(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Novo Canuckia Thu May 23, 2013 9:57 am

This case concerns whether Eurussia`s banjection of The Principality of Grand Longueville and The Kingdom of Royalist Albion is in violation of the Regional Constitution.

*NOTE: This case does not concern whether Albion and Longueville should be banjected, this will be dealt with after this issue is resolved*

I move that Eurussia's actions were an unconstitutional abuse of power according to Article IV: "Right to Due Process and Fair Trial" and Article VII: "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." According to these conventions Eurussia had no right to banject Albion & Longueville without court approval.

Great Eurussia Thu May 23, 2013 10:37 am

Eurussia hopes for the conclusion of this case in a timely manner and with accordance to justice in the name of peace, freedom, and democracy in the World Alliance.

We affirm to this Court our commitment to join this due process as prescribed by our laws. However, Novo Canuckia has named this thread as "Albion & Longueville vs Eurussia" and we replaced it with "Novo Canuckia vs Eurussia" since we believe that the latter nation is the one pursuing the case and would be appropriate.

Also, we are heavily disturbed by the information we received that the Royalist Albion and Grand Longueville has been sending telegrams in the region saying non-sense things again! After they weren't capable of doing these in the RMB anymore! In addition to these, since they have been banjected due to growing requests of our colleagues in the region, they never sent any telegram to the Founder who banjected them and instead sending telegrams to other nations saying different drama stories to gain sympathy.

Worst, knowing persistently active in NS and registered for a long time in the Forums, they weren't even going to the Court to defend themselves and bring themselves back in the region if they are really for the welfare of our great World Alliance.

In this sense, we feel that all these actions directs to destabilization moves against the World Alliance and they might still have puppets within the region. We pray that the Court of Justice will consider all these observations and information and will not overturn our banjection against these two nations since they really not care for the welfare of all of us.

Farshonian Empire Thu May 23, 2013 10:51 am

The Farshonia will declare war against Novo Canuckia if he attack Eurussia.

Great Eurussia Thu May 23, 2013 10:58 am

Eurussia appreciates Farshonia's support and appeal to allow the issue be resolved as diplomatic as possible. Thank you very much.

Lonbonia Thu May 23, 2013 11:01 am

The two were not respectful enough to meet the equal respect they wished to get.

We support Eurussia's position, due to the fact that Longueville, without a doubt, has indeed telegrammed non-sense to nations after their banjection, they DO NOT deserve to return back to the World Alliance due to their annoyance which has caused the nations of the WA to be upset.

We are AGAINST the favor of those two nations to return.

Grand Longueville Thu May 23, 2013 11:04 am

Great Eurussia wrote:Eurussia hopes for the conclusion of this case in a timely manner and with accordance to justice in the name of peace, freedom, and democracy in the World Alliance.

We thank Eurussia for understanding the gravity of the situation at hand.

Great Eurussia wrote:We affirm to this Court our commitment to join this due process as prescribed by our laws. However, Novo Canuckia has named this thread as "Albion & Longueville vs Eurussia" and we replaced it with "Novo Canuckia vs Eurussia" since we believe that the latter nation is the one pursuing the case and would be appropriate.

We understand and allow this alteration.

Great Eurussia wrote:Also, we are heavily disturbed by the information we received that the Royalist Albion and Grand Longueville has been sending telegrams in the region saying non-sense things again! After they weren't capable of doing these in the RMB anymore! In addition to these, since they have been banjected due to growing requests of our colleagues in the region, they never sent any telegram to the Founder who banjected them and instead sending telegrams to other nations saying different drama stories to gain sympathy.

We will offer a complete objection and refutation of this immediately.

Eurussia states that I, Grand Longueville, sent telegrams to certain nations saying "non-sense" things. Indeed, this is false. The telegrams I sent were telegrams of substance, and thus not nonsense. Furthermore they were sent to individuals who had asserted erroneous claims regarding myself. Naturally, and I ask the good Founder if he would not do the same, I countered their points in a succinct manner. Surely the good founder can not fault me for defending myself?

He goes on to declare that the reason I sent these telegrams was due to the fact that I could not respond on the RMB. This is obvious.

I make objection to the following: "they have been banjected due to growing requests of our colleagues in the region", and then the good founder wonders why I did not telegram him. To analogize the situation, he is the hand that pushed the button to send off the nuclear bomb; not the one who gave the orders. The one who gave the orders were the people. The same people, surely, that I sent the telegrams to. Thus is the (partial) reason I sent the telegrams.

