World Alliance
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

(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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Go down

(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA - Page 8 Empty Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Post  Royalist Albion Fri May 31, 2013 9:59 pm

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.
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.

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:

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:
Also, Eurussia, [...] only wish[sic] for them to learn their lesson.
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.
Royalist Albion
Royalist Albion
Recognized State

Posts : 46
Join date : 2013-04-23

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA - Page 8 Empty Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Post  Europe and Asia Sat Jun 01, 2013 1:23 am

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
Europe and Asia
Emerging Power

Posts : 881
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 48
Location : Ann Arbor, MI

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA - Page 8 Empty Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Post  Grand Longueville Sat Jun 01, 2013 5:40 am

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
Grand Longueville
Recognized State

Posts : 48
Join date : 2013-04-04

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA - Page 8 Empty Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Post  Europe and Asia Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:16 am

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
Europe and Asia
Emerging Power

Posts : 881
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 48
Location : Ann Arbor, MI

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA - Page 8 Empty Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Post  Royalist Albion Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:57 am

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.
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.

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
Royalist Albion
Recognized State

Posts : 46
Join date : 2013-04-23

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA - Page 8 Empty Eurussian Position

Post  Great Eurussia Sat Jun 01, 2013 10:16 am



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.
Great Eurussia
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA - Page 8 Empty Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Post  Grand Longueville Sat Jun 01, 2013 10:22 am

Why do you keep posting the same "position", verbatim?
Grand Longueville
Grand Longueville
Recognized State

Posts : 48
Join date : 2013-04-04

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA - Page 8 Empty decision Has Been made

Post  chivalry Fri Jun 07, 2013 1:56 pm

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.
chivalry
chivalry
Emerging Powerbroker

Posts : 64
Join date : 2013-02-06

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=the_republic_of_chivalry

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA - Page 8 Empty Eurussian Position

Post  Great Eurussia Fri Jun 07, 2013 2:06 pm

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.
Great Eurussia
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA - Page 8 Empty Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 8 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum