(Dismissed) Schorr vs WA

Schorr wrote:As stated before in THIS SPECIFIC CASE I am simply charging you with doing something you lack the authority to do.

Okay. So there are no other charges.

I mean how much more clear must I get, please respond.

Schorr wrote:I mean how much more clear must I get, please respond.

Well, I want to know in enumerated form every single violation I committed, if there is.

1. You have usurped your power by declaring votes and candidates invalid. According to the Constitution, the Security Council is the sole executive and legislative body of the World Alliance and the Court of Justice is the sole Judicial body of the World Alliance. This is conclusive evidence that the Eurussian Government has no right to invalidate the candidacy of Browera, New-Zealand and Newasia and the votes of Browera, New-Zealand, Newasia and Galesatum whether his claims are true or false. We ask that Eurussia's decrees be invalidated restoring the election results to its original state.

Now please, stop the delaying.

Schorr wrote:1. You have usurped your power by declaring votes and candidates invalid. According to the Constitution, the Security Council is the sole executive and legislative body of the World Alliance and the Court of Justice is the sole Judicial body of the World Alliance. This is conclusive evidence that the Eurussian Government has no right to invalidate the candidacy of Browera, New-Zealand and Newasia and the votes of Browera, New-Zealand, Newasia and Galesatum whether his claims are true or false. We ask that Eurussia's decrees be invalidated restoring the election results to its original state.

Now please, stop the delaying.

Eurussia would like to reiterate that we are with everyone to resolve this case sooner.

you are "with everyone" what are you saying

Eurussia also humbly asks this Court to compel the representatives from New Zealand, Newasia, Browera and Galesatum to confirm on this trial that we have given them prior notice about the disqualification issues against them several hours before the election ended.

Most especially New Zealand, since we have traded communications right after he received our notice hours before the election also ended. Thank you.

Eurussia you are continually delaying this to try and finish the other one so please stay focused on the task at hand, it is not that difficult. Why do you think you have the personal right to invalidate candidates and votes.

this is stupid. all eurussia has done is accuse, he has not even stated one piece of evidence in his favour...

Eurussia reiterates our request to this Court to compel the representatives from New Zealand, Newasia, Browera and Galesatum to confirm on this trial that we have given them prior notice about the disqualification issues against them several hours before the election ended.

Most especially New Zealand, since we have traded communications right after he received our notice hours before the election also ended. Thank you.

Please sir, stop blocking the objective of this court case. We are not charging you for that so please stay focoused on what you are being charged with. If you continue to do dodge questions and the matter at hand we will ask the Court to rule in our favor as a result of you not participating. You are being charged with invalidating votes an candidates when you do not hold that jurisdiction, please answer this question. What gives your nation. The power to simply invalidate votes and candidates? We expect that the next time you speak that question will be answered.

Schorr wrote:Please sir, stop blocking the objective of this court case. We are not charging you for that so please stay focoused on what you are being charged with. If you continue to do dodge questions and the matter at hand we will ask the Court to rule in our favor as a result of you not participating. You are being charged with invalidating votes an candidates when you do not hold that jurisdiction, please answer this question. What gives your nation. The power to simply invalidate votes and candidates? We expect that the next time you speak that question will be answered.

Eurussia reiterates its request to compel New Zealand, Newasia, Browera, and Galesatum to confirm in this Court that we have sent notices to these countries several hours prior to the conclusion of the recently contested election.

We also wish to ask the other party, Schorr, to patiently wait for the due process and not fast track the proceedings as what we are requesting are part of our argument so we humbly request the prosecuting party to stop forcing us to do what the said nation wants since it will defeat the purpose of the due process.

My god Eurussia, stop stalling and answer the question.

That has nothing to do with this trial sir, I know you are trying to win the other trials first so you can say your actions were justified, but no matter what they were not. We will take your word that you warned the 4 nations in question but that has nothing to do with the legal justification of your actions. Please, tell us how the Constitution allows you to invalidate votes.

By the order of the court eurussia most present his evidance by tonight or risk the court making a decision you have 9 hours to reply,thank you.

New-Zealand wrote:My god Eurussia, stop stalling and answer the question.

Just confirm that we have notified you hours before the election concludes.

Plain and simple.

Schorr wrote:That has nothing to do with this trial sir, I know you are trying to win the other trials first so you can say your actions were justified, but no matter what they were not. We will take your word that you warned the 4 nations in question but that has nothing to do with the legal justification of your actions. Please, tell us how the Constitution allows you to invalidate votes.

Thank you very much in that case.

