(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Empire of Articmainia wrote:I agree They said I was stupid and said that my country was a wasteland and said my country was and evil republic I know you guys heard them two Homos say that.

Can you please substantiate your claims?

Huperzia wrote:This was stated earlier in this thread by Europe & Asia:

"Article VII of the constitution states: Banning and ejection are the ultimate punishment accorded by the World Alliance Government to any member state committing serious offenses either jointly or separately determined by the exercising authorities such as the Court of Justice through its decisions, the Security Council for emergency situations, and the Founder for extreme cases.

This has been rebutted before (HERE)

Huperzia wrote:I move that because regional Peace, Justice, and Stability was jeprodized [SIC], It could be considered an extreme case, and including that popular opinion was against them, cause for the Founder to exercise his emergency powers and ban and eject them from the WA. "

See the above link.

Huperzia wrote:I don't see anything in the constitution that defines an "extreme case". I don't see how Eurussia was out of bound or abusing power - the constitution clearly states he has the auhority [SIC] to ban & eject nations.

The Constitution clearly states that the Founder has the right to ban and eject nations in extreme cases, but then, could he not ban and eject anyone he wanted due to his belief that it was an extreme case. Of course not! Nor can he ban and eject two nations because of "popular opinion" (NOTE: in the notice of banjection, he never cited the Constitution).

Furthermore, how could our case be considered "extreme", in any way? Did we commit any "serious offenses" like the Article YOU cited says? No.

Huperzia wrote:I say let this go, if you think it is necessary, amend the constitution to properly define an extreme case to prevent future occurrences, but there is no violation of rules or abuse of power by Eurussia here

Let it go? To whom are you addressing? Us? Eurussia? The Court? Why should the Court let it go. The Lord Justice has taken a very active stance against those who malign the constitution so vehemently, and this is no exception. Maybe to you it is, but to the proper authorities, it isn't.

Grand Longueville wrote:

Huperzia wrote:This was stated earlier in this thread by Europe & Asia:

"Article VII of the constitution states: Banning and ejection are the ultimate punishment accorded by the World Alliance Government to any member state committing serious offenses either jointly or separately determined by the exercising authorities such as the Court of Justice through its decisions, the Security Council for emergency situations, and the Founder for extreme cases.

This has been rebutted before (HERE)

Huperzia wrote:I move that because regional Peace, Justice, and Stability was jeprodized [SIC], It could be considered an extreme case, and including that popular opinion was against them, cause for the Founder to exercise his emergency powers and ban and eject them from the WA. "

See the above link.

Huperzia wrote:I don't see anything in the constitution that defines an "extreme case". I don't see how Eurussia was out of bound or abusing power - the constitution clearly states he has the auhority [SIC] to ban & eject nations.

The Constitution clearly states that the Founder has the right to ban and eject nations in extreme cases, but then, could he not ban and eject anyone he wanted due to his belief that it was an extreme case. Of course not! Nor can he ban and eject two nations because of "popular opinion" (NOTE: in the notice of banjection, he never cited the Constitution).

Furthermore, how could our case be considered "extreme", in any way? Did we commit any "serious offenses" like the Article YOU cited says? No.

Huperzia wrote:I say let this go, if you think it is necessary, amend the constitution to properly define an extreme case to prevent future occurrences, but there is no violation of rules or abuse of power by Eurussia here

Let it go? To whom are you addressing us? Eurussia? The Court? Why should the Court let it go. The Lord Justice has taken a very active stance against those who malign the constitution so vehemently, and this is no exception. Maybe to you it is, but to the proper authorities, it is.

For the sake of curiosity. Do you intend to return to the WA?

New-Zealand wrote:For the sake of curiosity. Do you intend to return to the WA?

I assume you mean once all this is said and done and provided we are allowed back? Most certainly. I feel that this would be the best course of action, having all this nonsense behind us. I feel, however, that would resume roleplaying. GTCJ cited in your evidence that we were fine roleplayers. This was the case but the timing seemed inopportune for me to continue that. However I am (as of this Sunday) out of school. I will have more free time and thus more ability to roleplay.

While my previous accusations of mediocrity are still valid, I draw a similarity with good St. Francis, "Preach the gospel, and if necessary, use words". By this, Francis means that one ought to "lead by example". I suppose I'll do the same once time allows.

