Re: (Dismissed) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

New Tarajan Wed Dec 18, 2013 1:26 am

Eurussia is sincerely offending us with such a behavior. We have stated the rights established by the WA Constitution that we believe to have been violated with the attempt of defamation operated by Eurussia. Eurussia is asking for the word "defamation" inside the Constitution? Very well...then we ask for the words "aggression" and "blockade" inside the same Constitution.
We have stated our line.
Now, ONCE AND FOR ALL, or Eurussia will provide a real defense to these charges or we have to believe, due the facts, that they are RENOUNCING TO THEIR RIGHT TO DEFENSE.

Great Eurussia Wed Dec 18, 2013 2:29 am

Eurussia is sincerely offending us with such a behavior. We have stated the rights established by the WA Constitution that we believe to have been violated with the attempt of defamation operated by Eurussia. Eurussia is asking for the word "defamation" inside the Constitution? Very well...then we ask for the words "aggression" and "blockade" inside the same Constitution.
We have stated our line.
Now, ONCE AND FOR ALL, or Eurussia will provide a real defense to these charges or we have to believe, due the facts, that they are RENOUNCING TO THEIR RIGHT TO DEFENSE.

Eurussia simply believes that New Tarajan has deliberately failed to legally justify defamation as a ground for asking a compensation, where no damage has ever been established, much more an apology. Nevertheless, our opinions remains standing and we are extremely confident that it can withstand all scrutiny.

Furthermore, we sincerely appreciate New Tarajan for its recent statement that totally blows and negates its own claims that we have committed defamation against them, by simply saying that we are assumed to have "attempt of defamation operated by Eurussia." Thus simply proving, that NO DEFAMATION, in the very first place, has EVER TRANSPIRED.

Hence, everything have just became clearer before our government and even this honourable tribunal that these case has no legal basis from the very beginning much more proven by the statements of New Tarajan and its recent statement that it is just believing that there is an attempt of defamation. It has become clearer now.

Nevertheless, we await the memorandum of the Court of Justice.

New Tarajan Wed Dec 18, 2013 2:49 am

Please, don't joke: "attempt of defamation" is exactly the same of "defamation". And, at least, we used it as synonymous. And, just to explain better, if someone tries to invade you, but fails, so is it not possible to charge him of aggression? Thus, those statements from Eurussia are simply ridiculous.
Secondly, the compensations are obviously symbolical, a practice well followed inside the jurisprudence AT EVERY LEVEL, while an apology is the minimum thing we have the right to request after Eurussia deliberately tried to defame us.
Eurussia refuses to acknowledge our position, thus demonstrating an arrogance which overcame our imagination, and continues not to provide any REAL DEFENSE in front of this Court, obviously because they cannot hide the truth.

We now respectfully leave the word to the Court.

Great Eurussia Wed Dec 18, 2013 3:02 am

Please, don't joke: "attempt of defamation" is exactly the same of "defamation". And, at least, we used it as synonymous. And, just to explain better, if someone tries to invade you, but fails, so is it not possible to charge him of aggression? Thus, those statements from Eurussia are simply ridiculous.
Secondly, the compensations are obviously symbolical, a practice well followed inside the jurisprudence AT EVERY LEVEL, while an apology is the minimum thing we have the right to request after Eurussia deliberately tried to defame us.
Eurussia refuses to acknowledge our position, thus demonstrating an arrogance which overcame our imagination, and continues not to provide any REAL DEFENSE in front of this Court, obviously because they cannot hide the truth.

We now respectfully leave the word to the Court.

Eurussia would like to clarify that we are still not accepting the case as we are still questioning its validity so New Tarajan cannot force us to issue a defense in the very first place, which is subject to the pending memorandum from this honourable tribunal.

Still, New Tarajan fails to provide justification as grounds for this case with which we still question its validity that makes us unconvinced to formally issue our defense in the very first place, furthermore, as the case is not yet being heard formally, as a MEMORANDUM is still pending by the tribunal itself due to our questions.

And we await it as a basis for the formal hearing of this case, if ever the tribunal will find this case with merits.

New Tarajan Wed Dec 18, 2013 5:04 am

We have nothing else to add to what we have already and repeatedly said to this Court.
It will be the Court to decide, and to acknowledge the complete lack of defense from Eurussia.

Great Eurussia Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:08 am

We have nothing else to add to what we have already and repeatedly said to this Court.
It will be the Court to decide, and to acknowledge the complete lack of defense from Eurussia.

