PERFORMING OF A SENSUOUS DANCE; ADDRESSING A MAN AS ‘MASTER’; KNEELING OTHER THAN IN FREE WOMAN TOWER; INDECENCY AND VAGRANCY; PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS.”

Questions for Edward: “You described Lady Nadia as lustful. What exact words or actions are you referring to? Which occurred outside, and which occurred inside? Did she address you as Master, kneel before you, or expressly offer submission? What did she actually say that you understood as an invitation to bed her?”

Examine the alleged invitation and the disputed entry through firsthand details. Section 3.3 states: “ALL EVIDENCE OF POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW WILL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE CIVIL AND MERCHANT MAGISTRATES FOR INVESTIGATION. HEARSAY WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.”

Questions for Edward: “Where were you standing when you first spoke with Lady Nadia? What exact words did she use to invite you inside? Where was she when you entered? Who removed your boots? Who closed the door? Did she ask you to leave? If so, what did you do? Who personally witnessed the invitation or the removal of your boots?”

Examine Edward’s claimed authority to collar Nadia. Section 2.4.4.2, under improper or unlawful enslavements, states: “ENSLAVING (PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY) A FREE WOMAN OF TURMUS (OTHER THAN ONE’S COMPANION) WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE, OR A MERCHANT MAGISTRATE.” 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.”

Questions for Edward: “Were you Lady Nadia’s companion? Had a Civil or Merchant Magistrate approved her enslavement? Did you tell her that you could collar her? What did you believe gave you that authority?”

Establish Edward’s account of the physical contact, including Nadia’s response. Section 2.2.1.2 states: “BATTERY: NOT CONSENTED TO PHYSICAL CONTACT WITH ANOTHER PERSON.” Section 2.2.1.1 states: “ASSAULT: PHYSICAL ATTACK THAT CAUSES HARM.”

Questions for Edward: “Did you touch Lady Nadia’s lips, face, or clothing? What permission had she given for that contact? Did she slap your hand away? What happened immediately before that? Are you alleging that she injured you? If so, describe the injury and what evidence supports it.”

If Edward relies on Nadia’s insulting words, establish whether he is claiming those words justified collaring. Section 5.7.3 states: “IF A FREE WOMAN DELIBERATELY AND OUTRIGHT INSULTS, BELITTLES OR RIDICULES A FREE MAN TO HIS FACE, HE IS WITHIN HIS RIGHTS TO REPRIMAND HER ON THE SPOT. HOWEVER, THE COLLARING OF A FREE WOMAN FOR THIS OFFENSE IS NOT PERMITTED, AS SUCH POWER RESTS WITH THE MAGISTRATES. A POSSIBLE EXCEPTION WOULD BE THE RIGHT OF A COMPANION TO COLLAR HIS OWN FREE COMPANION, IF HIS CONTRACT DOES NOT DISALLOW IT.”

Questions for Edward: “What insulting words do you say Lady Nadia used? When did she say them? Had you already entered her home or touched her? Are those words part of your reason for claiming you could collar her?”

Clarify whether the broom forms any part of Edward’s accusation. Section 5.7.7 permits “DAGGERS, FANS, AND HAIR PINS, OR ANY HOUSEHOLD WEAPON A SLAVE GIRL MIGHT USE (SUCH AS A FRYING PAN).” The approved weapons rules include brooms among weapons Free Women may use.

Questions for Edward: “Did Lady Nadia strike you with the broom, or was she holding it? What exactly did she do with it? When did she obtain it in relation to your entry and any physical contact?”

Examine the alleged threats and the basis for any accusation of slander. Section 2.2.1.8 states: “SLANDER: SLANDER IS DEFAMATION AIMED TO DAMAGE TO REPUTATION OR BUSINESS OF ANOTHER THAT IS SPOKEN OF, YET PROVEN TO BE FALSE ((‘IF IT WERE TRUE, IN GOREAN LAW, IT COULD NOT BE SLANDER.’ — SLAVE GIRL OF GOR.))” Section 2.2.1.12 states: “FALSE ACCUSATION WITH MALICIOUS INTENT: CHARGES BROUGHT UP THAT ARE NOT BACKED UP BY ANY ACCEPTED PROOF OR WITNESS ARE CONSIDERED SLANDER.”

