(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

With the arguments presented by several nations of our great region against the unacceptable attitude showed by Royalist Albion and Grand Longueville

An attitude that has not been shown to exist; rather, has been alluded to through superficial evidence, and much bile and bias.

the Founder, 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.

Extreme cases, I should think, would be ones where flaming was occurring, or spamming, or something similarly vile. Instead, neither of us were speaking at the moment of banjection; neither of us had flamed, or spammed; all you had was collective dislike from a few members - that does not make the case extreme by a long shot.

Further, you did not ensure stability and peace; you, without warning, warrant and due process, evicted members who had proven themselves orderly enough to obey orders to desist when they were given. Hence, you robbed the justice system of its authority, as well as Grand Longueville and myself of our rights. This is power abuse of the basest kind.

These two nations have indeed have high standards that they always instigate to other nations where the intention may be good yet it has become obvious that they have become unaware of the negative implications of their actions that made several nations uncomfortable with them.

So you admit that we did not set out to cause "Grief". In which case, we committed no transgression, and cannot constitute an extreme case. Essentially, you have here conceded that it was not necessary to banject us, since you could have simply issued a personal warning, informing us of the supposed negative consequences of our actions.

It has also been proven there are long list of reasons that brought their banjection

None of which have withstood analysis. These reasons are superfluous. At best, they are only sufficient to warrant an inquiry or a warning.

they persistently refute everything even if its already obvious.

It is blatantly not obvious, since there has been no substantive proof, that can survive the onslaught of rational analysis, that suggest we have done anything wrong. All you have accumulated is a list of misconstrued examples, and a torrent of bias. So, of course we refute such.

With repeated demands to stop and control their behaviour

No official demands were made against us.

they continue to be insensitive that forced the Founder to act swiftly and maintain the stability of the region

Swift action may have been called for if we were flaming or spamming; we were neither. We weren't even talking.

The banjection was welcomed by many

A treacherous ad populum!

As the Founder, Eurussia believes that all the arguments have been presented and is enough already that both nations have indeed committed insensitivity towards other nations.

No argument has withstood criticism; no defence has been made for the superfluous arguments against us; for you to claim that we are guilty is simply to project your own bias onto the situation. This is corruption.

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.

So, you admit that the banjection was being used not as an emergency power in extreme situations, but as a disciplinary tool, utilised by yourself, based on a self-declared authority that you do not possess?

Eurussia believes that Royalist Albion and Grand Longueville must issue a separate and sincere public apology to all the nations of the World Alliance for them to be given another chance in our great and humble region, the World Alliance.

We have apologised for the minor transgressions we have committed; we will not apologise for crimes we have not committed.

Great Eurussia wrote:With the arguments presented by several nations of our great region against the unacceptable attitude showed by Royalist Albion and Grand Longueville, as the Founder, 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.

Here is a problem that has presented itself, good founder. You say that you banned Albion and myself in order to ensure stability and peace. Though, that isn't quite what you said in your order of banjection is it? In case any of you have forgotten the wording used, I present it here in full:

!!! NOTICE OF BANJECTION !!!

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.

Now, you see here there is no citation, formal or otherwise, of Article 7 or Article 1. Indeed, there is no actual reason given other than "growing sentiments against" and "requests for them to cease their rhetorics[SIC]". Furthermore, the latter reason given in that notice is absolute bunk. No formal request was made by Eurussia to either Albion or myself.

The good founder cites the two articles here though, but doesn't really go into detail. Why not Eurussia? I request, nay demand for the good of the Court, that you quote from the Articles what legitimate right you had to eject us and what legitimate right you have to keep us out. Go on. Raiders, that's an extreme case. Spammers, sure. But discussion? Since when is that extreme?

Extreme (Adj.): Reaching a high or the highest degree

Is this right then? Is discussion now grouped in with raiders and spammers?

Great Eurussia wrote:These two nations have indeed have high standards that they always instigate to other nations where the intention may be good yet it has become obvious that they have become unaware of the negative implications of their actions that made several nations uncomfortable with them. It has also been proven there are long list of reasons that brought their banjection and still they persistently refute everything even if its already obvious.

