In the Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Camelot ______
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
No. [05]24-007 In the Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Camelot ______________ MORDRED, PETITIONER v. KINGDOM OF CAMELOT, RESPONDENT ______________ BRIEF FOR PETITIONER ______________ STEPHANIE A. MALONEY LINDA T. COBERLY Winston & Strawn LLP Counsel of Record 1700 K Street N.W. KATHERINE L. KYMAN Washington, DC 20006 JACOB A. SEIDEN (202) 282-5000 Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 558-8768 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner i QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Is 18 Cam. Code § 2385, as applied to Mordred, a violation of his First Amendment rights of free speech and association? 2. Did the prosecution fail to prove beyond a rea- sonable doubt that Mordred was guilty of violating 18 Cam. Code § 2383 or § 2385? ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED ......................................... i INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ............................ 1 STATEMENT ............................................................... 2 ARGUMENT ................................................................ 6 I. As applied to Mordred, § 2385 violates the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech and association. ......................................... 6 II. The prosecution failed to prove Mordred’s guilt under §§ 2383 and 2385 beyond a reasonable doubt. ................................................ 11 A. The lack of evidence of specific intent or imminence dooms Mordred’s conviction under § 2385. ................................................. 11 B. Mordred worked within the legal system and thus did not incite or engage in a rebellion in violation of § 2383. .................... 13 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 16 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Am. Commc’ns Ass’n, C.I.O., v. Douds, 339 Cam. 382 (1950) ............................................... 7 Ex parte Bollman & Swartwout, 8 Cam. 75 (1807) ................................................... 14 Bond v. Floyd, 385 Cam. 116 (1996) ............................................... 8 Charge to Grand Jury, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,275 (C.C. 1842) .................... 14 Cramer v. Camelot, 325 Cam. 1 (1945) ................................................. 14 Dennis v. Camelot, 341 Cam. 494 (1951) ..................................... 6, 7, 12 Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 Cam. 11 (1966) ............................................... 10 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 Cam. 254 (1964) ............................................... 8 Noto v. Camelot, 367 Cam. 290 (1961) ......................................... 7, 12 Scales v. Camelot, 367 Cam. 203 (1961) ......................................... 7, 12 iv Yates v. Camelot, 354 Cam. 298 (1957) ................................... 9, 12, 13 Constitution and Statutes CAM. CONST. Art. III, sec. 3 ................................. 13, 14 CAM. CONST. amend. 1 ........................................passim 18 Cam. Code § 2383 .........................................passim 18 Cam. Code § 2385 ..........................................passim Other Authorities Knightly Banter, PROSPECTORNOW: THE VOICE OF PROSPECT HIGH SCHOOL, https://prospectornow.com/?p=15709 ................... 10 ALAN JAY LERNER & FREDERICK LOEWE, CAMELOT (adapted April 20, 2018) ...............passim LOONEY TUNES: A CONNECTICUT RABBIT IN KING ARTHUR’S COURT (Warner Bros. 1978) ............................................................. 7 MACKLEMORE, ET AL., Good Old Days (feat. Kesha), GEMINI (Bendo LLC 2017)........................................................................ 6 MONTY PYTHON & THE HOLY GRAIL (Python (Monty) Pictures 1975) ............................. 7 v Dustin Nelson, What does BudLight’s Dilly Dilly Commercial Mean? THRILLIST.COM, https://www.thrillist.com/news/ nation/bud-light-dilly-dilly-meaning ................... 10 SARAH RAMIREZ, ET AL., Knights of the Round Table/The Song that Goes Like This, MONTY PYTHON’S SPA- MALOT (Universal Classics Group 2005)........................................................................ 9 William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Macbeth (1st Folio 1623) ........................................ 3 STERN & GRESSMAN: SUPREME COURT PRACTICE (10th ed. 2013) ..................................... 11 ALFRED TENNYSON, IDYLLS OF THE KING (Paul Negri & Janet Baine Kopito eds., Dover Giant Thrift ed. 2004) ................... 3, 15 MARK TWAIN, A CONNECTICUT YANKEE IN KING ARTHUR’S COURT (Charles L. Webster & Co. 1889) ............................................... 9 Charles Warren, What is Giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy?, 27 YALE L.J. 331, 333 (1918) ..................................................... 