(Concluded) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

New Tarajan Thu May 22, 2014 9:13 pm

The Kingdom of New Tarajan wishes to bring in front of this Court the case of the Eurussian annexation of Ceveztria/Ausavia (hereby, for simplicity, called Ausavia).

Our reasons are simple: the Empire of Great Eurussia annexed Ausavia under explicit authorization of the same Ausavian Government; however, this authorization was given by Ausavia only temporarily, as Ausavia himself expressed to me and to the entire World Alliance. Indeed, the Ausavian Government expressed its true intentions, by explaining that the annexation was temporary, with the specific aim to make possible a quick recovery of the country before the instauration of a new type of government.
Not only this annexation created tensions in the International Community but, as everybody knows, right now it is also illegal and unuseful.
Why?
Simply because the Ausavian government, following a ruling of this same Court, has now collapsed.
Consequently, the reasons for the annexation have been rendered void, due the obvious impossibility, for Ausavia, to regain its independence.
Moreover, the agreement signed by Eurussia and Ausavia, allowing the annexation, is also void, due the fact that one of the two parties has ceased to exist; a fact which, for its own nature, automatically render any kind of contracts or agreements null and void.

Thus, the Kingdom of New Tarajan officially requests to this Court that the annexation of Ausavia by the Eurussian Government shall be deemed as illegal, and thus revoked, and that the lands formerly belonging to Ausavia shall be administered by the WA Institutions until they could recover their full autonomy (OOC speaking: until the next Map Update).

We would also like to bring in front of the Court evidences in support of our thesis about the plan of Ausavia:

Evidence N.1

In the Ausavian news, it is possible to read the idea behind the annexation, has clearly stated by Ausavia itself.
In order to simplify the job of the Court, we'll quote it here in its entirety:

The Ausav Telegraph

Ausavia judges conflicts

With tensions growing between Eurussia and the internation community the commonwealth state of Ausavia felt that they had to explain to those intervening what the real case is.

Joe Biden, the former president of 'Ceveztria', now modern Ausavia, was the representator of the government of Ceveztria as he was the only official left after devastating liberation of the nation and Hadesa eruption. That 'Ceveztria' would begin a project with Eurussia to rebuild the nation into a complete modernized world class look and create a new government system which is to be tested on modern Ausavia and has been named Depolitism. The annexation was made to be temporary and boost progress in doing this project to benefit both nations and is not a permanent one as Ausavia can reclaim its independence whenever it so wishes, and as mentioned, it was done voluntarily. The commonwealth says that it is unnecessary to intervene in this but support for this project will be accepted.

Evidence N.2

Quote here:

Governor General Johannes Bidenush (A.K.A. Joe Biden)

"Pushing Eurussia out of Ausavia is unnecessary, we have already signed a co-operation contract to attempt and build an entirely new government system with the advantage of present situations in Ausavia and potentially create something far better than a regular democracy or republic. We call it 'Depolitism', it involves in exterminating all hints of corruption and injustice while preserving human rights and a significant economy which will be supervised by government administrators and even opening up the possibility of free college but privatizing high school and elementary. If this project is a success, the residents of the World Alliance shall be given the opportunity of adopting this government system and enter the future era. There is alot more to Depolitism than this and I can answer all questions concerning it."

*sits down*

Regarding our second assumptions, which we deem to be even more important, namely, the automatic end of a contract, with all its consequences, when one of the parties is no more, this does not need any evidence, since it's a fundamental juridical principle followed and respected in any legal system, and which is a pillar of the concept of contract itself.

Thank you.

Europe and Asia Fri May 23, 2014 6:00 am

The court requests the position of Eurussia.

Ivania Fri May 23, 2014 7:56 am

Give me this then, should the Farshonian lands be left then as well?

New Tarajan Fri May 23, 2014 8:21 am

Ivania wrote:Give me this then, should the Farshonian lands be left then as well?

In Farshonia it was not the same. Here we have the case of clear, stipulated contract between two parties.

