IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Politics of the Word "Create"
In their opening defense, the defense has defined the meaning of the word "create" as "to bring something into existence". We embrace this definition and consider it a fact. However, the defense makes a number of wrong assumptions in their argument which in the opinion of the Prosecution Team will show the fact that the actions undertaken by the Prime Minister are indeed, not within the realms allowed by the constitution.
I would like to first respond to the Defense's arguments, and break them down.
Whether the DCT outsourced this or not, it has still created a piece of infrastructure for the city and it's people. The source of that infrastructure does not have to be from within the Department.
Taking the definition brought forward by the defense, the term used by the defense, "[The DCT] has still created a piece of infrastructure" would translate directly to; "[The DCT] has still [brought into existance] a piece of infrastructure." Now, common sense requires that bringing into existance is an action done by a party. This party, in the case of the race track, was end. At the moment the track was finished, aka brought into existance, End was not indeed, a part of the DCT. Therefore, it would be factually incorrect to state that The DCT has brought into existance the said piece of infrastructure.
If we were to operate on such a definition that all departments must do everything internally then the Departments would not be able to purchase anything through tender, run any competitions for best spawn designs to later use them, or outsource history articles. The notion that the Government cannot outsource is ridiculous.
This is a completely false statement and argument. Our argumnent of the outsourcing of labour being illegal for the DCT comes from the wording specific to the DCT as outlined in the constitution. The part of the constitution in which we have used to argue the fact that the actions were unconstitutional, “(1) The Department of Construction and Transport is charged with the following primary responsibilities … (a) Creation of Government infrastructure …” is specifically for the Department of Construction. To argue that declaring an action unconstitutional according to a claused dedicated to the DCT would be an indicator for all other departments is a mistaken argument at best, a bad faith argument at worst, trying to load consequences to a decision against your favour where they don't exist, and calling it ridiculous and paint it as an unecceptable fact when the basis of the so-called "ridiculousness" stems from a false interpretation.
The notion that the definition of the word create is holding this lawsuit together is trivial at best.
Again, a careless at best, bad faith at worst argument directed at the very center of the argument presented by the prosecution, attempting to paint the argument as unreasonable, ridiculous and completely unacceptable. Law, the profession which we are currently engaged in, is entirely a matter of definitions. If not a series of definitions and rules, what is law? In the opinion of the prosecution team, the defense has undertaken actions which breach the provisions of the constitution. The provision in which they have breached gives upon the DCT a task; and in that task, we argue based on the verb used. Arguably, the word which according to the defense the definition of it constituting a foundation in the prosecution's argument is "trivial" , is the most important and impactful word in the entirety of the aforementioned provision. To claim that arguing the definition the prosecution believes in - where the difference in definitions would mean the difference between unconstitutionality and legality - is "trivial at best", is an argument that is meant to do nothing but continue to make an attempt at painting this lawsuit as a frivilous, ridiculous and all of the above adjectives which I have repeated many times over that belittle this case.
Now that we have responded to the defense's arguments, I will be moving onto my own arguments.
I would first like to reinforce our belief that "outsourcing the construction of a building / infrastructure" does indeed, not fit the constitutionally mandated duties of the Department.
This, as many other arguments when there are issues of responsibilities, duties, actions and consequences falling on entities or organisations rather than individual citizens, is an issue of defining the doer of an action, and the action itself.
Let's try to put the word "create" into a context. Imagine a situation A, where there is an empty plot. And then, a situation B, where there is a building in the previously empty plot. It could be very easily inferred that: the sum of all actions that were undertaken to directly turn the situation A to situation B, is the act of "creating" the building.
The constitution requires that the DCT create the building; logically, the DCT must have ben the one taking the actions. However, that was simply not the case. End, as he has admitted himself in his witness testimonies, was not part of the DCT, not representing it, not acting on behalf, not acting as a part, at the time of the actions being taken towards the creation of the building.
2. I am terminated two weeks after.
3. I decide to build the track on my build plot since I was bored.
End and DCT were separate entities at the moment of the building, so, how could we say that DCT was the one who "created" the building? We can't.