For shame, dear leader, you go so far as to assume? I am fully aware of how upset people are, though, that only fuels their need to come up with silly arguments founded on thin air.

Now it is my turn to assume. I assume that you are saying that if one nation makes other nations "uncomfortable", then the nation in question ought to be banjected without a trial prior? To be honest, I hardly assumed. That is what you just stated in your last paragraph: "the negative implications of their actions that made several nations uncomfortable with them"

As to the issue of us refuting arguments, what should you expect? Since when has an individual who upholds the truth ever allow a lie (and quite frankly, that is what most of the arguments against us are) go by without issue? Eurussia, the arguments have been refuted time and time again for good reason, they are not true.

Great Eurussia wrote:With repeated demands to stop and control their behavior, they continue to be insensitive that forced the Founder to act swiftly and maintain the stability of the region. Hence, here we are. The banjection was welcomed by many yet refuted by few still the banjection was never enforced with finality but with the considerable and humanitarian condition of requesting the concerned nations to ask the Court to overturn our decision provided that they will show that they realky[SIC] care for the World Alliance, in which until now, is yet to be addressed by the Court. Hence, here we are.

Indeed, here we are. Now, who asked us to "stop and control" our behavior? You? Not once. Other people without any authority behind them? Sure. Your point is what then?

You were "forced...to act swiftly"? Oh?

Swiftly (Adv.): Happening quickly or promptly

While it is true you banned us quickly and promptly, it only took you a matter of seconds, but it is not true to say that you banned us in a swift manner. Your notice of banjection went out two hours after the last comment of either Albion or myself. How swift is that? No warning. No request to cease. A banning. Albeit, a banning done without trial. A banning.

You say you did so to maintain stability, as if perhaps, if you didn't do it, stability were at risk. Though, the last comments we made on the RMB weren't in an argument, no. The last two comments we made were quotes from a popular Irish television show "Father Ted". Such instability.

Great Eurussia wrote:As the Founder, Eurussia believes that all the arguments have been presented and is enough already that both nations have indeed committed insensitivity towards other nations. 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.

With all due respect to the good founder, he has no right to hurry this Court. After all, he has a duty and an obligation to maintain Justice according to Art. I of the regional Constitution. Speaking of the Constitution, I found no caveat in there that allows the founder to banject if he deigns it "necessary to teach...nations a lesson". First it was because of popular opinion, then it was to maintain stability, then it was to teach us a lesson. Will the good founder settle on a reason why he did what he did?

Great Eurussia wrote:Hence, the punishment may be harsh yet it has worked. And as the Founder, Eurussia believes that Royalist Albion and Grand Longueville must issue a separate and sincere public apology to all the nations of the World Alliance for them to be given another chance in our great and humble region, the World Alliance.

It has worked has it? To what end? Has it silenced us? No, we're still talking. Has it maintained justice? No, it has silenced justice and substituted abuse in it's place. Has it maintained freedom? No, it has substituted bondage in it's place. Has it maintained stability? No, people seem generally divided; those who are yearnin' for a lynchin' and those who are legitimately in favor of a calm resolution.

We have apologized for all that we will apologize for, and nothing more.

Great Eurussia wrote:But as prescribed by the WA Constitution, the Founder, respectfully submits the conclusion of this case to the honourable Court of Justice in the belief that they will consider our official argument and position in their decision for the sole welfare and good of the World Alliance.

We thank you for your submission.

Unfortunately for me as a Founder and as expected by most nations, this case has become the same environment instigated by the two nations. The only difference is that the same debate of rebuttal and refute of every single word by these two nations to the nations against them are being held here in the forums and not in the RMB anymore.

As the Founder, it is sad to witness these two charlatan nations who have the highest standards of whatever have persistently doing what they always believe are correct on their so called standards. Consistently hiding in their constitutional rights without taking consideration of morality of respect and understanding as equal nations here in our region.