Questions for Edward: “You said Lady Nadia threatened you concerning the guards. What were her exact words? Was she asking you to leave, asking you to do something else, or threatening a false report? What did you say in response? Did you tell her that, if she called the guards, you would say she wanted to bed you? What accepted proof or witness supports your accusation against her?”

Address any alleged inconsistency through clear questions rather than immediately accusing Edward of lying. Section 2.2.1.13 states: “FALSE TESTIMONY: IF A TRIAL OR INVESTIGATION WITHOUT A DOUBT TURNS OUT TO UNCOVER ANY GIVEN TESTIMONY AS AN INTENTIONAL LIE IT IS A CAPITAL CRIME. FALSE TESTIMONY CHARGES CAN BE PLACED FOR ANYONE GIVING TESTIMONY IN A TRIAL OR DURING SWORN INVESTIGATION.”

Questions for Edward: “Is the account you have given today complete and accurate to your recollection? Is there anything you wish to correct or clarify? Where your present account differs from an earlier statement accepted by the court, please explain that difference.”

Ask Edward to identify the law supporting his claim about a man entering a Free Woman’s home. Section 1.6 states: “THE LAWS OF THE CITY BIND EVERY CITIZEN, RESIDENT, AND VISITOR WITHIN ITS WALLS AND ALSO ANY DOMAIN BEYOND THAT WHICH TURMUS CLAIMS DOMAIN OVER, SUCH AS OUTPOSTS AND TRADE/EXCHANGE POINTS, AND ARE ENFORCED BY THE MAGISTRATES AND WARRIOR CASTE.”

Questions for Edward: “You stated that you understood southern law to prohibit a man from entering a Free Woman’s home unless he was her mate. Which Turmus provision were you referring to? Had you read that provision, or were you relying on a custom from elsewhere?”

After Edward’s testimony, address the Magistrate concerning the separate accusations and the evidence received. Section 2.5 states: “CIVIL AND MERCHANT MAGISTRATES DECIDE IF LAWS HAVE BEEN BROKEN AND HOW THEY ARE REDRESSED. THE HIGH COUNCIL CAN OVERTURN OR VARY THE RULING OF A MAGISTRATE THROUGH THE APPEALS PROCESS OR PUT THEM TO OPEN TRIAL.”

Statement to the court: “Magistrate, I ask that each accusation be considered separately under the applicable Turmus law and the accepted evidence. Lady Nadia’s complaint does not automatically establish Edward’s guilt, and his accusation does not automatically establish hers. I respectfully ask that any accusation against Lady Nadia that is not supported by accepted evidence be dismissed.”

CLOSING STATEMENT

“Magistrate, the question before this court is whether the evidence establishes that Lady Nadia committed an offense under Turmus law. Calling her lustful does not, by itself, establish submission or slavish behavior. The court must consider the specific conduct alleged, the testimony received, and the law that applies.

Lady Nadia’s account is that she greeted a visitor courteously, did not invite him into her home, objected to unwanted contact, and sought assistance. She has acknowledged slapping his hand away and explained the circumstances. I ask that her actions be considered in their full sequence.

Sections 2.4.4.2 and 5.7.5 restrict the authority to collar a Free Woman of Turmus. Edward’s interpretation of her behavior did not itself grant him that authority. Section 5.7.3 likewise states that insulting a Free Man does not permit him to collar her.

Under Section 3.3, the decision must rest upon accepted evidence rather than hearsay. I ask that the court distinguish what each witness personally observed from what was repeated afterward, and consider each party’s complaint separately.

I respectfully ask that any charge against Lady Nadia not established by the accepted evidence be dismissed, and that her freedom and standing be upheld.”