Eurussia is extremely confident that all our legal opinions questioning the validity of the very grounds of this case can withstand all legal scrutiny. Thus, we DO NOT accept the case and we will NOT SUBMIT to it until the honourable tribunal has issued its memorandum.

Nevertheless, Eurussia will await for the Court.

New Tarajan Wed Dec 18, 2013 4:55 pm

We do not need further arrogant statements from Eurussia.
Thank you.

Great Eurussia Wed Dec 18, 2013 8:08 pm

We do not need further arrogant statements from Eurussia.
Thank you.

Eurussia asks New Tarajan of professionalism. Thanks.

Europe and Asia Wed Jan 01, 2014 9:02 am

A verdict is forthcoming. Sorry for the delay.

Europe and Asia Wed Jan 01, 2014 9:45 am

Court Memorandum:

New Tarajan claims defamation by the Eurussian Government, when Eurussia released a statement claiming the Tarajani navy had not helped their damaged submarine, when it was obvious and verifiable that the Tarajani navy had no way to know what had happened.

Eurussia provided evidence if Tarajani statements that can be construed as defamation, and claimed that its own statements were covered by the right to existence amendment of the constitution.

New Tarajan countered by saying that its statements too were covered by the constitution.

The court shows that both nations have the right to express opinion as said by the constitution. New Tarajan is therefore mandated to provide evidence that the Eurussian statement harmed them internationally or economically.

New Tarajan Fri Jan 03, 2014 12:48 am

(First of all: don't worry for the delay...I believe everyone here is busy, so thank you for all the work you are doing)

Honourable judges,
we wish to answer to your requests with a simple point: the problem, here, is not to see how many (if any) damages Eurussia effectively provoked, but what were the intentions.
This is the same principle applicaple to the concept of armed aggression: in theory, one State can repel an attack by another one without suffering any losses, but this does not mean that the aggressor could not been prosecuted for armed aggression.
This is exactly the case: Eurussia deliberately fabricated the case (a submarine accident where our navy did not intervene, as we have already stated in front of this Court) using it, once again deliberately, to defame us and our international prestige and reputation, as expressed by the words:

But when asked on why did the Tarajani Navy didn't provide any assistance despite the proximity of New Tarajan, the ministry said that they are saddened by their insensitivity.

And:

New Tarajan, who persistently criticize Moscow with baseless and unfounded accusations, missed an opportunity to show the world that it is a considerate state and allowed its issues with Eurussia to damage its international image

These are all attempts to blacken our international image.
How? Simply using a fact they provoked (the non-intervention of our Navy, which were not informed, as we already demonstrated) in order to damage us.
The intention here is clear; consequently, it is clear also the fault.
Obviously, this does not mean New Tarajan received any direct attack to its economy: indeed, we did not ask for any economic reparation.
Eurussia attempt to blacken us cannot be considered part of the "right of existence" as expressed by our beloved Constitution, simply because they fabricated the entire issue: the case would be different, if our Navy would have deliberately refused to rescue the Eurussian submarine. But this is not the case.
New Tarajan has been victim of an unjustifiable attempt of defamation by the Eurussian government, and this is why we are asking to this honourable Court for justice.
Is it necessary to demonstrate that such an attempt harms any State internationally? It is obvious. Exactly as it is obvious that a naval blockade economically harms a coastal State.
Our initial requests to this Court perfectly represent our position, as we have expressed here.

Great Eurussia Fri Jan 03, 2014 8:17 pm

Europe and Asia wrote:Court Memorandum:

New Tarajan claims defamation by the Eurussian Government, when Eurussia released a statement claiming the Tarajani navy had not helped their damaged submarine, when it was obvious and verifiable that the Tarajani navy had no way to know what had happened.

Eurussia provided evidence if Tarajani statements that can be construed as defamation, and claimed that its own statements were covered by the right to existence amendment of the constitution.

New Tarajan countered by saying that its statements too were covered by the constitution.

The court shows that both nations have the right to express opinion as said by the constitution. New Tarajan is therefore mandated to provide evidence that the Eurussian statement harmed them internationally or economically.

Eurussia welcomes the memorandum of the honourable tribunal.
And we commend the court for upholding the WA Constitution.

