(Resolved) Novo Canuckia vs WA

Huperzia wrote:

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 [SIC], I should have pressed the ignore button long ago

How is my grasp of reality tenuous? Or was that just another passing comment you don't intend to substantiate?

Novo, I thank you for your continued mature attitude toward this serious manner, even in the face of contempt.

How is my grasp of reality tenuous?


Really?? How many other regions did you ask this question in???

Huperzia wrote:How is my grasp of reality tenuous?


Really?? How many other regions did you ask this question in???

What? I haven't been in many other regions. What is the relevance of that? Either way, that answer doesn't really substantiate your claim, bud. First off, I think this ought to be moved to Telegram or private message. Second, I think you have a great big burden of proof that you ought to relieve before asserting further.

I would like to request confirmation that this case decides "Did Eurussia have the right to banject without a court proceeding" and NOT "Should Albion and Longueville remain banjected".


I want to know because I have some strong evidence in favor of them remaining banjected and would hate for all my (and my fellow prosecutors') hard work to go to waste simply because I misunderstood the objective of the court case.

New-Zealand wrote:I would like to request confirmation that this case decides "Did Eurussia have the right to banject without a court proceeding" and NOT "Should Albion and Longueville remain banjected".


I want to know because I have some strong evidence in favor of them remaining banjected and would hate for all my (and my fellow prosecutors') hard work to go to waste simply because I misunderstood the objective of the court case.

It was my understanding that two separate cases are planned. First qualifying Eurussias action as an abuse and unlawful (which, so far, he has failed to counter our most recent counter points). If the actions are found to be as such, the abuse is remedied and we return, since the banjection would have been illegal. The second trial would be to then settle whether or not we should be formally and lawfully banjected.

So, yes, your evidence seems more part of the second. Though, we have repudiated your evidence so I am confused on why you still cling to it or why you haven't countered us in really any way.

Grand Longueville wrote:

New-Zealand wrote:I would like to request confirmation that this case decides "Did Eurussia have the right to banject without a court proceeding" and NOT "Should Albion and Longueville remain banjected".


I want to know because I have some strong evidence in favor of them remaining banjected and would hate for all my (and my fellow prosecutors') hard work to go to waste simply because I misunderstood the objective of the court case.

It was my understanding that two separate cases are planned. First qualifying Eurussias action as an abuse and unlawful (which, so far, he has failed to counter our most recent counter points). If the actions are found to be as such, the abuse is remedied and we return, since the banjection would have been illegal. The second trial would be to then settle whether or not we should be formally and lawfully banjected.

So, yes, your evidence seems more part of the second. Though, we have repudiated your evidence so I am confused on why you still cling to it or why you haven't countered us in really any way.

Oh consider my previous posts the initial earthquake. I've got many powerful aftershocks planned for you

New-Zealand wrote:

Grand Longueville wrote:

New-Zealand wrote:I would like to request confirmation that this case decides "Did Eurussia have the right to banject without a court proceeding" and NOT "Should Albion and Longueville remain banjected".


I want to know because I have some strong evidence in favor of them remaining banjected and would hate for all my (and my fellow prosecutors') hard work to go to waste simply because I misunderstood the objective of the court case.

It was my understanding that two separate cases are planned. First qualifying Eurussias action as an abuse and unlawful (which, so far, he has failed to counter our most recent counter points). If the actions are found to be as such, the abuse is remedied and we return, since the banjection would have been illegal. The second trial would be to then settle whether or not we should be formally and lawfully banjected.

So, yes, your evidence seems more part of the second. Though, we have repudiated your evidence so I am confused on why you still cling to it or why you haven't countered us in really any way.

Oh consider my previous posts the initial earthquake. I've got many powerful aftershocks planned for you

Indeed, that's all well and good, but that didn't really settle why you haven't responded to either mine nor Albion's counter points to your evidence. Calling it an earthquake is a bit odd. Nary a wee rumble was made, to be honest. It might have gone fine had we not responded, and it would have gone better had you responded to our responses but you didn't and, so it seems, have no plans on responding.