14 Mordred, WIKIPEDIA, https://en.wikipe- dia.org/wiki/ ............................................................ 2 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT This case presents critical questions of law; ‘Twas born of betrayal, emotions left raw. Disloyal Queen Jenny and French traitor Lance were caught in flagrante—by plan, not by chance— as Sir Justice Mordred (a sworn job to do) exposed Jenny’s treason and Lancelot’s too. A goal to impress and to shore up his spot at Arthur’s Round Table, our poor Mordred got all the blame, quite unfairly, for chaos ensuing when Guenevere fell, of her own wrongdoing. The King’s precious laws sent his Jenny to death, but Lance interfered ere she caught her last breath. With knights at his side, Lance attempted a coup. And Mordred? He fled [and I ask, wouldn’t you?] to Scotland with knights who preferred the old days, with banter and bluster as glasses they raise. Old friends, hapless exiles, engaged in a plot to overthrow Arthur? Why, certainly not! And so, to this Court, Mordred’s fates now must go. A scoundrel, perhaps, but a criminal? No. 2 STATEMENT Years before the treasonous affair between Sir Lancelot and Queen Guenevere, a “lad named Arthur” was “bewitched [] for the night” by the “ravishing” beauty of Scottish Queen Morgause and fathered an illegitimate son named Mordred.1 ALAN JAY LERNER & FREDERICK LOEWE, CAMELOT, Scene 2.2. Arthur then “lost track of the years” and of the boy, and Mordred grew up in Scotland not knowing his real father. Ibid.; see Scene 2.3 (Arthur: “It is my own fault. I should have officially recognized him when I took the throne—it is the proper procedure. I intended to do it and I should have done it, but I didn’t.”). The “chain of wedlock” weighed “heavy” on Mordred—“so heavy that it takes two to carry it, sometimes three.” Scene 2.1. He was “hated” and “despised” by his mother’s husband and long wished to know why. Scene 2.2 (“I kept asking Mother why King Lot despised me so.”). Eventually, Morgause revealed “the marvelous news” that King Lot was “not [Mordred’s] father.” Ibid. Instead, his real father was King Arthur, “the King of all England.” Ibid. Upon hearing this, Mor- dred set out to greet his father “[c]heerfully” and to place himself at the King’s service. At first, Arthur did not recognize him. Ibid. (“Call the guard, Pelly, and have this young ass thrown out.”). But upon Mordred’s introduction and supplication (ibid. (“Mordred. Bow- ing low.”)), Arthur “command[ed]” that Mordred “stay” 1 The name Mordred aptly comes from the Latin moderātus, meaning “within bounds, observing moderation, moderate.” Mordred, WIKIPEDIA, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mor- dred (last visited June 5, 2018). 3 and “become a knight of the Round Table” (ibid.). Ar- thur asked Mordred to serve as the Minister of Justice, despite finding him “not very promising material.” Ibid. Mordred expressed hesitation at the position but agreed to “try.” Ibid. Above all, he was ambitious and eager to please. See id. at 63 (Arthur: “Very well, Mor- dred. Now you are here. What are your plans?” Mor- dred: “That’s for you to decide, Your Majesty.”). Almost immediately, those closest to Arthur grew suspicious and resentful. Pellinore called Mordred “a skunk,” and Guenevere reproached him as a “weary load,” a “dreadful boy,” and an “added burden” that she “could quite well do without,” perhaps anticipating that Mordred’s ambition would be her demise.2 Scene 2.3. Lancelot implored Arthur to “get rid of him” and threatened to “run him through” with a sword, forbear- ing only when Arthur insisted that “we practice civil law now and we cannot take the law back into our own hands.” Ibid. This hostility to Mordred was, in part, due to the differences in Mordred’s upbringing and political phi- losophy. Raised in Scotland, where “[f]air was foul, and foul [was] fair” (William Shakespeare, The Trag- edy of Macbeth, act I, scene I, line 12 (1st Folio 1623)), Mordred was unaccustomed to “what ha[d] happened 2 “But when Sir Lancelot told / This matter to the Queen, at first she laugh’d / Lightly, to think of [Mordred’s] dusty fall/ Then shudder’d, as the village wife who cries, / ‘I shudder, some one steps across my grave;’ / Then laugh’d again, but faintlier, for indeed / She half-foresaw that he, the subtle beast, / Would track her guilt until he found, and hers / Would be for evermore a name in scorn.” ALFRED TENNY- SON, IDYLLS OF THE KING 231 (Paul Negri & Janet Baine Kopito eds., Dover Giant Thrift ed. 2004). 4 at Camelot”—that is, the installation of the new sys- tem of the civil law and its “Might for Right!” philoso- phy. Scene 1.8. Mordred had been taught a different “kind of justice” (Scene 2.4), where “[v]irtue and proper deeds” are “ghastly little traps” “made for other chaps” (Scene 2.2). In this regard, Mordred’s perspective was not so different from the view held by others within