Citing their lack of interests or desire to have a sincere apology to the World Alliance, in which we never saw, Eurussia believes that the banjection shall remain and its lifting to allow these two nations to go back to our peaceful region will never do good in the long run.

Citing as well their continuous bashing here and in the RMB and citing their lack of interests in joining other regional events and persistent initiation of unrespectful use of bad words in the RMB, Eurussia believes that the banjection shall forever remain. And prays that these issue has prolonged and going nowhere and must be resolved sooner to make us all have a peace of mind.

Eurussia appeals to the Court to decide on this case as soon as all Justices would be available. Thank you.

Void. Ignore this post.

Great Eurussia wrote:Unfortunately for me as a Founder and as expected by most nations, this case has become the same environment instigated by the two nations. The only difference is that the same debate of rebuttal and refute of every single word by these two nations to the nations against them are being held here in the forums and not in the RMB anymore.

Please, Eurussia, tell me what you expected from me. Did you expect me not to offer rebuttals and just allow for the trial to go against me? Please answer that, if anything.

Great Eurussia wrote:As the Founder, it is sad to witness these two charlatan nations who have the highest standards of whatever have persistently doing what they always believe are correct on their so called standards. Consistently hiding in their constitutional rights without taking consideration of morality of respect and understanding as equal nations here in our region.

Now, you have accused us (and go on to do the same later on) of "bashing" other nations. But then you call us charlatans. How do you figure? How is this accusation accurate? And how is it not bashing by your standards? I have the utmost respect for individuals here, for it takes courage to provide fine arguments here expressed. However, I do believe that Lonbonia said on page one: "The two were not respectful enough to meet the equal respect they wished to get". Are we the only culprits who have offended "respect"? Or the only ones you wish to recognize?

Great Eurussia wrote:Citing their lack of interests or desire to have a sincere apology to the World Alliance, in which we never saw, Eurussia believes that the banjection shall remain and its lifting to allow these two nations to go back to our peaceful region will never do good in the long run.

No one ever (ever) requested an apology to the World Alliance.

Great Eurussia wrote:Citing as well their continuous bashing here and in the RMB and citing their lack of interests in joining other regional events and persistent initiation of unrespectful [SIC] use of bad words in the RMB, Eurussia believes that the banjection shall forever remain. And prays that these issue has prolonged and going nowhere and must be resolved sooner to make us all have a peace of mind.

See? He accuses me of bashing. How so, dear leader, how so? How have I bashed here? For once, provide your own evidence. Furthermore, how did I use "bad words" on the RMB? This is a baseless accusation.

I remind the founder that he has a duty to maintain justice, even if that justice must be prolonged in order to be maintained.

Great Eurussia wrote:Eurussia appeals to the Court to decide on this case as soon as all Justices would be available. Thank you.

I remind the founder furthermore that the Chief Justice has already decided that Saturday will be the day of reckoning, so to speak.

The Huperzian government fully and actively supports the Eurussian decision to banject these nations from the World Alliance. We urge EVERY nation of the World Alliance to show some solidarity and support our founder in tie matter. The result will be a far better World Alliance for all of us.

Huperzia wrote:The Huperzian government fully and actively supports the Eurussian decision to banject these nations from the World Alliance. We urge EVERY nation of the World Alliance to show some solidarity and support our founder in tie matter. The result will be a far better World Alliance for all of us.

Care to share your reasoning or will you just make broad sycophantic statements?

Very few individuals seem to be roleplaying here, am I correct in assuming that the Court portion of the Forum is "RP-free" so to speak? I believe a clarification needs to be made.

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:

they have been banjected due to growing requests of our colleagues in the region

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.

As Novo Canuckia said, this banjection is:

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

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!

However, Eurussia is less than consistent in his testimony:

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.

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.

Perhaps this is because Eurussia is still partial to the "I evicted them because some people wanted it" defence?

The banjection was welcomed by many

As if that's relevant.