Arveyres Fri May 23, 2014 8:22 am

Ivania wrote:Give me this then, should the Farshonian lands be left then as well?

I would like to point out that the Farshonian lands were not temporarily annexed.

Ireland Fri May 23, 2014 8:35 am

Ivania wrote:Give me this then, should the Farshonian lands be left then as well?

Yes but those were rightfully claimed. Ceveztria/Ausavia is know unlawfully annexed. The contract that Ceveztria and Eurussia signed is void i believe.

New Tarajan Fri May 23, 2014 8:42 am

Great Empire of Ireland wrote:
Ivania wrote:Give me this then, should the Farshonian lands be left then as well?
Yes but those were rightfully claimed. Ceveztria/Ausavia is know unlawfully annexed. The contract that Ceveztria and Eurussia signed is void i believe.

This is the point of our thesis, indeed. And we brought in front of the Court two reasons why the contract/agreement should be deemed void.

But, now, I suppose it's time to leave space for Eurussia defense.

New Tarajan Sat May 24, 2014 8:27 pm

As prosecutor in this case, I would like to ask to the Court to ensure that the defender issues his defense, stopping this unjustified delay.

Europe and Asia Sat May 24, 2014 10:46 pm

Eurussia you are hereby ordered by the court to post your position.

Great Eurussia Sun May 25, 2014 12:19 am

Europe and Asia wrote:Eurussia you are hereby ordered by the court to post your position.

Eurussia officially acknowledges this case, and we are extremely and very very confident of our arguments, as we did with previous accusations against us about the status of the Duchy of Ceveztria and the Duchy of Ausavia of the Eurussian Empire. We are also stating, for the record, that we will respect the proceedings and the final outcome of this case.

First of all, Eurussia would answer these charges with IC and OOC arguments, the same as what we did with the Case: Ireland vs. Ceveztria/Ausavia, to cover all aspects of questions and again, seal off attempts to discredit us by this already resolved issue. And we thank the prosecuting party for its evidences, as they greatly helped a lot on our defense and simply made this case, easy to resolve by the honourable tribunal.

We would like to go straight to the point,

IC: For this part, we would like to define first what is annexation, which is the permanent incorporation of some territorial entity into another geo-political entity (Wikipedia), and in this case, it is the incorporation of Ceveztria's political territory into the Eurussian Empire, and this was given effect by the signing of our Treaty of Annexation. Here,

https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t372p975-world-alliance-international-news-network#19158

TREATY OF ANNEXATION

1) Ceveztria revokes its Treaty of Friendship with Eurussia.
2) Ceveztria relinquishes its sovereignty and territories to Eurussia.
3) Ceveztria recognizes the absolute authority of the Emperor of Eurussia.
4) Ceveztria recognizes the absolute authority of the Eurussian Government.
5) Ceveztria recognizes that it shall become an inherent territory of Eurussia.

And with this Treaty, where the President of Ceveztria himself went to Eurussia and meet our Chancellor and Emperor to sign this Treaty, the voluntary will is there, without coercion and intimidation from the Eurussian Government, unlike what has been accused of us. Since then, the entire sovereignty and nationality of Ceveztria has been dissolved perpetually and non-existing as it becomes an integral territory of the Eurussian Empire. As a matter of fact, it is our government who decided the structure of administration that is why the former President of Ceveztria, Joe Biden, has become the Governor General acting as the representative of the Emperor to the two territories which was named as Commonwealth of North Ausavia and South Ausavia. It is in our full discretion on how to administer the entirety of our disaster stricken new territories, with of course, support of the international community. And now, we changed their status into the Duchies of Ceveztria and Ausavia.

And inquiring about the validity of the Treaty? In any angle any legal experts look at the Treaty, all the absolute and sovereign discretion of granting independence lies solely on the Eurussian Empire. As stipulated in Articles 3,4,5 of the Treaty. The Article 2 speaks for itself, and Article 1 which means our Treaty of Friendship which recognizes each others' sovereignty has been revoked perpetually. Since then, Ceveztria has lost its independence, sovereignty, and nationality upon annexation, absolutely in favor of the Eurussian Empire.

