(Dismissed) Novo Canuckia vs WA

I would like to formally petition the Court to clarify their decision in the case of Novo Canuckia v. Eurussia. Though the Court has already made a prefunctory ruling in favor of Eurussia, the Court did not provide a basis for that ruling or which laws were applied in coming to that conclusion.

---

Eurussia counters the motion of Vendoland to re-open the case as he is not a Party to the case and questioning the Court's decision is unacceptable. Furthermore, re-opening the case by request of a Third Party is unfair to the Eurussian Government. Hence, the request shall be rejected and confirm the decision as final and executory.

I question the Court's decision because the Court has not fulfilled their duty to the region. As I mentioned early in the trial here,

https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t139p105-novo-canuckia-vs-eurussia-resolved#3492

the Court has an obligation to determine the validity of each side's argument and then reach a decision. When that decision is given, the Court must also gives its rationale for it as it relates to the laws of the region. If the Court does not have to explain or rationalize their decisions as they pertain to the law, it opens the process to abuse.

However, if it pleases the Court, I will withdraw from these proceedings and let one of the aggrieved parties take over this petition.

---

Eurussia reiterates its motion to reject Vendoland's request to re-open the case as the Third Party has already admitted that it is questioning the Court's decision which is unnacceptable. And also, it is not a Party to the case therefore should be rejected.

Eurussia believes that Vendoland's statement of branding the Court as it fails to do its obligation to the region is immoral and disrespectful since for a fact it has resolved the case according to the norms and laws of the region which is enough to prove that the Court has fulfilled its paramount duty of bringing justice.

Eurussia reiterates that the motion is groundless and therefore must be rejected as it will be unfair for our Party is it will be approved besides the Constitution doesn't even require the Court to disclose everythong or explain everything since the grounds might have been stated by the Parties already.

Hence, we appeal to reject this motion and confirm the finality and executory of its decision on the case.

In a real life court, when a decision has been reached, the decision is published (in the US, these are published in a variety of national and regional law reports). The entirety of the arguments made by either side during the trial is not present in these decisions; the only text is the Court's ruling on the applicable law and their explanation of how they came to the conclusion.

When this case is published to the Regional Archives, exactly what will it say?

Novo Canuckia v. Eurussia
Case heard by Chief Justice Chivalry and Justice Dromoda

"We stand behind the movement of banjection by The Empire of Great Eurussia."

Perhaps I am biased by working in the legal system of the US, but common law jurisdictions (virtually every place the English have ever had jurisdiction over) rely heavily on precedent. The laws are important, but previous courts' interpretations of those laws are important as well. What sort of precedent will a future Court be able to draw from the decision above? There is no insight as to how that decision was reached.

Even if this Court doesn't follow a common law system, they still should follow a system that requires them to explain how they reached their decisions. I struggle to think of a single real life court in the world that issues decisions without explanation of any kind. Perhaps they exist in places like North Korea or Burma, but I was hoping the World Alliance would aspire to a higher standard.

I'm surprised and concerned that this is even a issue. I don't particularly care about which party the Court sides with regarding Grand Longueville and Royalist Albion's banjections; I do, however, care a great deal about how they come to those decisions.

---

Eurussia still opposes the motion due to groundless basis.

So essentially all Chivalry has to say it "we support the Banjection by Eurussia as we beleive it fulfilled the "extreme cases" clause. Am I right?

New-Zealand wrote:So essentially all Chivalry has to say it "we support the Banjection by Eurussia as we beleive it fulfilled the "extreme cases" clause. Am I right?

Dromoda Also supports the Banjection.

New-Zealand wrote:So essentially all Chivalry has to say it "we support the Banjection by Eurussia as we beleive it fulfilled the "extreme cases" clause. Am I right?

More or less. An explanation of what the Court believes constitutes "extreme" (so the Founder, Security Council, and region as a whole has a better idea of what circumstances fall under that classification for future reference) and when Albion and Longueville's behavior stopped being protected by the "right to express opinions" and instead violated the rights of others (so everyone would be made aware of the legal standard for proper behavior). Those would be the two legal obstacles I see.

That way, if another person is accused of improper behavior and/or Eurussia exercises his banjection powers, the Court would then have a standard to measure the new case(s) against.

I assume the "Extreme Cases" clause was filled due to the heavy public backlash pleading for Longueville and Albions banjection.

---

Eurussia continue to oppose the motion of Vendoland.

I would like to state that Chivalry has offered to clarify his decision once he has time to do so. (he is presently otherwise engaged studying for exams in real life)

However, I would like to formally support Vendoland's original motion. I believe the court may have confused the issues of whether Albion and Longueville deserved to be banjected (which came up several times during the proceedings) with whether or not Eurussia's banjection of the two aforementioned nations was in violation of regional law. (the actual intent of the case) Without an explanation, however, it is unclear whether this is indeed the case or if I am mistaken.

Look, the point is : The court has said Longueville and Albion should remain banjected.


Let's not drag this out any further.

New-Zealand wrote:Look, the point is : The court has said Longueville and Albion should remain banjected.


Let's not drag this out any further.

Agree we should just forget about them two and attend to more importent matters like the cold war

---

Eurussia still opposes the motion of Vendoland.

Europe and Asia sides with Eurussia, New Zealand, Dromoda, and Articmainia. This has been decided. Lets not make it into a bigger issue.

Lonbonia sides with Europe & Asia, Eurussia, New-Zealand, Dromoda and Articmainia. The court has already decided, and we abide by it.


Let's not make it more problematic than it is.

If the matter is decided then what do you have against hearing a formal explanation of how this decisions was reached? One could assume that you are afraid that this decision is in fact invalid, and that you do not wish this case to be resolved properly, as the results may not be what you would prefer.

I know many of you do not want Albion and Longueville to return. I share this opinion, however, should our personal feelings allow a violation of the law to pass unnoticed? Do we allow murderers to be gunned down on the street by the police or even random civilians just because the majority would rather they were dead?

All I want is to hear an explanation as to how the court reached this decision. I want to hear whether Eurussia was in violation of regional law. I think it's clear that the banjection will be upheld even if this is the case, since anyone who allowed Albion and Longueville to return would be lynched by nearly every member of this region.

---

Eurussia rejects the claims of Novo Canuckia who is the main proponent of the case who unfortunately seldomly participated until its conclusion. And now, appealing in lieu of Vendoland just to prolong an already closed case.

Again, Eurussia still opposes the motion.

Aloia supports the effort to cast light on the true meaning and intended interpretations of the Court's ruling. Aloia supports Novo Canuckia and Vendoland.

Chivalry already said he was going to post an explanation once he gets time (presumably after his exams finish).

New-Zealand wrote:Look, the point is : The court has said Longueville and Albion should remain banjected.


Let's not drag this out any further.

Seconded

New-Zealand wrote:Look, the point is : The court has said Longueville and Albion should remain banjected.


Let's not drag this out any further.

Seconded

---

Eurussia has received an information that GL or RA has moved back to their former region which just recently merged with another region. And their concern is that since their arrival, a reported coup of its high ranking regional leader and/or stirring trouble already. This is just an unverified report but it seems not surprising and you can check where these two are now.

Nevertheless, this is not our concern but a mere fact that Grand Longueville ans Royalist Albion is indeed deserve to be banjected forever. And will never do good to our beloved World Alliance.

Hence, Eurussia still opposes the motion.