Moreover, Eurussia admitted that we did not set out to cause grief, or to commit any slights and transgressions:

the intention may be good yet it has become obvious that they have become unaware of the negative implications of their actions

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.

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:

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.

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.

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:

Consistently hiding in their constitutional rights without taking consideration of morality of respect and understanding as equal nations here in our region.

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.

Citing their lack [...] desire to have a sincere apology to the World Alliance [...] Eurussia believes that the banjection shall remain

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.

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.

With the Saturday deadline looming, I thought I might clarify the legal situation at hand. I'm sure most people here (if not everyone) is likely familiar with all of this, but it's always better to have more clarity than less.

Despite the confusion surrounding it, the purpose of Novo Canuckia v. Eurussia is not to determine whether or not Grand Longueville and Royalist Albion's banjections should be upheld. The purpose of Novo Canuckia v. Eurussia is to determine whether or not Eurussia had the right to banject the two without trial. It is the responsibility of the Court to determine whether or not the banjections fell within the scope of Eurussia's power to do so in 'extreme cases' (contained in Article VII of the Constitution) and whether or not the defendants' right to 'Due Process and Fair Trial' has been violated.

At the conclusion of Novo Canuckia v. Eurussia, the Court may wish to bring forth a case to determine whether or not to uphold the banjections. The goal of the prosecution would then be to prove that Grand Longueville and Royalist Albion violated provisions of the World Alliance Constitution and that those violations are so egregious that banjection is the only solution. The defense would attempt to refute that point and argue whether or not their own rights had been violated.

When making a decision in any case, the Court is responsible for identifying the applicable regional law and determine whether or not a violation has taken place. If it has, the Court must then make a ruling, taking into account the intent of the accused and the effect of the violation.

Regardless of the outcome of this case (and any related cases), everyone can take solace in the correctness of the decisions so long as they are built on solid legal foundations.

I am fairly certain of the accuracy of this post, but in case I am mistaken on a point or if something can be added to it, please feel free to let me know.

Albion is correct - he & Loungeville are not on trial, Eurussia is, but when you consistently act like a turd, don't be surprised when you get flushed

Huperzia wrote:Albion is correct - he & Loungeville are not on trial, Eurussia is, but when you consistently act like a turd, don't be surprised when you get flushed

I note this as typical example of the insults and slanders we have faced, and question why people like Huperzia are not on trial, when they are guilty of as much if not more transgressions than we?

Royalist Albion wrote:

Huperzia wrote:Albion is correct - he & Loungeville are not on trial, Eurussia is, but when you consistently act like a turd, don't be surprised when you get flushed

I note this as typical example of the insults and slanders we have faced, and question why people like Huperzia are not on trial, when they are guilty of as much if not more transgressions than we?

Once again, you are not on trial, Eurussia is. As things stand now, you are not a member of this region and have NO RIGHTS in this region. I have not slandered or ridiculed any member of the World Alliance.

Huperzia wrote:
Once again, you are not on trial, Eurussia is. As things stand now, you are not a member of this region and have NO RIGHTS in this region. I have not slandered or ridiculed any member of the World Alliance.

The banjection is being DISPUTED, and hence you have not only slandered a member of the region, - albeit one who's status in said region is being challenged, - but you have further acted inappropriately during a trial, and as a member of the WA in general.

No, you and Loungevilee ARE banjected, therefore you ARE NOT members of the World Alliance. The fact that you have been banjected is not on trial, whether or not there was a legal basis for it is on trial.

You two have made enough enemies that if the legality of the banjection is overturned, I am certain their will be multiple efforts to have you legally banjected instigated. Not sorry to have bruised your elitist pomposity

Huperzia wrote:No, you and Loungevilee ARE banjected, therefore you ARE NOT members of the World Alliance. The fact that you have been banjected is not on trial, whether or not there was a legal basis for it is on trial.

You two have made enough enemies that if the legality of the banjection is overturned, I am certain their will be multiple efforts to have you legally banjected instigated. Not sorry to have bruised your elitist pomposity

I highlight the contemptuous slander, and the perfidious attempt to derail the course of this trial, that Huperzia is demonstrating. That he finds himself utterly bereft of shame is reflective of the nonsensical and unbridled character assaults which have blighted this trial.