Zakiristan. wrote:By the order of the court eurussia most present his evidance by tonight or risk the court making a decision you have 9 hours to reply,thank you.

Eurussia confirms to the Court our compliance within the next nine hours.

Eurussia would like to note the charges brought against us by the Schorrian Government.

1) Schorr accuses Eurussia of usurpation of our power by declaring votes and candidates invalid. According to the Constitution, the Security Council is the sole executive and legislative body of the World Alliance and the Court of Justice is the sole Judicial body of the World Alliance. This is conclusive evidence that the Eurussian Government has no right to invalidate the candidacy of Browera, New-Zealand and Newasia and the votes of Browera, New-Zealand, Newasia and Galesatum whether his claims are true or false. We ask that Eurussia's decrees be invalidated restoring the election results to its original state.

2) Schorr accepts the fact that Eurussia has notified all the nations namely New Zealand, Newasia, Browera, and Galesatum about the election irregularities.

Now, we hereby formally present our arguments.

We resoundingly reject all the claims of the Schorrian Government of our usurpation of power by way of disqualifying New Zealand, Newasia, Browera and Galesatum. In addition to this, we also resoundingly reject all the claims by way of nullifying their votes due to his allegations that we abused our power by doing so because there is no provision in the constitution about such.

In view with these allegations, we respectfully admit to this Court that the same way the Schorrian Government presents it that the WA Constitution has no provision about elections and furthermore, the same way the accusing party presents it, there is no law about elections. In view of these, we would also like to highlight in this Court that during the constitutional convention in Moscow that brought effect to our present constitution that the accusing party never raised any proposal about elections. We would also like to note that since the constitution took effect, the Court of Justice, as the sole judicial organ of the region, didn't even requested the Security Council to pass a law about elections. Furthermore, the First Security Council that resulted from the adoption of the constitution, which the Schorrian Government even sits as the President, never, in any single instance, raised any proposal about elections.

In addition to these, to our very surprise and to inform this Court, during the term of the current Security Council, in which the Schorrian Government sits as a member, has just proposed the "Election Procedures Act" which supports our argument that no law has really existing before the recent election.

However, we would like to inform this Court that the Schorrian Government has actively joined the First Security Council Election which our government solely administered the elections and good thing, the accusing party won as the President without opposition to our authority.

Furthermore, we would also like to highlight the fact the the recent election, which is the Second Security Council, the Schorrian Government also participated actively and good thing, won as a member state without opposition to our authority.

Eurussia, further resoundingly REJECTS the allegations of the Schorrian Government that we have abused our power, since in fact, the accusing party also admitted that we have notified in advance the concerned countries hours before the election concludes which means we given them due notice and provided them with due process, unfortunately, we are afraid to admit that we are also in fear that if we delayed the results in favor of attending to this irregularities that we may be charged of violating the constitutional provision that newly elected Security Council member states must took office on the first day of each month, in which the accusing party also presented in this Court.

Schorr wrote:Article II
Security Council

The Security Council is the sole executive and legislative arm of the Government composed of seven member states where one of which is the Founder who shall serve as a permanent member with veto power and where six of which shall be elected before the end of each month and shall begin their term on the first day of the succeeding month via majority votes of all members of the region in which whoever achieves the highest number of votes shall become the head of the Security Council referred as the President of the Security Council and/or the World Alliance.

The Security Council is responsible in all supranational executive and legislative functions of the region and the enforcement of all its laws and policies via majority decisions where in case of resignation, the President shall nominate a replacement approved by the existing members of the Council to complete the unfinished term.

In addition to this, only the New Zealand Government has actively responded to our notice to hopefully resolve and explain their positions few hours before the election concludes. Unfortunately, to properly support the explanation of New Zealand, we have contacted the Newasian Government to no avail, in which we explained to New Zealand that although we are long time allies, we have to uphold the rules of election and later justify their position in Court in which they respectfully understood and accepted. This case also applies to the Broweran Government and the Galesatumian Government.

Eurussia would also like to highlight in this Court that if we intend to abuse our power, as the EVIDENCE shows above, we will not dare publish the number of votes the disqualified nations have gained. In fact, we also stated on our statement that our decision can be overturned by the Court. We also stated that we are more than willing to welcome any legal challenge to our decision for us to be transparent to be able to show our evidences in the presence of the Court since we prevent any repercussions or possible privacy violations.