Grand Longueville wrote:

New-Zealand wrote:For the sake of curiosity. Do you intend to return to the WA?

I assume you mean once all this is said and done and provided we are allowed back? Most certainly. I feel that this would be the best course of action, having all this nonsense behind us. I feel, however, that would resume roleplaying. GTCJ cited in your evidence that we were fine roleplayers. This was the case but the timing seemed inopportune for me to continue that. However I am (as of this Sunday) out of school. I will have more free time and thus more ability to roleplay.

While my previous accusations of mediocrity are still valid, I draw a similarity with good St. Francis, "Preach the gospel, and if necessary, use words". By this, Francis means that one ought to "lead by example". I suppose I'll do the same once time allows.

Two of the three statements you have quoted me are me quoting someone else.

That post is directed to the court.

It takes far more than eloquent speech and good role play to be a good region mate

Huperzia wrote:Two of the three statements you have quoted me are me quoting someone else.

To what are you addressing? You responded to my response to NZ, what does this response refer to? Which statements are you talking about?

Huperzia wrote:That post is directed to the court.

Thank you.

Huperzia wrote:It takes far more than eloquent speech and good role play to be a good region mate

I agree. When did I say otherwise?

Chivalry, could you please make a ruling? Both sides have presented evidence, and we are now waiting on you.

I do believe that since this trial seems to be wrapping up (all sides have made their arguments), I feel it is time to make a closing argument to sum up the argument of the prosecution.

Eurussia should be found guilty due to the egregious circumstances of the unlawful, unconstitutional, and unethical ejection and subsequent banning of Grand Longueville and Royalist Albion. The arguments put forth include that Eurussia irresponsibly cited that: "Due to the growing sentiment against The Kingdom of Royalist Albion & The Principality of Grand Longueville and requests for them to cease their rhetorics in the RMB to no avail, the Founder hereby imposes ban and ejection against the two nations". It was only later that the caveat in the constitution for "extreme cases" was brought to light. However, this was certainly not extreme. It was not an emergency, certainly, the banjection was committed two hours after the last comment from the prosecuting parties was stated.

Good Court of JUSTICE, I ask you, why did Eurussia actually ban us. If it was because of it being an extreme case, why didn't he say so? If it was because stability and peace were in jeopardy, why didn't he say so? He stated his reasoning in the notice of banjection quoted above. Court, I say for the sake of justice, Eurussia ought to be found guilty of power abuse. This is clearly apparent. No argument has been able to defend his actions.

I am reminded of THIS thread posted by His Honor, the Lord Chief Justice. In it, he clearly states that: "I want to see that all nations are living to the Constitution as humanly possible". Indeed, to the Chief Justice, mob rule holds no sway, and "growing sentiment" is no reason to banject a nation.

This power abuse is a reckless show of "democracy". I find the World Alliance to still, however, be my home. I find that I have made a fine group of acquaintances here, and I wish to remain. This being the case at hand, I urge the Court to come to the only conclusion in finding Eurussia guilty, his actions unlawful, and thus repealing the act of banning and ejection. I have the utmost faith in the Court.

I dont have to prove anything you know you did wrong and at least I know I did wrong so at least I aint no lier so yah you know it

Empire of Articmainia wrote:I dont[SIC] have to prove anything you know you did wrong and at least I know I did wrong so at least I aint[SIC] no lier[SIC] so yah[SIC] you know it

I mean, this is a Court of Justice. If you make an assertion, you have to substantiate it or else it is baseless, and thus cannot be used. Have you ever heard of the "burden of proof"? Go check it out.

Furthermore, I have already apologized (numerous times) for the manner in which I spoke with you. It was too harsh. Is this an argument?

Grand Longueville wrote:

Empire of Articmainia wrote:I dont[SIC] have to prove anything you know you did wrong and at least I know I did wrong so at least I aint[SIC] no lier[SIC] so yah[SIC] you know it

I mean, this is a Court of Justice. If you make an assertion, you have to substantiate it or else it is baseless, and thus cannot be used. Have you ever heard of the "burden of proof"? Go check it out.

Furthermore, I have already apologized (numerous times) for the manner in which I spoke with you. It was too harsh. Is this an argument?

Thats all I wanted to hear was an apoligy proceed.

Longueville, I followed the link you provided, and the quote is not there.

Europe and Asia wrote:Longueville, I followed the link you provided, and the quote is not there.