OOC: By virtue of the request submitted by Ceveztria on the Map Claims thread, here, https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t439p450-world-alliance-map-claims#19214, which I have noted and accepted as the Map Admin, from that moment until the map update, the lands are have been transferred permanently into the sole ownership of Eurussia. And was never retracted nor denied by Ceveztria until his conviction, and a proof to that is his last TG to me, below, and several statements he made via news and threads and so on.

Spoiler:

Pffft, I never intended on staying here for long. I found a better region which I will go to Nightrealms Region (not sure but try to trace where Ceveztria will move next) and since you're the only one I trusted in this region I put up a small plan which went successfully, and that was providing you with a farewell gift of land.

I have tried my best to complete the contents since I have deleted the original one a long time ago since the covers were only meant to preserve Ceveztria's privacy and the region where he intends to move next since we banjected him forcefully. Nevertheless, the our arguments clearly show the the ownership of lands of Ceveztria is absolute ours.

Real life: As I have stated before, and I will repeat it again, that personally, I shouldn't have joined and agreed with his RP if this how will it end only. He really had a perfect plan for our RP, the format of new government, infrastructure projects, the Hyatt Hotel is part of it, check my news on it, and he wanted to look like Dubai, see my news about the Dubai Mall. I just feel sad that this is how it ended :-/ AND since the prosecuting Party keeps on clinging on the so called "temporary agreement," we would confirm that it was indeed temporary and it is in fact a "gentleman's agreement" which is already outside the game itself. Which in the end, all the decision to honor that agreement lies on me and not on Ceveztria anymore which I will rely on the how the RP story is going, expecting that Ceveztria is still around, and now that he was forcefully banjected, that prerogative whether to honor that gentleman's agreement remained absolutely hours, and we prefer to keep Ceveztria's lands as part of the Eurussian Empire the way it is.

Example?: Look at Newellia. It become a Commonwealth Realm under the Eurussian Empire signing an Annexation Treaty with us. We developed it and reconstructed its entire economy and had the absolute discretion when to declare independence. And as you have witnessed way back, Newellia become an independent country again from the Eurussian Empire after we signed a Treaty of Friendship again, were we recognized its sovereignty back again. It never contained any provision revoking our Annexation Treaty, we simply recognized its sovereignty and independence. And the rest is history for Newellia.

Hence, we rest our case and we hope for the immediate conclusion of this long overdue case.

But, if the Prosecuting Party nor the Tribunal has more inquiries, we will gladly comply.

In anyway, Eurussia is confident with all its arguments that can withstand all scrutiny.

New Tarajan Sun May 25, 2014 1:30 am

As prosecutor of this case, New Tarajan wishes to respond to the late defense of Eurussia.

IC:

We know very well what is the definition of annexation, however, we thank Eurussia for quoting it, since it is useful also for us.
And, indeed, using that same definition as starting point, we can easily say that what Ceveztria explained in what we have already presented to this Court as Evidence N.1, is not an annexation but only a temporary administration.
Since our thesis is that the fact Eurussia should permanently hold the former lands of Ceveztria/Ausavia is against the intentions of the agreement itself, we wish to underline that the only true demonstration we have of the will of one of the contracting Parties (Ceveztria/Ausavia) is the Evidence N.1.
And here we find extremely clear the fact that Eurussia has no right to keep owning those lands permanently.
What the Eurussian government did in Ausavia is irrelevant to this case.
The Treaty showed us by Eurussia does not infirm our own thesis since, as we have already said, the only sure information about the will of Ceveztria/Ausavia is the news he published. And, here, we are discussing about this will indeed.
Since the official reasons for the annexation where to re-give to Ausavia its own independence following the Depolitism Project, seeing the impossibility to achieve such a goal, the entire contract, subject to the formula rebus sic stantibus, automatically ceases to exist.

