I don't have any witnesses to call, but I do have a major concern.
Because of the chaotic nature of this hearing, and the fact that the charges against me were brought by a juror, rather than the accusers, I'm a bit confused about whether I've been able to defend myself appropriately.
I am satisfied with my defense against River's evidence for the original "charges" brought by the rangers. However, no case has been made for the charges Estel posted that was then adopted by the rangers as the "official charges." All that has been done is that questions were asked about all of those charges. I have no real idea how I am supposed to defend myself against such a vague approach to what I have supposedly done wrong.
I do not see the answers to the questions Estel posed as evidence of my breaking the proposed by-laws, so I'm not sure what argument I should make to counter the sentiments they may or may not have brought about.
I guess, what I'm saying, is that if this were a court, I would be asking the judge to dismiss everything as the prosecution has utterly failed to make their case. As this is not a court, that doesn't really make sense, but given the prevailing sentiment among board members towards me, I worry the jury will feel the need to impose some sort of penalty towards me, even if the evidence is entirely lacking. I fear this was the case in the first hearing I had here, and wish I had presented such an argument at the time then.
I'm not sure what should be done at this point, but I would like to make a final argument against a clear set of accusations and evidence, if such a thing is possible.
_________________
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.