He goes on to make an incorrect inference as to the intention of the telegrams sent. He says they were sent to "gain sympathy". Not so. To reiterate for the court, the telegrams in question were sent in order to refute claims by individuals made on the RMB. Not to "gain sympathy" like Eurussia boldly claimed.

Great Eurussia wrote:Worst, knowing persistently active in NS and registered for a long time in the Forums, they weren't even going to the Court to defend themselves and bring themselves back in the region if they are really for the welfare of our great World Alliance.

The above quote from Eurussia is founded on presumptuous ignorance. I had full intent to appeal my banjection on the grounds of the Constitution - which is why it is now being appealed.

Great Eurussia wrote:In this sense, we feel that all these actions directs to destabilization moves against the World Alliance and they might still have puppets within the region. We pray that the Court of Justice will consider all these observations and information and will not overturn our banjection against these two nations since they really not care for the welfare of all of us.

I ask that Eurussia keep his paranoia to himself. No puppets operated by myself are in the World Alliance. I wish the same could be said of most of my accusers.

I, likewise, ask that this trial not be spun off course. I believed that Eurussia, the founder of the World Alliance might have used the Regional Constitution for his defense. Clearly I overestimated him. Indeed, the Constitution is in place and individuals who comment ought to adhere to it.

Grand Longueville Thu May 23, 2013 11:08 am

Lonbonia wrote:The two were not respectful enough to meet the equal respect they wished to get.

Please provide an example to substantiate your assertion.

Lonbonia wrote:We support Eurussia's position, due to the fact that Longueville, without a doubt, has indeed telegrammed [SIC] non-sense to nations after their banjection, they DO NOT deserve to return back to the World Alliance due to their annoyance which has caused the nations of the WA to be upset.

So, sending a telegram is now grounds for banjection? Cause that is all it was. As to it being nonsense, that is unfounded and I countered it during my refutation of Eurussia's post.

Lonbonia wrote:We are AGAINST the favor of those two nations to return.

I'm glad you kept an open mind before you came to such a conclusion. Rolling Eyes

Great Eurussia Thu May 23, 2013 11:12 am

Eurussia appreciates Lonbonia's support.

Thank you very much.

We are thankful of Grand Longueville's presence and hopes that Royalist Albion shows up as well.

Ronald Thu May 23, 2013 11:21 am

I humbly ask both parties if I may serve as a moderator/overseer of this case. It is important to have a neutral source present and none of our Justices are here. I have proven myself to be fair and I have a working knowledge of the Constitution since I authored it. I will not come to a decision, but rather ask questions and moderate the case. I will do this only with consent from both of the sides

Royalist Albion Thu May 23, 2013 11:23 am

I am present.

I shall begin with my address, which was removed from the RBM on orders of Eurussia:

People of the World Alliance,

It is rather traditional to begin addresses of this nature with lines such as “I am shocked and appalled by what has occurred, here.” – This would, however, be untrue: One cannot be shocked by something which one has seen coming for a good while. There is a blight in the World Alliance; an underlying poison which reveals itself biliously whenever it spots opposition to what it judges to be ‘Acceptable’. For this is a region which purports to be “Democratic” and “Social” – Presumably one which values discussion of various issues, then? And yet, from the outset, any discussion of religion or politics is stunted by the assumption that debate is somehow offensive.

That is to say: any discussion. One may express any number of vile and slanderous views, any socialist exultations and the like, so long as it is never discussed. For there are certain treacherous individuals in the World Alliance who are happy to spread their propaganda, yet who cry “Grief!” whenever any challenges are made, and discourse is initiated. These fiends should be unmasked for the cowards and demagogues that they truly are. Grand Longueville and I hold the belief that rational individuals may discuss their positions together productively, but this belief is not shared by certain members of the World Alliance. – And yet, is this not the purpose of NationStates? We are to be evicted for the crime of discussing politics, the very purpose of the game?

I am pleased that there are a few brave individuals, who have the backbone to set aside whatever personal antipathy they may feel, to recognise that our only crimes are our love of discussion, our high standards, and our unwillingness to allow insults go unanswered.

So, I ask you, people of the World Alliance: Do you wish for an alliance where ideas are discussed, or where debate is censored to prevent dispute? Where quality is respected, nay – revered, or where slovenliness is allowed to prevail? Where honour may be preserved, or where men defending their name from slander are perfidiously viewed as criminal? Must reason and law be discarded so easily?

It is my hope that justice prevails, against the thinly-veiled pretences of those who are happy to condemn others, based on little more than a personal dislike.

Yours,
Royalist Albion, esq.

