Group+29


 * Minimum Project Requirements:**
 * 5 **//__IN__//** __DEPTH__ discussions with opposing counsel via class network. These discussions must present not only relevant and specific facts from the play, but also from your historical research.
 * Preliminary Draft of Closing Statement entered in your class network. Draft must contain **//__at least 5 detailed paragraphs__//**: 1) Introductory paragraph outlining the overall theme of your case - thesis statement; 2) //at least// 3 paragraphs which include **//__detailed__//** supporting evidence for your case - 1 piece of evidence with explanation per paragraph; and 3) a closing paragraph which ties all the evidence together and solidifies your case.
 * Peer editing of opposing counsel's statement following guidelines to be provided; plus an additional peer revision of your choice.
 * Works Cited page containing **//__at__//** **//__least three__//** **//__(3) sources__//**: 2 book sources for each electronic source.
 * Final Draft of Closing Statement, typed, double-spaced at a 12-point font with 1-inch margins. Please no decorative fonts – use something easy to read.
 * Oral recitation of your Closing Statement before the court. Be sure to use your voice as a persuasive tool to effectively deliver your statement. Suggestions for oral interpretation to be provided.


 * Remember that the above represent the minimum requirements for this project, the completion of which will earn you a minimum average grade of 70%. You can improve this grade by going above and beyond these minimum expectations.**

One way to increase your points will be to complete more than five discussion posts with your opposing counsel. To post a discussion, click the DISCUSSION tab above; click NEW POST, label the subject with a specific name, and then type and post your comment. To reply to a comment, simply click on the post heading, scroll to the bottom of the page, and then type and post your reply. Ideally, discussion topics will reflect either specific research sources or ideas learned from your research. You must cite all sources within your discussions so that your opposing counsel can verify your information.


 * Post Prosecution Closing Statement Here:**

Prosecuting statement The envious Brutus is guilty of an unjustifiable murder of the compassionate Julius Caesar who had done much to help many of the people. I have gathered an ample amount of research to show that Brutus is guilty. My research showed Brutus also had motives to drive his envious action of the murder of Caesar. Brutus was envious of the great Caesar; it says so in Ramon L Jimenes book"Caesar against Rome: the great roman civil war". In Jimenes book he states, "despite Caesars indulgent treatment of him all his life that the straight laced Brutus resented even more that man in power"(jimenes 233). In other words Brutus was angered with bad treatment from Caesar but he hated the fact that Caesar was in power more! So what better way would a man jealous of another for having a chance to be crowned king. He could have tried to persuade the people to think over there choice and maybe change their mind. But instead Brutus chose to lead the conspiracy that mid-march and kill the great Caesar. But even though he resented the fact Caesar was offered great power I don’t believe that was the only reason he killed Caesar. In the book "Julius Caesar: Dictator for Life” by Denise Ronaldo she says, "One such man was Marcus Brutus, who was the son of one of Caesar's longtime mistresses." (Ronaldo 108) So Brutus could be the child of one of Caesars "mistresses" or second hand lovers. This would be another reason Brutus had murdered Caesar. He may have felt that Caesar never wanted him as his own child. Or that Caesar may have resented him. This drove Brutus to murder the caring Caesar without relents.  Not only did the people love Caesar, Caesar loved the people of Rome back. He had many plans to make Rome better for the people. Phil Gabsky told us some of the plans Caesar had to help Rome. In his book "Caesar, Ruling the Roman Empire" Phil says, "He was planning to build a great library, to drain marshes, to build canal, improve roads and harbors. He even passed a law that forbidding carts laden with goods except those being used for building, to appear in the streets of Rome between sunrise and sunset." He wanted Rome to be a better place for the people. He didn’t want it to look runned down and appear as a slum. And he was building a library for the people to enjoy. And he didn’t only want to make Rome better for the people but he was leaving them behind something. I know this because In Shakespeare play "the tragedy of Julius Caesar" Antony says, "Here is the will; under Caesars seal: moreover he hath left you his walks, his private arbors, and the new planted orchards, on this side of Tiber; he hath left them you..." Caesar was leaving the people a gift. Why should Brutus kill a man who cared for the people and made Rome a better place for them? Brutus had done wrong by killing the man helping the people of Rome.  Some people try to say Caesar had tried to manipulate and turn the roman people to slaves but my research had showed otherwise. My first piece of evidence was found in A book by Stephen Dando-Collins. In his book "The Ides” Collins talks about how he gave Jewish people much dispersion for helping him win the war in Egypt in 48-47 B.C. One of these dispersions’ was relieving Jews from having to fight in war because their religion "forbade them from taking up arms or to travel on their Sabbath day." If a man was trying to make people his slaves then why would Caesar allow Jews the opportunity to stay inactive in wartimes. If he was trying to make them his slaves then he would force the Jewish people to participate in war. And this wasn’t the only act he did to help the people. I also found for account that Mark Antony said, "He hath brought many captives home to Rome, whose randsom did the general coffers fill, did this in Caesar seem ambitious? When the poor cried Cesar hath wept". He cried over the fact the people were poor. If he was truly trying to make them his slaves then why would he care if the people were poor. A man who masters over slaves doesn’t pay them nor cares if they are in need. And in that quote he says he let the ransoms of his war captives "fill the general coffers" stating he used the money for general good for the people. But Caesar is said to try to become a master of the people.  This is only a portion of research that I have found that shows how he is guilty. Not only that but Brutus Killed a man who "aved rutus' life after the defeat at Pharsallus." (Caesar: And Rome) Murdering the man who saved your life isn’t really a good way to repay your savior. This just shows Brutus' jealousy had driven him to kill a compassionate man who helped Rome in many ways. There is no justice in the murder of a man like this.