I'm pretty sure I know what some of these "aftershocks" are, by the way.

Grand Longueville wrote:

New-Zealand wrote:

Grand Longueville wrote:

New-Zealand wrote:I would like to request confirmation that this case decides "Did Eurussia have the right to banject without a court proceeding" and NOT "Should Albion and Longueville remain banjected".


I want to know because I have some strong evidence in favor of them remaining banjected and would hate for all my (and my fellow prosecutors') hard work to go to waste simply because I misunderstood the objective of the court case.

It was my understanding that two separate cases are planned. First qualifying Eurussias action as an abuse and unlawful (which, so far, he has failed to counter our most recent counter points). If the actions are found to be as such, the abuse is remedied and we return, since the banjection would have been illegal. The second trial would be to then settle whether or not we should be formally and lawfully banjected.

So, yes, your evidence seems more part of the second. Though, we have repudiated your evidence so I am confused on why you still cling to it or why you haven't countered us in really any way.

Oh consider my previous posts the initial earthquake. I've got many powerful aftershocks planned for you

Indeed, that's all well and good, but that didn't really settle why you haven't responded to either mine nor Albion's counter points to your evidence. Calling it an earthquake is a bit odd. Nary a wee rumble was made, to be honest. It might have gone fine had we not responded, and it would have gone better had you responded to our responses but you didn't and, so it seems, have no plans on responding.

I'm pretty sure I know what some of these "aftershocks" are, by the way.

If you say so...

New-Zealand wrote:If you say so...

Maybe I don't, I do know that someones been fishing around and asked some figures from my past to testify against me. I think the figure we both, probably, have in mind will decline such an enterprise. I assume that was either you or Huperzia; I expected that from Huperzia, not from you, NZ. I also know some "interrogations" have occurred on the part of my sympathizers. Maybe that was someone else.

Other than that the only other trick you could pull out of your sleeve is the same misconstrued and warped quote of me.

I will try and post counter arguments and evidence when possible, but I will be away most of Memorial Weekend, ('Murican Holiday)

Pending the holiday weekend for some of us, I will conclude the argument after the weekend, Everyone has till Wednesday to give the courts everything that is on the case, if we do not already have it.

Lonbonia wrote: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.

OOC: I hope I'm not a little late to this, after all, it does still say it's pending...

IC: Lonbonia, since when do you have to be respectful to get your rights? Sure, being respectful keeps you on the good side of most people, but nowhere in our constitution does it say that you must be respectful or you will be banjected by Eurussia without a fair trial. That being said, I agree with Nova Canuckia's statement, and I think it was not right for Eurussia to kick them. We shouldn't take someone's rights away just because they are not respectful or nice; if that starts happening, think where else this great region of ours would go.

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:

Lonbonia wrote: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.

OOC: I hope I'm not a little late to this, after all, it does still say it's pending...

IC: Lonbonia, since when do you have to be respectful to get your rights? Sure, being respectful keeps you on the good side of most people, but nowhere in our constitution does it say that you must be respectful or you will be banjected by Eurussia without a fair trial. That being said, I agree with Nova Canuckia's statement, and I think it was not right for Eurussia to kick them. We shouldn't take someone's rights away just because they are not respectful or nice; if that starts happening, think where else this great region of ours would go.

I don't believe he is saying respect equals rights. My impression is that he is saying they expected to be treated a certain way but did not reciprocate. When others returned such treatment, it then became an issue

Huperzia wrote:

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:

Lonbonia wrote: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.

OOC: I hope I'm not a little late to this, after all, it does still say it's pending...