Great Eurussia Fri Jan 03, 2014 8:25 pm

New Tarajan wrote:(First of all: don't worry for the delay...I believe everyone here is busy, so thank you for all the work you are doing)

Honourable judges,
we wish to answer to your requests with a simple point: the problem, here, is not to see how many (if any) damages Eurussia effectively provoked, but what were the intentions.
This is the same principle applicaple to the concept of armed aggression: in theory, one State can repel an attack by another one without suffering any losses, but this does not mean that the aggressor could not been prosecuted for armed aggression.
This is exactly the case: Eurussia deliberately fabricated the case (a submarine accident where our navy did not intervene, as we have already stated in front of this Court) using it, once again deliberately, to defame us and our international prestige and reputation, as expressed by the words:

But when asked on why did the Tarajani Navy didn't provide any assistance despite the proximity of New Tarajan, the ministry said that they are saddened by their insensitivity.

And:

New Tarajan, who persistently criticize Moscow with baseless and unfounded accusations, missed an opportunity to show the world that it is a considerate state and allowed its issues with Eurussia to damage its international image

These are all attempts to blacken our international image.
How? Simply using a fact they provoked (the non-intervention of our Navy, which were not informed, as we already demonstrated) in order to damage us.
The intention here is clear; consequently, it is clear also the fault.
Obviously, this does not mean New Tarajan received any direct attack to its economy: indeed, we did not ask for any economic reparation.
Eurussia attempt to blacken us cannot be considered part of the "right of existence" as expressed by our beloved Constitution, simply because they fabricated the entire issue: the case would be different, if our Navy would have deliberately refused to rescue the Eurussian submarine. But this is not the case.
New Tarajan has been victim of an unjustifiable attempt of defamation by the Eurussian government, and this is why we are asking to this honourable Court for justice.
Is it necessary to demonstrate that such an attempt harms any State internationally? It is obvious. Exactly as it is obvious that a naval blockade economically harms a coastal State.
Our initial requests to this Court perfectly represent our position, as we have expressed here.

Eurussia reiterates that we are treating this proceedings as a determination of the prima facie evidence as the honourable tribunal is yet to decide if this complaint have the merits to proceed as a court case. But nevertheless, after the issuance of the memorandum and obvious and persistent failure by New Tarajan to provide the same requests we have been asking from the very beginning and even asked by the tribunal itself to show any evidence nor proof that a simple expression from a Eurussian official, only exercising its freedom of speech upheld by the tribunal, have done any harm to New Tarajan, at all.

Thus, this complaint must be dismissed outright, and should have happened so from the very beginning. Nevertheless, we await for the court's position. Thank you.

Marquette (of Pacific) Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:31 am

A Marquetien man yells from the gallery: "DON'T PAY THE SOCIALISTS' BRIBE! THEY'RE TRYING TO UNDERMINE NEW TARAJAN!"

He continues to yell Eurussian racial slurs as the guards remove him forcibly from the courtroom.

Great Eurussia Sat Jan 04, 2014 10:15 am

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:A Marquetien man yells from the gallery: "DON'T PAY THE SOCIALISTS' BRIBE! THEY'RE TRYING TO UNDERMINE NEW TARAJAN!"

He continues to yell Eurussian racial slurs as the guards remove him forcibly from the courtroom.

Under the Judicial Protocol Act,

"Section 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."

Europe and Asia Sat Jan 04, 2014 1:10 pm

The case has merit. Great Eurussia, although protected by the constitution, does not have a right to make false and inflammatory statements designed to harm Tarajan internationally.

This case is now a trial. I request that both the prosecution and the defense post, in full detail, their positions for consideration by the court.

Furthermore, Marquette is sternly warned by this court to not interrupt cases, no matter how humorous the interruption.

New Tarajan Sat Jan 04, 2014 8:19 pm

First of all, we want to thank the Court for the final acceptance of our case.

Now, we wish to briefly summarize our position, which was already well stated in our previous affirmations, as requested by the Court.
Our points are the following:

1. The Empire of Great Eurussia deliberately fabricated a news (Evidence N.1), where our Navy was accused of non-intervention in the rescuing operations of a submarine in dangers not far from the Tarajani territorial waters. The Royal Tarajani Navy received no informations useful for the rescuing operation (and for knowing of the accident itself). Consequently, the non-intervention of our Navy was deliberately caused by Eurussia itself.

2. The Empire of Great Eurussia used the news (Evidence 1) to defame the Tarajani Navy and, consequently, the Kingdom of New Tarajan as a whole.
This intention can be easily recognized in the two statements made in the news, already mentioned above by us, and which we wish to put in front of the Court as Evidence 2 and 3, respectively.

But when asked on why did the Tarajani Navy didn't provide any assistance despite the proximity of New Tarajan, the ministry said that they are saddened by their insensitivity.