We would also like to reiterate to the accusing party and this Court and to the entire international community, that since there is no law on elections and the constitution requires an election, our government only exercised its default powers of exercising absolute authority only on instances that there is no law to guide such as an election, which in case we assume, that the Schorrian Government fully accepts the rules and guidelines we have set and fully understands the situation when they publicly participated in all the elections we handled in the first place and if they have doubt, they should have questioned our authority in before they participated. Since there is no law, no provision in the constitution, WHO ELSE WILL ADMINISTER THE ELECTIONS? In effect, their participation in the election is recognition of our default authority as the founder of the region and acceptance of our decisions involved in that authority in which we NEVER stated that we will not recognize other decisions other than ours.

Therefore we conclude that the Eurussian Government NEVER violated any law nor any constitutional provision on election since there is none. We also NEVER abused our power since everything was done in accordance with respect to the sovereignty of other countries and we NEVER exercised our right to vote in the course of exercising such duty. We also just exercised our default powers as the founder of the region to uphold the regional constitution we all follow and We also publicly stated that our recent election decision can be overturned by the Court.

If in any case, the Court believes in the allegations that we have no authority to do so, specifically disqualifying nations and invalidating votes, since it is also involved under our default powers to do so, in effect, it will invalidate the entire recent election and the current Security Council and also invalidate the first Security Council and the election that gave birth to it and furthermore will in effect declare that the previous Security Council is illegal and will nullified all the regional laws they have passed because of the single reason that there is no election law or constitution provision to that effect.

Hence, the Eurussian Government is innocent of all the charges against us.

My friend, just because there was no law over the elections does not mean may make a decree and have it be so. I have always appreciated your running of election but that doesn't make you have complete power over them. With Security Council being the sole legislative and executive body and the Court being the sole judiciary body that presides over the entirety of the World Alliance, you, as the acting elections administrator should have informed the Court. Instead, you gave them a trial in your head and convicted the accused, acting as if you were the Court of Justice, as well as the prosecuter. You do not have that authority and I am not asking for punishment of you of any kind. I simply want the Second Security Council Elections results to be back to their original state. As for you saying it would destroy all regional laws and governmental bodies if you lost, that is incorrect. I simply want the results back to their original state. Please do not use scare tactics to intimidate the Justices into ruling your way.

Schorr wrote:My friend, just because there was no law over the elections does not mean may make a decree and have it be so. I have always appreciated your running of election but that doesn't make you have complete power over them. With Security Council being the sole legislative and executive body and the Court being the sole judiciary body that presides over the entirety of the World Alliance, you, as the acting elections administrator should have informed the Court. Instead, you gave them a trial in your head and convicted the accused, acting as if you were the Court of Justice, as well as the prosecuter. You do not have that authority and I am not asking for punishment of you of any kind. I simply want the Second Security Council Elections results to be back to their original state. As for you saying it would destroy all regional laws and governmental bodies if you lost, that is incorrect. I simply want the results back to their original state. Please do not use scare tactics to intimidate the Justices into ruling your way.

Eurussia condemns the statements of the Schorrian Government of accusing us beyond the issues surrounding the case. Such statements using the word "scare tactics" is unacceptable, uneducated and very unprofessional that undermines our integrity as a country.

We would like to REJECT again the arguments of the accusing party of us acting as a prosecutor and imposing conviction implying as if we have the sole judicial power since we knew all these things from the start.

We also further reiterate to this Court that the Schorrian Government might have mislead itself and worst uneducated enough about the repercussions on our side if we tried to delay the publication of results since we faced the dilemma of being charged of constitutional violation. Furthermore, if neglected the irregularities and later charged them in Court, we wish not to hurt the citizens of the concerned countries if the Court finds them guilty and later on be removed from the Security Council which is the reason why we chose what we have done so we could be fair to other candidates who were fairly elected and Eurussia face the humiliation to protect the process.

Also, we clarify that if the Court finds our action illegal, it will just simply imply that the entire election process is illegal since the decision to disqualify and nullify are just part of the election procedures implemented by our government via the default powers recognized and accepted by the Schorrian Government.

On the other hand, we thank the Schorrian Government for admitting to this Court they do recognized the very important fact that we just exercised our default powers to conduct all the elections that has not been guided by any existing regional law.

We just wish that the accusing party to show professionalism and refrain from stating unnecessary and unfounded remarks and just answer each and every argument straight to the point since the Schorrian Government is the same nation who wants to fast track the proceedings disrespecting the due process from the very beginning.

Eurussia would also like to add the supporting evidence below:

In effect to this, we would like to further strengthen our argument that as the Schorrian Government admitted that they recognize the fact the we just exercised our default powers and as they participated in the elections we handled in which they also admitted and even thanked us, we would like to point out on the evidence above that the rules clearly states that if a puppet was found it should be banjected with the mother state in which the Schorrian Government accepted as he participated on it and in the previous election the rule exist without any opposition on it, ever.