IC: Lonbonia, since when do you have to be respectful to get your rights? Sure, being respectful keeps you on the good side of most people, but nowhere in our constitution does it say that you must be respectful or you will be banjected by Eurussia without a fair trial. That being said, I agree with Nova Canuckia's statement, and I think it was not right for Eurussia to kick them. We shouldn't take someone's rights away just because they are not respectful or nice; if that starts happening, think where else this great region of ours would go.

I don't believe he is saying respect equals rights. My impression is that he is saying they expected to be treated a certain way but did not reciprocate. When others returned such treatment, it then became an issue

What Huperzia said was right.

Everyone is entitled to rights, even if they're jerks. I don't believe anyone has brought forth a single regional law they have broken. If they truly were banned because they broke the Nationstates site rules, they shouldn't be tried in this court; someone should have contacted the NS site mods and told them that GL and RA broke the rules. If the mods don't find their behavior offensive, they would be innocent of the charges. Of course, if the mods find them guilty, GL and RA could possibly be deleted.

I think we can all agree that the mods have power and jurisdiction over rule violations, so perhaps Eurussia needs to report them to the mods or come up with a different legal justification for the banjections.

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.

I move that because regional Peace, Justice, and Stability was jeprodized, 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. "

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 to ban & eject nations.

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

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.

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.

NEVER use they term "homos" in a derogatory way. Using homo in this form is very much the same as using nigger or any other evil term. LGBT people are bullied and harassed and marginalized every single day and it is unacceptable for you to be using such terminology. Overcome your bigotry or society will leave you behind.

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.

Please note that several members of the WA are homosexual, and that is a very offensive term.

Guys he didn't mean it like that. Its common slang to call things "homo", but we're not homophobic or anything. I heavily support gay rights (Though I am 100% Straight myself) but sometimes during convos with friends, I may call things homo. Not like I mean any offense though.

I would like to take this opportunity to present my final piece of evidence against Longueville and Albion. This piece of evidence it directed to those who feel mercy for Longueville and Albion and beleive that they should be given a second chance on the whim that they have learnt their lesson.



Alternate Link (In case image is cut off) : http://gyazo.com/295148443ab90367e88837dbe7b9f1dd.png


As shown in this image (A Testimony from the founder of their previous region), it clearly states that they have been made aware of their actions. This proves that they WILL NOT change as they have already been through all that we are doing to them, and they did not change (Thus why we are here right now). I would like to draw your attention to key phrases such as "Often bully other nations", "Unnecessarily brutal behaviour", " Intolerance of any convictions deviant of their own", "Distaste for how they were interacting" and "Irritably stubborn and petty"

New-Zealand wrote:Guys he didn't mean it like that. Its common slang to call things "homo", but we're not homophobic or anything. I heavily support gay rights (Though I am 100% Straight myself) but sometimes during convos with friends, I may call things homo. Not like I mean any offense though.

I'll keep your words in mind and next time I'm with my friends and say something like, "that's so negro" and I get in trouble, I'll remember you defending blatant, even if unintentional, discrimination.

Aloia wrote:

New-Zealand wrote:Guys he didn't mean it like that. Its common slang to call things "homo", but we're not homophobic or anything. I heavily support gay rights (Though I am 100% Straight myself) but sometimes during convos with friends, I may call things homo. Not like I mean any offense though.

I'll keep your words in mind and next time I'm with my friends and say something like, "that's so negro" and I get in trouble, I'll remember you defending blatant, even if unintentional, discrimination.

Oh no, I am in no way condoning it. I was just saying that he wouldn't have intended any offense in that comment

New-Zealand wrote:

Aloia wrote:

New-Zealand wrote:Guys he didn't mean it like that. Its common slang to call things "homo", but we're not homophobic or anything. I heavily support gay rights (Though I am 100% Straight myself) but sometimes during convos with friends, I may call things homo. Not like I mean any offense though.

I'll keep your words in mind and next time I'm with my friends and say something like, "that's so negro" and I get in trouble, I'll remember you defending blatant, even if unintentional, discrimination.