New Tarajan, who persistently criticize Moscow with baseless and unfounded accusations, missed an opportunity to show the world that it is a considerate state and allowed its issues with Eurussia to damage its international image

3. Our third point is related to the membership of the Empire of Great Eurussia to the South-Western Security Organization (SOWESO). At the time of the accident, indeed, Moscow was still a member of this Organizaton. Now, the SOWESO Treaty explicitly provides for:

1)

Seeking to establish favourable and stable conditions for the full development of the
States Parties to the Treaty and to ensure their security, sovereignty and territorial integrity

(Preamble, 2nd Paragraph);

2)

Determined further to develop and intensify their military and political cooperation in
the interests of ensuring and strengthening national, regional and international security

(Preamble, 3rd Paragraph);

3)

Setting themselves the objective of maintaining and nurturing a close and comprehensive
alliance in the foreign policy, military and military technology fields

(Preamble, 4th Paragraph);

These are the points which express the fundamental Principles of the SOWESO which Eurussia violated with its actions. How? It is simply to say: by not informing our government that there was a route for nuclear submarines from Shirouma to Orenburg (or viceversa), thus being not so far from our territorial waters (and included in the SOWESO "protection zone", if we want to call it so), indirectly undermining the security of the Kingdom of New Tarajan, and, consequently, violating the true core of the Treaty itself.
Moreover, the attempt to blacken the international reputation of New Tarajan through the news, as we already demonstrated above, is a clear violation of all the principles of the SOWESO.
Since the SOWESO has not an independent judiciary body, and the Treaty explicitly provides for the strict respect of the WA Constitution and Governmental bodies, we believe the Court has the full jurisdiction over this point too.
Actually, Eurussia is not anymore a Member of the Organization, since it decided to leave it, however, this is not relevant to the case, due the fact it was a full Member when the events under examination took place.

Thus, we wish to ask to the Court for:

1)A symbolic reparation, in the amount of 1.000.000 (one million) Tarajani Prands

2) Public, clear and explicit apologies of the Eurussian government, namely by Chancellor Putin, or, if the case, the new Chancellor or Prime Minister, or the Head of State himself (we respectfully leave this specific decision to the will of the Court or to a bilateral compromise between ourselves and Eurussia, if they are willing to do so).

This is, in brief, the position of the Federal Aristocratic Kingdom of New Tarajan.
Thank you.

Europe and Asia Mon Jan 06, 2014 12:02 am

The court requests Eurussiams statement, and thanks New Tarajan for its statement.

Europe and Asia Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:05 am

The court informs Eurussia that if it doesn't not comply with the courts request and post a statement then it will be found in contempt of the court and fined.

Great Eurussia Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:33 pm

Europe and Asia wrote:The court informs Eurussia that if it doesn't not comply with the courts request and post a statement then it will be found in contempt of the court and fined.

OOC: Please bear with me I can't even make a news and only rebuttals due to my busy schedule. Thanks.

Europe and Asia Sat Jan 11, 2014 5:21 am

We request a statement from Eurussia on the court matter.

OOC: Respectfully, if you have time to make polls and argue on the map, you have time to write a hurried court case post. :p

Great Eurussia Sat Jan 11, 2014 9:10 am

Europe and Asia wrote:We request a statement from Eurussia on the court matter.

OOC: Respectfully, if you have time to make polls and argue on the map, you have time to write a hurried court case post. :p

OOC: LOL It's a different case! I need a lot of time for this! :-D Anyways, give me two weeks, I could sit down on this! After that, fine me :-)

Great Eurussia Tue Jan 14, 2014 4:16 am

Europe and Asia wrote:The case has merit. Great Eurussia, although protected by the constitution, does not have a right to make false and inflammatory statements designed to harm Tarajan internationally.

This case is now a trial. I request that both the prosecution and the defense post, in full detail, their positions for consideration by the court.

Furthermore, Marquette is sternly warned by this court to not interrupt cases, no matter how humorous the interruption.

Before anything else, Eurussia expresses its disappointment and grave fear as we have been greatly offended by the statement of the honourable tribunal by already judging us of,

"does not have a right to make false and inflammatory statements designed to harm Tarajan internationally."

We are greatly shocked of being prejudged by this honourable tribunal.

Europe and Asia Tue Jan 14, 2014 8:01 pm

The court was merely stating why the case was valid. Now, I this case continues with lack of activity I'll be forced to dismiss it.

New Tarajan Tue Jan 14, 2014 9:27 pm

New Tarajan is still waiting for the response from Eurussia.

Sponsored content

(Dismissed) New Tarajan vs Eurussia