Once again, YOU are not on trial, I am not on trial, Eurussia is. Keep crying wolf to deflect the attention from that fact, perfidity be damned

Huperzia wrote:Once again, YOU are not on trial, I am not on trial, Eurussia is. Keep crying wolf to deflect the attention from that fact, perfidity be damned

Your attempts to bait an insulting response is contemptuous, yet also typical of our assailants.
Further, you are derailing this trial, and are hence in violation of basic order.

Oh, yes, I see how reminding you that you are not the one on trial is so antagonistic

edit - not to mention the fact the we have been the only 2 online for over an hour now

Huperzia wrote:Oh, yes, I see how reminding you that you are not the one on trial is so antagonistic

edit - not to mention the fact the we have been the only 2 online for over an hour now

Good day, Huperzia.

Personally, I don't really understand where your assertions are coming from. You have not substantiated one claim you have made of the "mindless drivel" or acting like a "turd".

As for your antagonistic attitude, it is not in relation to your constant and redundant reminders, but the incessant and baseless comments you make before, between, and after like the aforementioned assertions.

I find you to be a very insufferable man that only serves to prove that the door of justice swings one way as no one is condemning your incorrigible calumny while plenty are condemning us for things we didn't say! Truly a fine show of justice, freedom, and stability

I find you to be a very insufferable man that only serves to prove that the door of justice swings one way as no one is condemning your incorrigible calumny while plenty are condemning us for things we didn't say! Truly a fine show of justice, freedom, and stability


Wow, what a coincidence, that is exactly how I see you

Huperzia wrote:I find you to be a very insufferable man that only serves to prove that the door of justice swings one way as no one is condemning your incorrigible calumny while plenty are condemning us for things we didn't say! Truly a fine show of justice, freedom, and stability


Wow, what a coincidence, that is exactly how I see you

Turns out I couldn't care less.

Grand Longueville wrote:

Huperzia wrote:I find you to be a very insufferable man that only serves to prove that the door of justice swings one way as no one is condemning your incorrigible calumny while plenty are condemning us for things we didn't say! Truly a fine show of justice, freedom, and stability


Wow, what a coincidence, that is exactly how I see you

Turns out I couldn't care less.

Good for you, now we finally agree on something

Huperzia wrote:

Grand Longueville wrote:

Huperzia wrote:I find you to be a very insufferable man that only serves to prove that the door of justice swings one way as no one is condemning your incorrigible calumny while plenty are condemning us for things we didn't say! Truly a fine show of justice, freedom, and stability


Wow, what a coincidence, that is exactly how I see you

Turns out I couldn't care less.

Good for you, now we finally agree on something

Not really; you seem to care quite a bit. I've heard you have gone to great lengths to defame me and Albion and even to question those who sympathize with us. How come?

I would like to remind the honorable nation of Huperzia that this thread is dedicated to legal proceedings. While I'm sure the court would welcome any relevant contributions you may have to this case, the present banter between yourself, Albion and Longueville is in no way productive to the case at hand. I would like to respectfully request that you refrain from engaging in personal discussions on this thread.

Grand Longueville wrote:

Huperzia wrote:

Grand Longueville wrote:

Huperzia wrote:I find you to be a very insufferable man that only serves to prove that the door of justice swings one way as no one is condemning your incorrigible calumny while plenty are condemning us for things we didn't say! Truly a fine show of justice, freedom, and stability


Wow, what a coincidence, that is exactly how I see you

Turns out I couldn't care less.

Good for you, now we finally agree on something

Not really; you seem to care quite a bit. I've heard you have gone to great lengths to defame me and Albion and even to question those who sympathize with us. How come?

Apparently because your grasp of reality is tenuous at best ...

Novo Canuckia, I agree, this started at a statement of opinion that transmogrified into an arguement, I should have pressed the ignore button long ago