Which link?

Empire of Articmainia wrote:

Grand Longueville wrote:

Empire of Articmainia wrote:I dont[SIC] have to prove anything you know you did wrong and at least I know I did wrong so at least I aint[SIC] no lier[SIC] so yah[SIC] you know it

I mean, this is a Court of Justice. If you make an assertion, you have to substantiate it or else it is baseless, and thus cannot be used. Have you ever heard of the "burden of proof"? Go check it out.

Furthermore, I have already apologized (numerous times) for the manner in which I spoke with you. It was too harsh. Is this an argument?

Thats all I wanted to hear was an apoligy proceed.

I apologized before the Trial even commenced. I apologized via Schorr on the RMB.

When you quoted Chivalry.

Grand Longueville wrote:I do believe that since this trial seems to be wrapping up (all sides have made their arguments), I feel it is time to make a closing argument to sum up the argument of the prosecution.

Eurussia should be found guilty due to the egregious circumstances of the unlawful, unconstitutional, and unethical ejection and subsequent banning of Grand Longueville and Royalist Albion. The arguments put forth include that Eurussia irresponsibly cited that: "Due to the growing sentiment against The Kingdom of Royalist Albion & The Principality of Grand Longueville and requests for them to cease their rhetorics in the RMB to no avail, the Founder hereby imposes ban and ejection against the two nations". It was only later that the caveat in the constitution for "extreme cases" was brought to light. However, this was certainly not extreme. It was not an emergency, certainly, the banjection was committed two hours after the last comment from the prosecuting parties was stated.

Good Court of JUSTICE, I ask you, why did Eurussia actually ban us. If it was because of it being an extreme case, why didn't he say so? If it was because stability and peace were in jeopardy, why didn't he say so? He stated his reasoning in the notice of banjection quoted above. Court, I say for the sake of justice, Eurussia ought to be found guilty of power abuse. This is clearly apparent. No argument has been able to defend his actions.

I am reminded of THIS thread posted by His Honor, the Lord Chief Justice. In it, he clearly states that: "I want to see that all nations are living to the Constitution as humanly possible". Indeed, to the Chief Justice, mob rule holds no sway, and "growing sentiment" is no reason to banject a nation.

This power abuse is a reckless show of "democracy". I find the World Alliance to still, however, be my home. I find that I have made a fine group of acquaintances here, and I wish to remain. This being the case at hand, I urge the Court to come to the only conclusion in finding Eurussia guilty, his actions unlawful, and thus repealing the act of banning and ejection. I have the utmost faith in the Court.

I redact my quote statement. What I mean is, your implying something that benefits you. When I did that, Albion went on a tangent.

Europe and Asia wrote:When you quoted Chivalry.

Look again. It is in the second paragraph after the second comma.

"I want to see that all nations are living to the Constitution as humanly possible"

Europe and Asia wrote:I redact my quote statement. What I mean is, your implying something that benefits you. When I did that, Albion went on a tangent.

I was only implying that the Constitution ought to be upheld. Does that benefit just me? No, it benefits the entire region. I was likewise inferring from that statement that the Constitution is important and valuable to the Chief Justice.

---

Eurussia, as the Founder of the World Alliance, as the main proponent of the currently enforced WA Constitution, as the main promoter of laws and justice in the region, who knows every single enforced law in the region, who exercises powers according to the laws of the region, who knows the implications of all its actions whether in-character or out-of-character and as Founder, who have exercised banjection for several times, do hereby affirms and stands in this Court that our decision to banject Royalist Albion and Grand Longueville is necessary and lawful by all means.

Eurussia would like to reiterate to this honorable Court that several nations have presented their arguments in support and in favor of the Founder's banjection decision and citing numerous complaints and even historical references of the attitude of the two banjected nations even from their previous region and several warnings against the hostile acts of the banjected nations which have been presented that was obviously disregarded by the banjected nations that finally resulted to their banjection.

Eurussia would also like to note that some nations have also presented their arguments on NS Rules violations and we believe that even such rules if violated, is believed to be resolved alone by the NS Moderators in which we refute since institutions in the region and the Founder is never prohibited to exercise vigilance in the observance of these rules which basically means that the Court and the Founder may enforce accordingly since the Founder believes that the moderators themselves are human beings as well as the nations of the Court and even the Founder. In this sense, there is no difference on the judgement of NS rules whether it could be enforced by the Moderators, the Founder or the Court since all judgement are all based on human perception and interpretation of these NS Rules.