Oh no, I am in no way condoning it. I was just saying that he wouldn't have intended any offense in that comment

We should never be okay with any kind of discrimination and using words like this reflect the widespread acceptance of homophobia. There are countless other words that actually are negative that he could have used to describe GL and RA but he chose to use a word meaning homosexuals.

I told you I knew what your "aftershocks" were. I have discussed this issue with GTCJ and Deithwyr. These individuals were comrades of mine and Albion for the greatest extant of our time in Nationstates. I had met GTCJ and Macea (another of the aforementioned) in the World Union, the forefather to the World Alliance and the Grand Union. I find the evidence you have displayed here NZ to be not only irrelevant, but likewise unbecoming. I figure due to the rather formal manner in which the out of context telegram was sent that you are not terribly familiar with GTCJ. From that I can infer that this could have been one of the first occasions you have spoken with him. I say this because if you were more familiar with him, he could extrapolate more upon the vague words he used.

Now, firstly, I'd like to say that this evidence ought not to be recognized. If one is fired, or quits, from a job, and the reason was inquired upon, the reason will be different from the reason given by the former boss. If the individual in question left on poor terms, it is likely that the former boss may not have had very good things to say. This is the same case here. However, good GTCJ still calls us his friends, and for good reason.

I left the Grand Union quite some time ago over a dispute that arose regarding the use of Skype as a regional communication (which we were correct on). I, as well as Albion, opposed it. GTCJ and Macea were very much in favor of making it the standard. This along with regional distrust on the grounds of a "Longuish Council" caused for added division. The Longuish Council was a reality in the GU; it consisted of Albion and I holding 50% of the power of the leading council making it so no act could be passed without our assent (Longuish being the demonym of Grand Longueville, from where both the ruling houses of Longueville and Albion had roots).

GTCJ is expected to embellish his description of us. This ought to be no surprise. What the good President might find surprising is that they are very much in favor of us returning to their region. GTCJ and I are on fine terms and have talked much recently (while I am Binky and Albion is Raisin, GTCJ has a pet name too: Glutty). GTCJ was spot on, however, that we were rather deflective regarding new members. This was founded in a dispute with a nation that I have since forgotten; Raisin might know and I'm sure Glutty would. Essentially we grew paranoid of devious puppets. It was found that one nation was a puppet who only sought the downfall of nations in the region. Her plan was to marry in to all the royal families and control them from within. The Longuish however found her family to be "whorish" in that regard and refused. Like my exposition of Jerusalemian/Zakiristan, I exposed her as well; the wench.

I digress, while GTCJ was right, that our relationship has been rocky, it was certainly friendly and certainly active. I had the utmost of ease getting back in contact with him, and he was clearly friendly towards me as well (even remembering his pet name).

Now on to your ludicrous argument, NZ. You state in the first paragraph that this evidence is being offered to the individuals requesting a second chance for myself and Raisin. I dispute your claim, however. We do not want a second chance, we are here to denounce the unlawful ejection that occurred by Eurussia. I think you confuse the purpose of this trial.

I make further objection to a line you typed in your second paragraph: As shown in this image (A Testimony from the founder of their previous region), it clearly states that they have been made aware of their actions though, you didn't even know what those actions were. They were made aware to us, but were they made aware to you? You have no ground to stand on here since you have no idea what GTCJ was referring to.

You go on to say: "This proves that they WILL NOT change as they have already been through all that we are doing to them" patently false. Again, you have no way in knowing whether or not we were in this scenario before. I wish you did know, because then you wouldn't have said that we were. We never had a trial because we were never ejected. We were never ejected because GTCJ and Macea were able to talk things out. Eurussia wasn't capable of that, which can be seen in his hasty ejection, and his willingness to allow others to argue in his stead.

I find your arguments utterly indefensible, NZ. The telegram was taken out of context. GTCJ told me he would not testify in this trial. I hold him to his word.