As you can see, my concern is against the bane of all republics: That mob sentiment may overturn people's rights. For perhaps people took offence to Grand Longueville and I, but what warrant does this give for our eviction? How can a glorified "I do not like X" be used to contravene the constitutional rights of X?

For I contend, that neither Grand Longueville nor myself spoke out against a person who had not slandered us first; and that, ipso facto, it is therefore they who should be held responsible for any transgressions which may have occurred.

Vendoland Thu May 23, 2013 11:37 am

Great Eurussia wrote:We affirm to this Court our commitment to join this due process as prescribed by our laws.

Great Eurussia wrote:...they have been banjected due to growing requests of our colleagues in the region...

If there were multiple requests to censure Grand Longueville and Albion, the correct course of action in accordance with the due process of law would have been to bring a case against them in this very Court. Banjecting them without trial is precisely the opposite of due process.

Grand Longueville Thu May 23, 2013 11:39 am

vendoland wrote:
If there were multiple requests to censure Grand Longueville and Albion, the correct course of action in accordance with the due process of law would have been to bring a case against them in this very Court. Banjecting them without trial is precisely the opposite of due process.

And Vendoland brings up a fine point. The issue of warnings. Not one warning was given specifically to either Grand Longueville or Albion by Eurussia.

Royalist Albion Thu May 23, 2013 11:46 am

Let it be noted that not once did we receive any warnings to cease and desist from any supposed crime, - for that would have allowed us to defend ourselves from the accusation, and for our case to be discussed with clarity. Rather, the only warnings that were given, were given once, by Eurussia, to end a particular discussion, and were given to all parties involved, not simply to ourselves - a warning that was obeyed.

Hence, by stating that Eurussia acted due to "requests", he has admitted that he acted, without warning or due process, based only on the prejudices of other nations; and as such, Eurussia abused his power through our shameful ejection.

Grand Longueville Thu May 23, 2013 11:48 am

Royalist Albion wrote:Let it be noted that not once did we receive any warnings to cease and desist from any supposed crime, - for that would have allowed us to defend ourselves from the accusation, and for our case to be discussed with clarity. Rather, the only warnings that were given, were given once, by Eurussia, to end a particular discussion, and were given to all parties involved, not simply to ourselves - a warning that was obeyed.

Hence, by stating that Eurussia acted due to "requests", he has admitted that he acted, without warning or due process, based only on the prejudices of other nations; and as such, Eurussia abused his power through our shameful ejection.

To add to Albion's comments, Eurussia has no substantiated his claim that anyone requested the banning.

It is with that same sentiment that we ask the Court for proof of these requests mad unto Eurussia with the names of the parties involved.

Empire of Articmainia Thu May 23, 2013 11:49 am

For I contend, that neither Grand Longueville nor myself spoke out against a person who had not slandered us first; and that, ipso facto, it is therefore they who should be held responsible for any transgressions which may have occurred.[/quote] [color=red]You are nothing but a lie you attack me for no ression! You attacked me because of my country and my spelling and grammer! This goes to you to loungesville you to attacked me for no ression as well. You two are the picture perfect cyberbullys![/color]

Royalist Albion Thu May 23, 2013 11:54 am

Articmainia wrote:You are nothing but a lie[sic] you attack me for no ression![sic] You attacked me because of my country and my spelling and grammer![sic] This goes to you to loungesville[sic] you to[sic] attacked me for no ression[sic] as well. You two are the picture perfect cyberbullys![sic]

I do not see how pointing out recurring grammatical errors constitutes a transgression against the law. This is simply a case of our having high standards, and attempting to highlight them, that you may seek to better yourself and your writing. At worst, you could claim that this was harsh - but, again, is such a crime?

Also, I rebuff such accusations of cyberbullying. No threats were made, nor were any sustained attacks on your person delivered. This is simply an unwarranted emotional reaction, without legal weight.

Great Eurussia Thu May 23, 2013 11:55 am

Eurussia seconds Articmainia's position.

Grand Longueville Thu May 23, 2013 11:56 am

Articmainia wrote: You are nothing but a lie you attack me for no ression! You attacked me because of my country and my spelling and grammer! This goes to you to loungesville you to attacked me for no ression as well. You two are the picture perfect cyberbullys![SIC]

Now, now, Artic. You know as well as I do the telegram exchange that we had in which you started. Thus, you provoked a response. Artic, I do admit that my criticism was harsh and went too far, and for that, I apologize. Though, I reject that in doing so, I committed a crime. I did not.

I also request that his testimony, at this time, be ignored.

Royalist Albion Thu May 23, 2013 11:58 am

Great Eurussia wrote:Eurussia seconds Articmainia's position.