Also, Eurussia, in its care and consideration for the banjected nations, doesn't want to go far by reporting to the NS Moderators and hope for their deletion since they have been long time members of the region and only wish for them to learn their lesson. In the understanding of the Founder, if the banjected nations were reported to the Moderators, they will be given warning, in which the Founder did. And since they disregarded such, the Founder believes that they will soon be deleted if reported to the Moderators in which the Founder resorted to banjection only.

Eurussia would further like to reiterate to this Court that in the notice of banjection against the two banjected nations, the cited reason which involves the word sentiment doesn't necessarily mean that it is the only reason for banjection because the Founder is not obliged to detail all the reasons for banjection since it even challenges to two banjected nations to bring the matter to Court in which all the reasons have been detailed not just by the Founder, but everyone else.

Eurussia believes that with all aforementioned arguments together with their cited references are all enough to constitute the actions of the two banjected nations to be extreme in nature with accordance to the World Alliance Constitution by all means.

Eurussia would also like to note its disappointment over Novo Canuckia's initiation of this case that instead of being pushed by the two banjected nations knowing that they are registered on the Forums, were initiated by Novo Canuckia in behalf of the two nations. The Founder is honored to witness Novo Canuckia's honorable action yet its silence most of the time throughout the case is disappointed by all means.

Hence, this is our final and closing argument, and hopes that all other Parties will not do a time wasting rebuttal anymore and will instead wait for the decision of the good and honourable Court of Justice that the Founder believes will affirm the banjection of Royalist Albion and Grand Longueville in which was given the chance to apologize but they rejected and is enough to show that the banjected nations doesn't really care for the region and will never do good for the World Alliance. So, the Founder hopes that their banjection will stay FOREVER.

Great Eurussia wrote:

---

Eurussia, as the Founder of the World Alliance, as the main proponent of the currently enforced WA Constitution, as the main promoter of laws and justice in the region, who knows every single enforced law in the region, who exercises powers according to the laws of the region, who knows the implications of all its actions whether in-character or out-of-character and as Founder, who have exercised banjection for several times, do hereby affirms and stands in this Court that our decision to banject Royalist Albion and Grand Longueville is necessary and lawful by all means.

Eurussia would like to reiterate to this honorable Court that several nations have presented their arguments in support and in favor of the Founder's banjection decision and citing numerous complaints and even historical references of the attitude of the two banjected nations even from their previous region and several warnings against the hostile acts of the banjected nations which have been presented that was obviously disregarded by the banjected nations that finally resulted to their banjection.

Eurussia would also like to note that some nations have also presented their arguments on NS Rules violations and we believe that even such rules if violated, is believed to be resolved alone by the NS Moderators in which we refute since institutions in the region and the Founder is never prohibited to exercise vigilance in the observance of these rules which basically means that the Court and the Founder may enforce accordingly since the Founder believes that the moderators themselves are human beings as well as the nations of the Court and even the Founder. In this sense, there is no difference on the judgement of NS rules whether it could be enforced by the Moderators, the Founder or the Court since all judgement are all based on human perception and interpretation of these NS Rules.

Also, Eurussia, in its care and consideration for the banjected nations, doesn't want to go far by reporting to the NS Moderators and hope for their deletion since they have been long time members of the region and only wish for them to learn their lesson. In the understanding of the Founder, if the banjected nations were reported to the Moderators, they will be given warning, in which the Founder did. And since they disregarded such, the Founder believes that they will soon be deleted if reported to the Moderators in which the Founder resorted to banjection only.

Eurussia would further like to reiterate to this Court that in the notice of banjection against the two banjected nations, the cited reason which involves the word sentiment doesn't necessarily mean that it is the only reason for banjection because the Founder is not obliged to detail all the reasons for banjection since it even challenges to two banjected nations to bring the matter to Court in which all the reasons have been detailed not just by the Founder, but everyone else.

Eurussia believes that with all aforementioned arguments together with their cited references are all enough to constitute the actions of the two banjected nations to be extreme in nature with accordance to the World Alliance Constitution by all means.

