IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
First of all, I want to repeat that I do believe the Courts should run the Public Defender Program. While this belief is not actually relevant to the case, I wish to make that very clear to the Defense.
That being said, I refuse to stand idly by and allow a precedent to be set that allows for near tyrannical power from Congress.
II. Response to Defense’s Opening Statement
1. The Commonwealth claims:
“The Plaintiff in this case pushes a narrative which states that the Public Defender Programme may only be introduced as a legal concept and an instrument of the Government, specifically the Judicial branch of it, through a Constitutional Amendment. The Commonwealth completely rejects this argument, because the definition of "adding further responsibilities to Government branches" does not exist, and it is overly expansive . . . Regarding the responsibilites (and addition of them), the Commonwealth wants to point out the Miranda Warning Act, just as an example. The Act gives new responsibilities to the Department of Justice, ordering its officers to use a new instrument declaring rights to the arrested/incriminated persons. Does this also require a constitutional amendment? For this reason, the Public Defender Programme is well within Constitution and it's framework not to require a constitutional Amendment for its implementation.”
First of all, yes, I am pushing the narrative that I believe to be true – the Public Defender Program, being run by the Judicial Branch, requires a Constitutional Amendment. There is no other way to legally create a Public Defender Program that is run by the Judicial Branch.
Secondly, the Constitution states:
“The Judicial arm of Government, consisting of the District Court, Federal Court, and Supreme Court, interpret the law as written by the legislature and administered by the Executive.”
This is stated plainly – the Judicial Branch consists solely of the District Court, Federal Court, and Supreme Court, and their responsibilities are strictly laid out in the Constitution.
Thus, to add any more institutions under the Judicial Branch – such as a Public Defender Program – would require a Constitutional Amendment. Additionally, adding a new responsibility to the Judicial Branch – such as running a Public Defender Program – would also require a Constitutional Amendment. It is clear, through the power of the Constitution, that no new responsibilities can be forced onto a Government branch outside of a Constitutional Amendment.
Thirdly, I wish to point out the flaw in the Defense’s argument regarding the Miranda Warning Act. According to the Constitution, the DoJ has the responsibility of “Maintaining the peace and good order of the server, through lawfully exercising its power equally to enforce the laws of the Commonwealth of Redmont.” The Miranda Warning Act does not truly create a new responsibility for the Department of Justice – it only further clarifies the rights given to citizens by the Constitution.
Particularly, without being aware of the rights given to them by the Constitution, any reasonable person would reasonably believe that if they are forcibly detained by a Police Officer, then they could be required to answer any questions made by the Police Officer, unless they are made aware of their rights. Even before the Miranda Warning Act, if a Police Officer did not inform a citizen of their rights, I believe it would be unconstitutional to use anything they say in court, as by simply asking a question without informing the citizen of their rights, the Police Officer has used their authority – whether inadvertently or not – to coerce the citizen into giving an answer.
So, here we can clearly see that the Miranda Warning Act is not truly creating a new responsibility for the Executive, but clarifying what is already laid out in the Constitution.
2. The Commonwealth claims:
“The Commonwealth holds that this Act tries not to change any part of the Constitution, as it doesn't change the core functioning of the Judicial Branch, and does not conflict with it, since there is no part of the Constitution speaking against it, or which it may conflict.”
It is true that this Act does not try to change any part of the Constitution. That is precisely the problem. It needs to change the Constitution in order for it to be legal. Additionally, I believe my above arguments clearly show the conflict between this Act and the Constitution. Specifically, the creation of the Public Defender Program under the Judicial Branch is not defined by the Constitution, and it must be in order for it to be legal.
3. The Commonwealth claims:
“The Plaintiff seems to think the Public Defender Programme is an executive programme which is being unconstitutionally added to the competence of the Judicial Branch (at least that is what is stated in the original filing).”
Originally, that was true, however my position has changed throughout the course of this case from having two reasons (both of which were stated in the original filing) the Judicial Branch cannot currently run the Public Defender Program to having only one – the Constitutionality of it.
III. Final Arguments
1. While the Motion was already overruled, the Commonwealth stated in their Motion to Dismiss:
“The assistance of counsel for their defense will, under this act, be ensured by the aforementioned impartial Judge in that same right. This bill only corrects and further aims to protect the rights of citizens to receive a counsel that is unbias to the prosecution, as the only impartial individual in a court room is the Judge or other Presiding Officer. Both the defense and prosecution in a court case have an objective - to win. The Judge has no objective other than upholding the constitution and laws of the Commonwealth, they have no bias and are bound to impartiality in order to carry out their constitutional duties . . . The Judiciary is charged with ensuring citizens receive a fair and speedy trial, and are the determining factor in situations where a citizen's right may have been violated. The Judiciary has a duty to uphold the constitution in its entirety, and part of that is ensuring that individuals in court have adequate representation. This makes it not only sensible but also in-line with the Constitution to charge the Judiciary with some role in a program with the sole purpose of this, like the simple appointment of a Director to oversee and maintain the program.”
I applaud the Commonwealth for seeking to uphold the law and Constitution, recognizing the potential for bias if the Public Defender Program is run by the Executive Branch, and speaking about this during this case. These paragraphs were the driving force behind changing my mind about the Executive running the program, however, it is still clear, in my opinion, that a Constitutional Amendment is required for this program to exist as part of the Judicial Branch.
IV. Conclusion
Your honor, opposing counsel,
I hope you can see through these arguments that I am in no way against the Judicial Branch running the Public Defender Program. I only want this to be done legally and without establishing a dangerous precedent that could lead to the downfall of Redmont as we know it.
I am encouraged by the Commonwealth’s desire to uphold the law in this case. Although it is labeled “Dartanman v. Commonwealth,” I believe we both want the same thing: A legal, unbiased, Public Defender Program.
I hope you understand the necessity of a Constitutional Amendment given the circumstances.
Thank you.
By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.
DATED: This 7th day of January 2023