The building was created by End, and perhaps, at the most, considering the very beginning planning and possibly the paste having DCT involvement, done together. Giving the defense the most amount of ground here; The DCT planned the build, end designed it, and DCT pasted it. The sum of the actions towards the creation of the racetrack was not done by the DCT. The DCT did indeed, not create the building. And the purchase of the build from end, certianly was not "creating" the build itself. The only way to satisfy that definition would be to have taken all the steps themselves.
It may seem I have gone overboard in defining the action "create". While we had agreed on the definition of "create" provided by the defense, in the context of this argument, the "to bring something into existence" definition acts as nothing more than a 5-word synonym for the actual word. The problem lies in what actions - or rather sum of actions - qualify into the category of the qualities required to be considered "creating". And the definition of those qualities is what the prosecution has provided in this closing statement. Just simply stating the word definition once more without considering the categorisation problem at play is completely ignoring the root of the disagreement and dispute.
At last, I would also like to draw the attention of the fact that the Modus operandi of the DCT has been in-line with the arguments which were presented by the Prosecution. We have already made this point prior, however, and I feel no need to repeat the prosecution's arguments.
The grounds on which the prosecution team brings forward the charges of Embezzlement and following Treason (and the two charges on the second defendant for being an accomplice) is the argument that the friendship between the two defendants have played a role in the decision made by Derpy, the President at the time of the events. While the defense has not argued the existance of the friendship, the defense has argued the relevance of the friendship in an objection. The fact that the non-existance of the friendship would completely nullify our two charges does make the facts relevant to the case.
Now, we'd like to invite the honourable court to take an overview of the events as reinforced by the witness testimonies.
The President, Derpy, makes a possibly unconstitutional decision, without the secretary specialised in the field in which the decision pertains to affecting the decision, that is also against the modus operandi of the Department, in order to put the government into a purchase where the provider is a friend of the President.
We're not saying contracting your friend is neccesarily an illegal act of crime and embezzlement, but that letting the friendship have an effect on the decision where the taxpayer money and government power is involved is.
We would like to draw the attention of the court to the witness testimonies.
When we first asked the defendant derpy whether they were aware of any precedent for the DCT to purchase a build, we were met with not an answer but an argument. This would be a trend that would continue throughout the direct examination, which would end in a back-and-forth argument towards the end of the direct examination. We simply asked for clear answers - not neccesarily short ones - but kept getting arguments.
The internal strifes and the behaviour of the defense in previous instances of events in the department has sufficiently been covered by my colleague, but we believe, as much as the defense claims their irrelevance or their ineffectiveness in affecting the events on which the lawsuit is based on, the prosecution begs to differ. The events happened within a short time-frame, enough that the results of the events previous to those t his lawsuit is based on can be an indicator of intent, manner and method for this lawsuit. We ask the courts to consider these facts before moving forward.
We would like to ask the courts: Is this how taxpayer money should be handled? How government affairs should be run? Disregarding the input of the secretary, committing a presumably not well-precedented act without any legal advice or a light understanding of the purposes of the allocated budget which the money has been taken out of, which resulted in being taken legal action against for unconstituonality, betraying the modus operandi of an entire department and creating distrust and a drift in the said department, for the sake of getting a simple building made by a friend who was not part of the department, and had sour relations with it, where the president once again sided with the said friend. The amount of chaos and unplanned and reckless at best, malicious at worst decisions being made for the sake of a race track seems a stretched proposition.
The prosecution cannot lay out a single sentence in here, that would just be the end all be all
in regards to what was affecting the former president's decisions at the time, that could only come through a self-incriminating testimony. The way granted to the prosecution to prove the point is through the culmination of soft-factors that indicate to the conclusion: that the relationship between the two defendants indeed had an effect on the ultimate decision, which we believe we have accomplished.
We would like the honourable courts to consider all events, factors and matters at play, and make a decision by looking at the whole of the situation, where the conclusion shall be clear.