Trial of Brutis Mackenzie Potzick November.16.2011 Defense  Honor and ambition seem like just words, but to Brutis and Caeser they mean life or death. Ambition, it is not a trait you want when your leading Rome. With so many controversial characters it is hard to believe who is innocent and who is guilty; let me clear this up for you. The honorable Brutis killed the ambitious Caeser for the good of Rome.
 * Post Defense Closing Statement Here:**

 Brutis’s honor is pure because he says “not that I love Caeser less but I love Rome more.” (Act III/Scene 2/line 23) Brutis loved Caeser and he did not want to kill him but he felt Caeser was a risk to Rome. Brutis would do anything for the common good of the people and Caeser taking the crown would just have led to disaster. “Had you rather Caeser were living and die all slaves, that Caeser were dead to like all free men?" (Act III/Scene 2/line 23) Caeser would have used the Roman people to get what he wanted (power) and then enslave them all. Brutis saved the Roman population. That is extremely honorable.

 Caeser’s ambition made him power crazy if you see here in this quote “Caesar is a guilty man he even says so himself but it has finally caught up to him. ““When the gods wish to take vengeance on a man for his crimes they usually grant him considerable success and a period of impunity, so that when his fortune is reversed he will feel it all the more bitterly."” (Steve forbes and John Prevas. Power Ambition Glory) The Gods took vengeance on him by sending Brutis to kill him. Brutis did not want to kill Caeser, Caeser was Brutis’s friend but he could not let Rome burn in flames. Another point I would like to make is, when Brutis’s ancestor ran out the last king of Rome the Romans made it a law that there would be no more kings. Caeser was going to accept the crown argo breaking the law.

 Rome would have vanquished without Brutis. Marc Antony would have led next and he would have destroyed Rome. You cannot trust Antony because he only agrees with people to get something out of them. "This was the noblest Roman of them all. All the conspirators save only he did that they did in envy of great Caeser; He, only in a general honest thought and common good to all, made one of them"(Act IV/scene IV/lines 68-72-Antony about Brutis) But this was AFTER Brutis had died, he only said this so he could get Brutis’s troops on his (Antony’s side). Also before this Antony called Brutis a butcher, in no way would a butcher of men be honorable so why would Antony go back and say Brutis is honorable? Because he is a fake and needed troops on his side.

 Ambition only gets in your way. You cannot run a country and think you will be successful if ambition (bad ambition) is all that’s driving you. You cannot use the people of you’re a country as a “ladder” to get you on top and then turn your back on the very thing that got you on top. Honor is greater that ambition and always will be. Brutis did the honorable thing and saved his country and fellow countrymen.