The President of the New Republic Senate, Chief of State Gavrisom, summons you immediately to an important meeting regarding your worlds current illegal ownership of prohibited ships and other matters of great import.

The Chief of State has Commissioned an Officer of the Republican Guard in order for him to observe the transfer of the hardware in question to New Republic Custody speedily as no regular officers are available in your Sector. President Gavrisom has instructed wishes to see this transfer take place tonight.

From whence it will be taken to an authorised shipwright for tests, before finally being dismantled. President Gavrisom instructs me that he may be willing to negotiate the market value of the scrap produced by the dismantling (estimated at 2-4 million credits) being returned to Baltimn, if Baltimn is prepared to comply speedily and without delay to the requirements of the law.

The Chief of State would also like you to present an action plan to bring your legal system into compatibility with the New Republic's, especially with regards to the need for a Ordinance 20098-B equivalent; also the need for an equivalent to our common law on trespass which holds Property owners and their agents (gun turrets, droids etc) may only use reasonable force to protect their property. For example, setting booby traps on a property to hurt trespassers and shooting at trespassers with live bolts are usually forbidden in most civilised jurisdictions, especially with trespass being a simple civil offense and not a crime in itself.

Jus tertii could well be used in this case also, as the building was donated to Duke Cale in circumstances unknown, it was in the past a public monument, as such the Baltimn Twenty-Five could be regarded as acting through this principle.

Duke Cale is also in New Republic Law arguably in breach of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 BBY, which would result in a lengthy jail sentence if convicted of a breach of the relavent act occasioning manslaughter (which seems the likely crime), it should also be noted that issuing a warning is unlikely to have much bearing on the case where children are involved, as per Jones (1984 BBY) p.721