Eurussia would also like to note its disappointment over Novo Canuckia's initiation of this case that instead of being pushed by the two banjected nations knowing that they are registered on the Forums, were initiated by Novo Canuckia in behalf of the two nations. The Founder is honored to witness Novo Canuckia's honorable action yet its silence most of the time throughout the case is disappointed by all means.

Hence, this is our final and closing argument, and hopes that all other Parties will not do a time wasting rebuttal anymore and will instead wait for the decision of the good and honourable Court of Justice that the Founder believes will affirm the banjection of Royalist Albion and Grand Longueville in which was given the chance to apologize but they rejected and is enough to show that the banjected nations doesn't really care for the region and will never do good for the World Alliance. So, the Founder hopes that their banjection will stay FOREVER.

What much more is there to say? I think Eurussia has summed up our views excellently. I am fairly sure my fellow prosecutors Europe and Asia, Huperzia, Lonbonia, Articmania and Freedom Planita 2 would share the same view as me. I also encourage the honorable Court to uphold the Banjection on Longueville and Albion, in the opinion of me and many other members of the WA, the banjection is a MUST.

I have talked with my other justices and as soon as they get back to me, the WA will hear our decision.

Thank you

Great Eurussia wrote:Eurussia, as the Founder of the World Alliance, as the main proponent of the currently enforced WA Constitution, as the main promoter of laws and justice in the region, who knows every single enforced law in the region, who exercises powers according to the laws of the region, who knows the implications of all its actions whether in-character or out-of-character and as Founder, who have exercised banjection for several times, do hereby affirms and stands in this Court that our decision to banject Royalist Albion and Grand Longueville is necessary and lawful by all means.

It is only natural that you would continue on with these erroneous claims of necessity. Though, I would still like to know why you have yet to refute a single argument of mine or Albion's.

Great Eurussia wrote:Eurussia would like to reiterate to this honorable Court that several nations have presented their arguments in support and in favor of the Founder's banjection decision and citing numerous complaints and even historical references of the attitude of the two banjected nations even from their previous region and several warnings against the hostile acts of the banjected nations which have been presented that was obviously disregarded by the banjected nations that finally resulted to their banjection.

Several nations have presented their arguments for and against the banjection. Longueville, Albion, Vendoland, Schorr, Novo have all disputed it as abusive in power and egregious. Another nation, HPS, has been so mindful as to call for our allowance to return. This is no longer a mob mentality, dear Eurussia, because the mob consists of a vocal few on a vendetta. For instance I had absolutely no interaction with Huperzia, and yet? He comes out of the woodwork once the trial begins and starts slandering me. Is appropriate? Is this how the opposition should operate? Not at all.

Eurussia you made a mistake, you said: "several warnings against the hostile acts of the banjected nations". From what legitimate authority? For once, Eurussia, substantiate this claim. It is absolutely baseless to say that we received warnings. The warnings you administered were universal. Remember the telegram?

As to the accusations regarding the previous region, I have responded and utterly unmasked it for the irrelevant nonsense it is, and NZ has not responded to my rebuttal, per usual.

Furthermore you say that we were banned because we disregarded warnings, etc. However this is, again, not what you stated in your notice of banjection. I ask the Court to refer to my closing argument to see the banjection notice Eurussia offered in order to see that there were only two reasons cited and neither are constitutional.

Great Eurussia wrote:Eurussia would also like to note that some nations have also presented their arguments on NS Rules violations and we believe that even such rules if violated, is believed to be resolved alone by the NS Moderators in which we refute since institutions in the region and the Founder is never prohibited to exercise vigilance in the observance of these rules which basically means that the Court and the Founder may enforce accordingly since the Founder believes that the moderators themselves are human beings as well as the nations of the Court and even the Founder. In this sense, there is no difference on the judgement of NS rules whether it could be enforced by the Moderators, the Founder or the Court since all judgement are all based on human perception and interpretation of these NS Rules.

While this is certainly a valid argument, I feel that it is irrelevant to the case.

Great Eurussia wrote:Also, Eurussia, in its care and consideration for the banjected nations, doesn't want to go far by reporting to the NS Moderators and hope for their deletion since they have been long time members of the region and only wish for them to learn their lesson. In the understanding of the Founder, if the banjected nations were reported to the Moderators, they will be given warning, in which the Founder did. And since they disregarded such, the Founder believes that they will soon be deleted if reported to the Moderators in which the Founder resorted to banjection only.