Perhaps Eurussia would like to provide some justification for the problems highlighted in his case, rather than simply throwing his weight behind such positions willy-nilly?

We have yet to see any legal justification for the banjection. All that has been presented are appeals to emotion, and the ochlocratic assumption that mob sentiment may overturn the constitution on a whim.

chivalry Thu May 23, 2013 12:01 pm

I want to hear from the two nations that were banjected, To get their side of this, and then I want to hear from their supporters. I want this to be a fair case. After I review that, I will ask for the other side for their argument.

Grand Longueville Thu May 23, 2013 12:05 pm

chivalry wrote:I want to hear from the two nations that were banjected, To get their side of this, and then I want to hear from their supporters. I want this to be a fair case. After I review that, I will ask for the other side for their argument.

In what mode of communication would you prefer us to converse?

chivalry Thu May 23, 2013 2:39 pm

the best way I see is in the Court forum, starting a new topic section

New-Zealand Thu May 23, 2013 2:59 pm

I motion in support of their banjection. They're presence in the WA has been thoroughly detrimental to the peace and serenity of the WA Community. They have caused countless arguments, led many personal attacks and continuously ignored requests from Me (President and Delgate), Eurussia (Founder) and multiple other WA members. To me the most disturbing aspect of their presence, was their foul and disgusting treatment of Articmania. He is only 13 and did not deserve such a level of insults from Longueville and Albion. I have no other term to describe them other than Cyber bullies.

I'll present my case as follows :

1) They have broken Nationstates Rules :
(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA 73cb5de438b9d69635045fb9370e7006

(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA 73cb5de438b9d69635045fb9370e7006

I would like to direct your attention to the bits where it clearly states "prohibited is the practice of "griefing." Griefing is playing with the primary aim of annoying or upsetting other people." and "you made a personal attack and your opponent didn't. No matter what the subject matter, if you don't conduct yourself in accordance with the rules of etiquette, you will get into trouble with the moderators."

2) They have been presented with warnings :
(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA 52ecaaa06ee349c83fd9dae98ca2ea3a

(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA 52ecaaa06ee349c83fd9dae98ca2ea3a

3) Many other WA members have pleaded with them to stop :
(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA 0251153c90923430275c328a844a91b1

(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA 7ef54e3a14ebbae97abefb94d1954da4

(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA 476c85bdf1744395a7272070db168ce7

(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA 18962400a5acd2d379e7416bb15e5cb8

4) They initiate argements either directly or indirectly when the other party is unwilling :
(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA 0e735d5a9668d87d648b546670ed6dee

(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA 0e735d5a9668d87d648b546670ed6dee

(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA 4aa1ad444628ed75650551537506fc35

(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA 8bd4cb48b711e2b837855a75c9ea0c9c

P.S. Those Three are from one string of comments, I couldnt fit them all in one screen shot.

5) They have continuously insulted Articmania about his grammar and spelling :

I cannot present evidence right now, but Articmania and many other WA members will vouch for this.

6) Almost every WA member wants them gone :
Just ask around and you'll soon find out that the general consensus is for them to leave Smile

New-Zealand Thu May 23, 2013 3:00 pm

N.B. Some of the images I provided may be cut off by the screen. In that case right click and select "Open image in new tab" or "open image in new window"

Lonbonia Thu May 23, 2013 4:31 pm

I would like to give a question for Albion and Longueville.

My hopes are it is answered in the most calm way possible.

1. You have insulted many nations, and the region itself, why do you even want to return back to the region, when none meets your standards?

2. You insulted half of the World Alliance, you were told to stop multiple times, you ignored. Do you want to return back so that you could insult the remaining other half? Why do you even both bother showing up at the Court of Justice? You are free to come, although i'm not sure why.

3. You argued with almost every opinion one nation makes. You used Sexual posts, like the time when you called me a Sodomy. Do you want to return so you can basically add more sexual posts to upset the World Alliance?

4. You've been arguing for MONTHS with the World Alliance, yet, you are banned and wish to go back, care to explain?

5. Frankly, you even insulted people's grammar, and yet, you want to return, is it the fact that you want to insult people's grammar even more?

And boy, i have all the evidents, and it's all on you, you saw it, you post it, and sometimes, you attempt to forget it to "un-smartly" win the argument.

NOTE : If you are going to say that question 5 is not a reason for banjecting, it is, Because honestly, that upsets the people. Thus, more people wish that you are banjected.

Sponsored content

(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Eurussian Position

Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Lonbonian Position

Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Re: (Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA