(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA
+13
Europe and Asia
The Catham Islands
New-Zealand
chivalry
Empire of Articmainia
Vendoland
Royalist Albion
Ronald
Grand Longueville
Lonbonia
Farshonian Empire
Great Eurussia
Novo Canuckia
17 posters
Page 8 of 8
Page 8 of 8 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA
Well, New Zealand, that's rather the point of a trial. One side presents evidence, the other side counters such; the onus of attention, therefore, shifts from one side to the other.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.
Yet I suppose I can understand your confusion, for what we've seen here is the defence unleash a torrent of superficial "justifications" (Unless you are Eurussia, in which case pseudo-justifications are set aside almost entirely, in favour of flowery self-aggrandisement and mob-mentality rhetoric), with Grand Longueville and myself refuting each and every point as it arises, whilst also levelling charges against the perpetrator and defendant, Eurussia. Charges, we should note, which have never been addressed at any point by the defendant.
What farce is this, where members of the prosecution are on trial, yet where the defendant does not engage at all? Eurussia, it seems, is so arrogantly assured that bias and slander will triumph, that he does not feel the need to shield himself from evidence of his corruption. But, surely, evidence unrefuted is evidence most damning? So, since Grand Longueville and myself have countered every argument from the defence, - without retort, - and have levelled numerous points of our own, - without address, - we are the party with the only evidence outstanding, and hence have a mountain of justification on our side.
We urge the Court to note these facts, alongside the systematically inappropriate behaviour of our assailants, when passing judgement on this trial.
Furthermore, since Eurussia seems to have forgotten that he is on trial, allow me to highlight my earlier case:
- Spoiler:
There is a persistent source of confusion on this thread, which is to say: It is assumed that Grand Longueville and myself are on trial. We are not. The accused, here, is Eurussia - on the charges of corruption and power abuse. Despite this, Grand Longueville and myself have had to defend ourselves from torrents of superficial "evidence" and bilious abuses. We could have saved a lot of space if our assailants had simply admitted "They are on trial because they float when thrown into a pond"; that way, we'd be a lot more honest about the nature of the Witch Hunt we are presently engaged in. Are we to be burnt at the stake, or just lynched by the mob, then?
The treachery of Eurussia is readily apparent to any who cares to look for it. We note the inconsistencies in his argument, and the criminal justifications he has provided, as well as his refusal to engage with the evidence of this case.
Let's see:Eurussia in his opening statement admitted that we were not banjected due to any crimes on our part, rather because of public sentiment. That's right, public sentiment alone has been enough to set aside the Constitution and our rights! This should be enough to overturn the banjection, for with NO transgressions stated, NO Constitutional authority, and NO emergency warrant (We were both offline at the time, and had been for two hours - so "Extreme cases" and "Swift action needed" don't apply), two members were evicted from the World Alliance WITHOUT any semblance of due process.they have been banjected due to growing requests of our colleagues in the region
As Novo Canuckia said, this banjection is:Novo Canuckia, who has often been at odds with Grand Longueville and myself, stated this is a massive abuse of power without due process. It's not just me, then? You can all see the corruption, here, - yet some are unwilling to stand against it because they like the outcome of the treason? Crimes are sweet that have good plunder, eh? Treachery of the highest order!a massive abuse of the power by the majority to remove an unpopular minority for no other reason than that they are not liked by the same majority
However, Eurussia is less than consistent in his testimony:Apparently, admitting initially that he banned us due to public sentiment was a mistake; so, Eurussia sought to rectify this error by changing his account. Suddenly, he claims 'Constitutional Authority' instead of 'Public Will', and 'To ensure stability and peace' instead of 'They are unpopular'. What a marvellously treacherous backtrack. Grand Longueville and myself have both refuted these reasons - Eurussia has not issued a reply addressing these refutations.Eurussia has exercised its powers and duties under Article 7 and Article 1 respectively ensuring stability and peace by exercising discretionary banjection under the circumstances of extreme cases.
Perhaps this is because Eurussia is still partial to the "I evicted them because some people wanted it" defence?As if that's relevant.The banjection was welcomed by many
Moreover, Eurussia admitted that we did not set out to cause grief, or to commit any slights and transgressions:Thus, we cannot be persecuted as criminals in violation of NationStates law, as it was earlier suggested, for we were not "griefing" by a long shot. Instead, two people with good intentions, who were not aware they were committing any wrongdoing, were evicted without trial, - without even a warning!, - and these are "extreme cases" in need of "swift action"? Give me a break.the intention may be good yet it has become obvious that they have become unaware of the negative implications of their actions
And if that was not enough, not content with having changed his testimony of the banjection once, Eurussia did so again IN THE SAME POST. That's right, the inconsistencies are so numerous that he may contradict himself in the same breath. Observe:Public sentiment, preserving "peace and stability", and now "to teach [us] a lesson"? Three separate reasons, none of them legally granted to Eurussia. So, regardless of which of the three justifications he stands by, Eurussia has committed power abuse.And the banjection was necessary to teach these nations a lesson and forced them to show their sincerity and desire for the good of the World Alliance in which Eurussia believes have been working.
Naturally, Grand Longueville and myself pointed this out in our defence, but instead of replying to our reasoning, Eurussia was content to hide behind his flowery language, branding us "two charlatan nations", no less! But, Eurussia again let his tongue run away with him, for he made another admission:Of course we shall take shelter under our rights when we are denied justice! Eurussia, here, has basically stated that what matters is not what the Constitution deems to be legal, but what he himself thinks to be "respectful" - such disregard for the Constitution by the Founder is shocking. But, not inconsistent, however, since he has persistently avoided substantiating his banjection constitutionally - instead relying on public bias and bold claims of apparent justification.Consistently hiding in their constitutional rights without taking consideration of morality of respect and understanding as equal nations here in our region.Because we didn't apologise for crimes we didn't commit, we are to be denied our rights further? Is this the same "teach us a lesson" motivation we saw earlier? Either way, 'Not apologising when the Founder expects it' is not a crime by any measure, and hence cannot be used against us in this court.Citing their lack [...] desire to have a sincere apology to the World Alliance [...] Eurussia believes that the banjection shall remain
Thus, with the above in mind, we may summarise that Eurussia's reasoning for the banjection was threefold:
1) Public sentiment
2) To preserve peace and stability
3) To teach us a lesson
No. 1 and No. 3 are all immensely corrupt and base abuses of power; No. 2 has been shown to be groundless, for two users who set out to commit no crime, who were not given any warnings, and who were not even online, were deemed "Extreme cases", and were banjected without trial.
And therefore, we can only note that the Founder, Eurussia, has failed to provide any adequate justification for his actions; has changed his testimony on three occasions; has refused to engage with the evidence of the case, preferring insults and rhetoric; and as such, we conclude our banjection to be unconstitutional, meaning it should be overturned forthwith, with an inquiry began against Eurussia for the crime of power abuse.
This entire sequence of argument is relevant in and of itself, since it has yet to be addressed by Eurussia, but in particular I focus the Court's attention on point of corruption, No.3: That Eurussia banjected Grand Longueville and myself not in accordance to his legal authority, but because he wished to "teach us a lesson". I bring this up since he has, once again, admitted it:
Once again, I must point out to the court that the defendant has failed to issue a legitimate legal justification of his actions, has failed to respond to the three arguments for his abuse of power, - has even admitted to those abuses of power!, - and has instead contented himself to issue vacuous speeches, whilst allowing the defence to assail and slander the persecution.Also, Eurussia, [...] only wish[sic] for them to learn their lesson.
Royalist Albion- Recognized State
- Posts : 46
Join date : 2013-04-23
Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA
At this point, I would like to request that Longueville and Albion cease and desist their rebuttals against Eurussia's argument, and submit their own for the court to decide. Now is the time for your final speech, not to drag this on any longer.
Last edited by Europe and Asia on Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:17 am; edited 1 time in total
Europe and Asia- Emerging Power
- Posts : 881
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 48
Location : Ann Arbor, MI
Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA
Europe and Asia wrote:At this point, I would like to request that Longueville and Albion cease and desist their rebuttles [SIC] against Eurussia's argument, and submit their own for the court to decide. Now is the time for your final speech, not to drag this on any longer.
Are we the only ones who must cease and desist or do others have to stop defending themselves as well?
Grand Longueville- Recognized State
- Posts : 48
Join date : 2013-04-04
Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA
Eurussia asked you not to argue, and yet you did. Defending yourself is one thing. You are now arguing simply to argue. I am not continuing this further.
Europe and Asia- Emerging Power
- Posts : 881
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 48
Location : Ann Arbor, MI
Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA
Eurussia is on trial; Eurussia is not overseeing the trial. Grand Longueville was not only perfectly justified in responding to Eurussia's speech, but it was prudent to do so. The court needs to be aware that the defendant's case lacks any legitimate support, after all, and it is the prosecutions place to supply that awareness.Europe and Asia wrote:Eurussia asked you not to argue, and yet you did. Defending yourself is one thing. You are now arguing simply to argue. I am not continuing this further.
And glad to see you're not going to continue this attempt to dismiss legitimate arguments further. Why abandon a perfectly good trend of not responding to arguments and rebuttals?
Royalist Albion- Recognized State
- Posts : 46
Join date : 2013-04-23
Eurussian Position
As we have witnessed another wave of rebuttals,
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.
Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA
Why do you keep posting the same "position", verbatim?
Grand Longueville- Recognized State
- Posts : 48
Join date : 2013-04-04
decision Has Been made
Okay everyone has been waiting for my decision on this case, sorry it has taken so long for a reply, but I have read everyone's arguments and defense on the matter and decision is that We stand behind the movement of banjection by The Empire of Great Eurussia. So this case is now closed and hopefully we can move on as an alliance and work together.
Eurussian Position
chivalry wrote:Okay everyone has been waiting for my decision on this case, sorry it has taken so long for a reply, but I have read everyone's arguments and defense on the matter and decision is that We stand behind the movement of banjection by The Empire of Great Eurussia. So this case is now closed and hopefully we can move on as an alliance and work together.
Eurussia respectfully adheres to the decision of the Court of Justice.
Page 8 of 8 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Similar topics
» (FULL) WA Regional News Network
» (Dismissed) Novo Canuckia vs WA
» (FULL) WA Regional News Network
» (FULL) WA International News Network
» (Resolved) China China vs Articmainia
» (Dismissed) Novo Canuckia vs WA
» (FULL) WA Regional News Network
» (FULL) WA International News Network
» (Resolved) China China vs Articmainia
Page 8 of 8
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|