Real Life:

I'm glad to see that you understand the problem Eurussia.
As you said, you should not have accepted this RP, since it is bringing only problems.
But, since you have done it, we need to find a remedy. Why? Simply because it's unfair toward all the other countries.
Indeed, at this point, every body could call upon a friend, allowing him to make a country; then this friend would leave, giving his lands to the other one. Is it this fair? You personally were concerned that me and my brother (Antanares) should behave in an unfair way. However, you're now doing the same thing.
While the legal IC grounds of your thesis are flawed, as I have demonstrated, it is flawed also the morality of the entire thing as well. If you wish to demonstrate really your good-will, then you should agree to leave those lands to their own destiny.

Great Eurussia Sun May 25, 2014 1:33 am

Spoiler:

Eurussia has a simple answer for this, as whatever story the prosecuting Party tries to create on the events that transpired before the signing of the Treaty, nothing can hide the fact and overturn the obvious fact that the Treaty of Annexation has been signed and went into effect.

TREATY OF ANNEXATION

1) Ceveztria revokes its Treaty of Friendship with Eurussia.
2) Ceveztria relinquishes its sovereignty and territories to Eurussia.
3) Ceveztria recognizes the absolute authority of the Emperor of Eurussia.
4) Ceveztria recognizes the absolute authority of the Eurussian Government.
5) Ceveztria recognizes that it shall become an inherent territory of Eurussia

Thank you very much.

New Tarajan Sun May 25, 2014 1:47 am

We will gladly answer you, Eurussia....but with another question: how a Treaty/contract/agreement should be deemed still valid, when the will of one of the Parties (which still is a fundamental requirement for the validity of any kind of treaty/contract/agreement) is now non-existing, and while the goal of this contract itself deemed to be necessary the existence of that contracting Party; and while that same goal, and the will of Party as clearly expressed in front of the entire International Community, are violated by the persistence of such a contract?

OOC: And, moreover, why all the players should accept such an unfair process?

Great Eurussia Sun May 25, 2014 2:05 am

New Tarajan wrote:We will gladly answer you, Eurussia....but with another question: how a Treaty/contract/agreement should be deemed still valid, when the will of one of the Parties (which still is a fundamental requirement for the validity of any kind of treaty/contract/agreement) is now non-existing, and while the goal of this contract itself deemed to be necessary the existence of that contracting Party; and while that same goal, and the will of Party as clearly expressed in front of the entire International Community, are violated by the persistence of such a contract?

OOC: And, moreover, why all the players should accept such an unfair process?

Again, we request the prosecuting Party to go back to the Treaty of Annexation. Isn't it there were two parties, Eurussia and the former Ceveztria, that allowed the Treaty to take effect? And again, did the prosecuting Party read the contents of the Annexation Treaty? Didn't it dissolved the former Republic of Ceveztria?

And to further enlighten the prosecuting party and the tribunal itself. We would be honored to guide everyone on how the Kingdom of Hawaii and the Republic of Texas were annexed by the United States of America? Didn't they all started from a Treaty of Annexation? Isn't from that point onwards, they have become integral parts of the US and as the US Supreme Court ruled that the US states regardless of how they have become part of the country, and despite of the federalism principle, these states can never secede from the union? Because, Hawaii and Texas, technically and legally, cannot revoke anymore the Annexation Treaty because of its contents of full annexation. Meaning, they have become integral parts of the USA. Just like how Ceveztria came into being a territory of the Eurussian Empire.

Proof?

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/texan05.asp

http://www.alohaquest.com/archive/treaty_annexation_1897.htm

Europe and Asia Sun May 25, 2014 2:08 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:We will gladly answer you, Eurussia....but with another question: how a Treaty/contract/agreement should be deemed still valid, when the will of one of the Parties (which still is a fundamental requirement for the validity of any kind of treaty/contract/agreement) is now non-existing, and while the goal of this contract itself deemed to be necessary the existence of that contracting Party; and while that same goal, and the will of Party as clearly expressed in front of the entire International Community, are violated by the persistence of such a contract?

OOC: And, moreover, why all the players should accept such an unfair process?

