CUAWRT301 The Court Room Drama Script Online Tutoring

Scene 1: Court Room

Public Defender: Your Honor and ladies and gentlemen of the jury: under the law my client is presumed innocent until proven guilty. During this trial, you will hear no real evidence against my client. You will come to know the truth that Mr. John Gilbert and his neighbors are not considered stakeholders in this agreement between federal government and airports commission. Even they are threated, bullied and are offered bribe. Only the notice is been imposed to them to vacate their houses. Therefore my client is not guilty.

 

[hbupro_banner id=”6296″]

 

Judge: The prosecution may call its first witness.

Deputy DA: The People call Mr. John Gilbert.

Clerk: Please stand. Raise your right hand. Do you promise that the testimony you shall give in the case before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

John: I do.

Clerk: Please state your first and last name.

John: I am John Gilbert.

Clerk: You may be seated.

Deputy DA: [Stand up.] John, where do you work?

John: I worked for a truck making company. Martinez.

Deputy DA: Are you still working there?

John: No, I am retired now.

Deputy DA: What do you do for your living now?

John: I was a tow truck driver but now retired. Me and my wife runs a small tiffin service.

Deputy DA: What is the case you are putting?

John: I told earlier, I mean no one can just walk in and take a man’s house.

Deputy DA: Mr John are you disputing the amount of compensation?

John: I’m not interested in compensation. I’m saying that no one can kick me out like that.

Deputy DA: Very well. What is your argument?

John: That’s it, that’s my argument. You cn’t kick me out.

Deputy DA: And on what law do you base that argument?

John: The law of bloody common sense.

Deputy DA: Mr John I must ask you to constrain yourself.

John: Yeah, all right.

Deputy DA: Mr John this is the administrative appeal tribunal, you are an applicant, and you need to show.

John: I need to show, so it’s up to me is it.

Deputy DA: Mr John, Airlink, as a federal authority has the right to purchase property compulsorily. As far as I can see you have offered no evidence to refute that right.

John: No evidence. It’s not a house it’s a home, a man’s home is his castle, I mean it’s Jack’s castle, it’s Farook’s castle. You can’t just walk in and steal our homes.

Deputy DA: You’ll be compensated!

John: I don’t want to be compensated you can’t buy what I’ve got.

Deputy DA: What is your case in law! (With an angry face)

John: No evidence. It’s not a house it’s a home, a man’s home is his castle, I mean it’s Jack’s castle, it’s Farook’s castle. You can’t just walk in and steal our homes.

Deputy DA: Well OK ah the law is supposed to be about justice, no fairness and I know sometimes what is right and fair is not clear cut. It’s a bit iffy. But this is not iffy. I mean this is as clear as day. It is right and

Farook: Yes, fly over and plains have dropped the value.

Deputy DA: So it means the renovation which you made in your house was a very expensive decision.

Farook: Yes, if I get it renovated now it would cost me less.

Deputy DA: Mr. Farook, how much are airport commission is paying you?

Farook: 65 thousand dollar.

Deputy DA: For your place?

Farook: Yes.

Deputy DA: In these days of recession in property rates?

Farook: Yes (with a confused look).

Deputy DA: Isn’t it a good deal?

Farook: Yes but… (with a confused look).

Deputy DA: Your Honor, look at the confusion of Mr. Farook. He is being manipulated by Mr. John to not comply with the court notice.

Public Defender: Objection Your Honor, Mr. Prosecutor is trying to manipulate the witness.

Judge: Objection over rule.

Deputy DA: Do Thank you Your Honor, I have no more questions to ask.

Judge: Does the defense have any questions?

Public Defender: Yes, Your Honor.

Judge: Go ahead.

Public Defender: Mr. Farook, do you like Beirut Plane?

Farook: No.

Public Defender: Okay, so if the prices of Beirut properties rise or drop, do you bother?

Farook: No. I don’t care. I like the plane where I live, where there is my home.

Public Defender: So would you like to sell that and to shift to Beirut Plain where the property rates are lower.

Farook: No. In fact, never.

Public Defender: Thank you Mr. Farook.

Judge: Does the prosecution wish to ask any questions?

Deputy DA: No. Your Honor.

Judge: The witness is excused. [Wait for the witness to leave the stand.]

Deputy DA: Your Honor, I would like to ask something from defendant that which section of the constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia has been breached?

Public Defender: Section? What section? There is no one section. It’s just the vibe of the thing.

Deputy DA: I’m afraid Mr Defendant you’ll have to be more specific.

Public Defender: Yes sure. I was just starting general then I was getting more specific. Section 51, the parliament shall have power to make law with respect to copyrights, patents of inventions and designs and trademarks.

Deputy DA: Alright. Do you have a precedent that supports this vibe?

Public Defender: Yes, yes I do. The Marbo
Deputy DA: What about it?
Public Defender: That’s your classic case of big business trying to take land and they couldn’t.
Deputy DA: The Marbo Decision pertains to the specific issue of native land title, aterra nellus.

 

[hbupro_banner id=”6299″]

 

Public Defender: Yes.

Deputy DA: So what part of the judgment is relevant to this case?

Public Defender:  Again it it it’s just the vibe of it.

Deputy DA: Ahh, again a vibe.

Public Defender:  let me read the Section 51 paragraph 31. The parliament shall have power to make laws with respect to acquisition of property on just terms. Let’s think about those words, on, just, terms, and how they relate to real people.
Your honour my client built his home by the law, in full accordance with the law (he doesn’t know about the extensions) but does he have the protection of the law? How can the forcible removal of a family, a good family from their home, have the blessing of our
constitution? How can that be just terms?

Deputy DA: [looking uncomfortable now]

Public Defender: You honor, even though the prosecution had five times the number of lawyers than we did. But my client has adhered to the law, every law, every statute from the town planning act to the civil aviation regulations but in what can only be described
as the last desperate measure my client has been accused of breaching none other than the constitution. I mean, good lord, what else are we guilty of, international war crimes, hum?

Deputy DA: Your honour that statement was overture dictum. The court
took into account the interests of the community, such as job creation… Ah utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number.
Public Defender:  But what this principal fails to take into account is that competing rights cannot be weighed one against the other. Is a family’s right to live freely in their home.

Deputy DA: It wasn’t just legal argument.

Public Defender:  It’s not a house it’s a home, it’s got everything, people who love each other, care for each other, it’s got memories, great memories. Well it’s a place for the family to turn to, come back to. But that doesn’t seem to mean as much as a big driveway airport.

Deputy DA: Now you are appeal is based on emotion rather than law.

Public Defender:  No, it’s not true. It’s about the highest law in this country, the constitution, and one phrase within it…on just terms. That’s what this is all about, being just. They want to pay only for house, but they are taking away more than that, so much more. Sure the Gilberts built their house, but then they built a home, then a family. You can acquire a house but you can’t acquire a home because a home is not built of bricks and mortar but love, memories. You can’t pay for it and you’re just short changing people if you try. I can’t speak for those who wrote this document but I’ll bet that when they put in the phrase on just terms they hoped it would stop anyone shortchanging someone like Mr. John Gilbert.
Judge: Does the defense rest?

Public Defender: Yes, Your Honor.

Scene 2: Television Screen

Narrator narrate the court case is won by Mr. John Gilbert,

 

[citationic]