You say that you wish for us to learn our lesson. Very good. But then you go on to wish that our banjection is upheld "FOREVER". How do these two wishes reconcile themselves?

As I said before: NO WARNING WAS GIVEN TO (SPECIFICALLY) ALBION OR MYSELF BY THE FOUNDER. This claim is incorrect, and I ask the Court to disregard it until proof is brought.

Great Eurussia wrote:Eurussia would further like to reiterate to this Court that in the notice of banjection against the two banjected nations, the cited reason which involves the word sentiment doesn't necessarily mean that it is the only reason for banjection because the Founder is not obliged to detail all the reasons for banjection since it even challenges to two banjected nations to bring the matter to Court in which all the reasons have been detailed not just by the Founder, but everyone else.

Of course it challenges us to go to Court, which we have done, but it seems blatantly unfair to go to court after the punishment is served, don't you think? Just defies logical.

As to your claim that you are not obliged to list every reason, that was the reason you gave. Not a Constitutional citation, not a nod to peace and stability; just "growing sentiments against" and "requests for them to cease their rhetorics [SIC] in the RMB".

Great Eurussia wrote:Eurussia believes that with all aforementioned arguments together with their cited references are all enough to constitute the actions of the two banjected nations to be extreme in nature with accordance to the World Alliance Constitution by all means.

But you have yet to refute any argument put forth by myself or Albion. In fact it seems every argument that has occurred in this trial ends with us, and the opposition not being able (or choosing not) to respond. Their "references" have been thoroughly repudiated and consistently proven to be erroneous.

Great Eurussia wrote:Eurussia would also like to note its disappointment over Novo Canuckia's initiation of this case that instead of being pushed by the two banjected nations knowing that they are registered on the Forums, were initiated by Novo Canuckia in behalf of the two nations. The Founder is honored to witness Novo Canuckia's honorable action yet its silence most of the time throughout the case is disappointed by all means.

Admittedly, this confused me as well (especially due to his inactive participation as of late). While I am most earnestly thankful for his pursuance of our freedom, I do wonder why he made the thread.

Great Eurussia wrote:Hence, this is our final and closing argument, and hopes that all other Parties will not do a time wasting rebuttal anymore and will instead wait for the decision of the good and honourable Court of Justice that the Founder believes will affirm the banjection of Royalist Albion and Grand Longueville in which was given the chance to apologize but they rejected and is enough to show that the banjected nations doesn't really care for the region and will never do good for the World Alliance. So, the Founder hopes that their banjection will stay FOREVER.

Well your hopes are true. I did not do a time wasting rebuttal. The same cannot be said for you, however, for you have offered no rebuttal what so ever, time wasting or otherwise.

I cannot see how the good Court could find the parties in question (Albion and I) to be guilty. I have the utmost faith, as I said, in the Court to come to the just and only logical conclusion in finding Eurussia guilty of the abuse of power, and thus, the banjection nullified.

New-Zealand wrote:
What much more is there to say? I think Eurussia has summed up our views excellently. I am fairly sure my fellow prosecutors Europe and Asia, Huperzia, Lonbonia, Articmania and Freedom Planita 2 would share the same view as me. I also encourage the honorable Court to uphold the Banjection on Longueville and Albion, in the opinion of me and many other members of the WA, the banjection is a MUST.

No, NZ, you are not on the prosecution. You are on the Defense. This is Novo Canuckia VS. Eurussia, not the other way around.

Also, NZ, can you please refute anything I said in my rebuttal of your "aftershock" evidence?

The nation of Huperzia believes our founder, Eurussia, is correct in his interpretation of the exercise of his constitutional powers and rights.

Grand Longueville wrote:

New-Zealand wrote:
What much more is there to say? I think Eurussia has summed up our views excellently. I am fairly sure my fellow prosecutors Europe and Asia, Huperzia, Lonbonia, Articmania and Freedom Planita 2 would share the same view as me. I also encourage the honorable Court to uphold the Banjection on Longueville and Albion, in the opinion of me and many other members of the WA, the banjection is a MUST.

No, NZ, you are not on the prosecution. You are on the Defense. This is Novo Canuckia VS. Eurussia, not the other way around.

Also, NZ, can you please refute anything I said in my rebuttal of your "aftershock" evidence?

I have no obligation to debate the validity of my evidence with you. The validity of my evidence is up to the court to decide. As of now, I have nothing to say to you.