Again, we request the prosecuting Party to go back to the Treaty of Annexation. Isn't it there were two parties, Eurussia and the former Ceveztria, that allowed the Treaty to take effect? And again, did the prosecuting Party read the contents of the Annexation Treaty? Didn't it dissolved the former Republic of Ceveztria?
And to further enlighten the prosecuting party and the tribunal itself. We would be honored to guide everyone on how the Kingdom of Hawaii and the Republic of Texas were annexed by the United States of America? Didn't they all started from a Treaty of Annexation? Isn't from that point onwards, they have become integral parts of the US and as the US Supreme Court ruled that the US states regardless of how they have become part of the country, and despite of the federalism principle, these states can never secede from the union? Because, Hawaii and Texas, technically and legally, cannot revoke anymore the Annexation Treaty because of its contents of full annexation. Meaning, they have become integral parts of the USA. Just like how Ceveztria came into being a territory of the Eurussian Empire.
Proof?
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/texan05.asp
http://www.alohaquest.com/archive/treaty_annexation_1897.htm

The court notifies the defense that the governments and people of Hawaii and Texas still currently exist. The entire nation of Ceveztria and Ausavia does not exist anymore. They left the region. The question here is whether or not a treaty is still valid if one of the signing members no longer exists.

New Tarajan Sun May 25, 2014 2:13 am

We agree with what the Court said.
Your point is completely flawed.
Indeed, the examples of the Kingdom of Hawaii and the Republic of Texas cannot be taken at the same level of the particular issue we are discussing.
Why? For a series of reasons.
First of all, neither the Hawaii nor Texas made a conditioned annexation, as made by Ceveztria/Ausavia. The goal of their treaties with the U.S. was to simply become part of the Union, nothing more. Here, instead, we have a country (Ceveztria/Ausavia) who decided to temporarily join another one (Eurussia) in order to achieve a very specific goal.
The second reason why these two examples are not viable in this case is that, by showing those treaties, Eurussia is simply showing, sorry for the repeting, treaties. They simply do not demonstrate nothing, except for a good piece of Diplomatic History, which I'm really passioned of.
Thank you.

Great Eurussia Sun May 25, 2014 2:20 am

Spoiler:

The court notifies the defense that the governments and people of Hawaii and Texas still currently exist. The entire nation of Ceveztria and Ausavia does not exist anymore. They left the region. The question here is whether or not a treaty is still valid if one of the signing members no longer exists.

Yes, the Treaty of Annexation is valid. Just read and read and read the provisions of the Treaty. From the time it went into effect, Ceveztria/Ausavia has denied of itself on its own lands and even dissolved itself technically. Just like Hawaii and Texas. And since the signing of the Treaty, the Eurussian Empire has enjoyed sovereignty ver these lands all by virtue of that Treaty which itself decided the fate of the former Ceveztria.

Great Eurussia Sun May 25, 2014 2:21 am

New Tarajan wrote:We agree with what the Court said.
Your point is completely flawed.
Indeed, the examples of the Kingdom of Hawaii and the Republic of Texas cannot be taken at the same level of the particular issue we are discussing.
Why? For a series of reasons.
First of all, neither the Hawaii nor Texas made a conditioned annexation, as made by Ceveztria/Ausavia. The goal of their treaties with the U.S. was to simply become part of the Union, nothing more. Here, instead, we have a country (Ceveztria/Ausavia) who decided to temporarily join another one (Eurussia) in order to achieve a very specific goal.
The second reason why these two examples are not viable in this case is that, by showing those treaties, Eurussia is simply showing, sorry for the repeting, treaties. They simply do not demonstrate nothing, except for a good piece of Diplomatic History, which I'm really passioned of.
Thank you.

Again, is there any provision under the Annexation Treaty that there was a "condition" that will make the Treaty itself null and void? Is there a provision saying that when Ceveztria/Ausavia has been kicked out of the region makes the Treaty null and void? As what the prosecuting Party insists on the word "temporary"? Is there such a word anywhere in the Treaty?