However, we never implied that the disqualified nations were puppets since we know that it is the duty of the Court to find that out that is why we publicly stated that we are open for any legal challenge. In addition to this, we even refused to exercise this since we have deep respect to the countries involved and we hope that they could help vindicate themselves through the proper forum which is the Court and also knowing that the constitution explicitly outlined that the Court is the only authorized institution to banject.

Furthermore, there is also a rule that the Schorrian Government even accepted which states that all election issues should be resolved there which means resolved only by the election administrator but still we refused to exercise that since we believe that it is only the Court who can do so. Moreover, there is also a rule that the Schorrian Government accepted that no election protest must be heard after the proclamation but as this Court will know and the rest knows, that the proclamation has been done yet we are deciding on several election issues in which we actively participate because we have deep respect to the rule of law.

And Eurussia wants to highlight in this Court the most interesting part of this case, that the Schorrian Government's admission that they fully and willfully recognize our default powers to administer the elections which is obviously going against their very charges against us that they are saying that our actions are illegal which in effect defeats the very soul and spirit of their charges against us. And the Eurussian Government thanks them for that.

OOC: Since we have no rules YET on judicial procedures and to properly guide everyone especially the Court of Justice on the standard protocol on justice systems around the world especially since we are all dealing with each other here as SOVEREIGN STATES, the following principles of justice must be observed:

Principle 1
If a state charges the regional government or any of its laws thereof, the country holding the presidency of the region shall be automatically compelled to stand in court and the case will proceed whether any of the two parties participate or not.

But if a state charges another state, both must agree to be arbitrated and the court cannot force any state to participate or else the case will never push through.

Principle 2
Only the parties involved in a case can present and debate with each other and no one else unless otherwise both parties agree to invite a third party to join.

Principle 3
It is only the head of the court can speak in behalf of the entire court provided that they all agree privately but if there is none, it is up to the court who will lead in a proceedings.

Principle 4
Any member of the court has no right, if he wish to destroy his credibility, to declare or state his opinions in a proceeding. But he can always ask any party any question.

Principle 5
It is always the prosecuting party, the one who started the charges, who should present all his arguments and evidences first. After such the defending party do its part. From then they could debate with each other until their exhaustion.

Principle 6
Before the court decides on a case, the presiding justice must first ask all parties if they are done presenting all their arguments and their evidences. The prosecuting must reply first and the defending party follows. After this, no one else can present their side anymore.

If so, the members of the court can now start reviewing everything and each of them can now publicly state their opinion and reasons for reaching whatever their decision.

Principle 7
When deciding on a case, the presiding justice is the last to issue his decision and summarize all the other justices opinions, from there a decision is now reached.

From here, any party has the right to file a motion for consideration. One move for the prosecuting party and one move for the defending party, whichever which. Any motion must be heard by the court and open the floor again for arguments.

Principle 8
During a motion for reconsideration, all parties will be asked if they are done presenting all their arguments and evidences. If so, the court can now issue their decision again and the presiding justice will be the last to do so and summarize everything.

In this level of the case, the decision is final and executory.

This is the standard protocol of all courts in the world, if they are democratic. Since we are dealing with each other as sovereign states everyone must be properly notified. If you think any of this principles are wrong, feel free to research the UN or the ICJ, feel free to pass a law on judicial procedure, or even feel free to propose a constitutional amendment :-)

I said that I appreciate your handling of the elections. However, that does not mean I approve of the job you did. I did participate in the elections, but that does not mean I approve of the way in which you handled them. Furthermore, if that is the main basis of your argument, it is a moot point that I participated in the elections, my question is how you may invalidate votes and candidates, presenting NO evidence. Even if you had, you would be required to go to the sole Judiciary body which is the Court of Justice before declaring that candidates were disqualified and votes invalidated. What I gather from you, is that you feel you were entitled to doing what you did by your own declarations which have while we appreciate your efforts, have ZERO legal bearing, as the Security Council's laws are the only legal laws. Therefore, if you have sufficient evidence that the 4 nations are puppets than we encourage you to post your evidence to the Court of Justice, however, you do not have the authority to invalidate election results.

The court has made a decision....with this case that has split our region,we proclaim that schorr has won his case.our reason? 1.eurussia dose not have a right to disqualify and invalidate votes this falls to the justice court,2.eurussia has not proved that these nations are puppets.As our decision a revote is in order eurussia along with the court will hold a new election.Thank you.