New Tarajan Sun May 25, 2014 2:31 am

We have the clear and unanswerable word of Ceveztria/Ausavia itself in front of the entire International Community, which is more than sufficient, in our opinion, to this Court in order to reconstruct the will of Ceveztria/Ausavia as contracting Party, and thus demonstrating the truth behind our thesis.

Is there a provision saying that when Ceveztria/Ausavia has been kicked out of the region makes the Treaty null and void?

Yes, there is. As we said at the beginning of this case, and as Eurussia itself has acknowledged, this is fundamental pillar of the concept of contract itself: it cannot exist without the meeting of the will of two Parties; it cannot exist without one of the contracting Parties.
Particularly when the goal of the contract, as clearly said by the contracting Party itself, was to give him independence again.

We believe there is nothing more to add.

Great Eurussia Sun May 25, 2014 2:40 am

New Tarajan wrote:We have the clear and unanswerable word of Ceveztria/Ausavia itself in front of the entire International Community, which is more than sufficient, in our opinion, to this Court in order to reconstruct the will of Ceveztria/Ausavia as contracting Party, and thus demonstrating the truth behind our thesis.

Is there a provision saying that when Ceveztria/Ausavia has been kicked out of the region makes the Treaty null and void?

Yes, there is. As we said at the beginning of this case, and as Eurussia itself has acknowledged, this is fundamental pillar of the concept of contract itself: it cannot exist without the meeting of the will of two Parties; it cannot exist without one of the contracting Parties.
Particularly when the goal of the contract, as clearly said by the contracting Party itself, was to give him independence again.

We believe there is nothing more to add.

What is the purpose of the Annexation Treaty then? If simple words or statements would be treated more tantamount and important that what was prescribed and clearly written on the Annexation Treaty itself?

So it means that if Eurussia enters into a Treaty with New Tarajan where in the contract it says "Eurussia will pay New Tarajan for $1 billion dollars," Can New Tarajan demand Eurussia to pay it immediately because they have discussed about it even if it was not written on the Treaty itself? Or can Eurussia delay the payment because it was not written on the Treaty and Eurussia says it has been discussed and talked about that payment can be made even if not immediately?

What is more important? Words or what was clearly written on the duly and willfully signed document just like the Treaty of Annexation?

New Tarajan Sun May 25, 2014 2:48 am

The fundamental mistake in your position, Eurussia, is that we are not basing our assumptions on mere rumors.
But on written words. Written, exactly like the Treaty you're continuing to show us.

And we are not talking about a normal Treaty of Annexation, because the will of one of the contracting Party was not for a normal annexation, but only for something temporarily-limited, and with a very specific goal in mind. Something that he has duly expressed to the entire International Community, exactly like the Treaty itself.
Thus, his will, as expressed by himself, deems the Treaty null and void because its basic requirements (the existence of Ceveztria/Ausavia in order to give him back the lands) is no more.

OOC:
And, a last, small answer: why not leaving these lands, since it's very clear how it would be unfair to keep them?

By the way, as I have said, I believe the Court has all the elements, right now, to rule upon this case.
Thank you.

Great Eurussia Sun May 25, 2014 3:07 am

New Tarajan wrote:The fundamental mistake in your position, Eurussia, is that we are not basing our assumptions on mere rumors.
But on written words. Written, exactly like the Treaty you're continuing to show us.

And we are not talking about a normal Treaty of Annexation, because the will of one of the contracting Party was not for a normal annexation, but only for something temporarily-limited, and with a very specific goal in mind. Something that he has duly expressed to the entire International Community, exactly like the Treaty itself.
Thus, his will, as expressed by himself, deems the Treaty null and void because its basic requirements (the existence of Ceveztria/Ausavia in order to give him back the lands) is no more.

OOC:
And, a last, small answer: why not leaving these lands, since it's very clear how it would be unfair to keep them?

By the way, as I have said, I believe the Court has all the elements, right now, to rule upon this case.
Thank you.

If that is a flaw or so fundamental as what you've said, why isn't the "temporary-limited" thing was not mentioned in the Treaty? Much more signed by the Ceveztrian President Biden himself, much more in Moscow? Whom we eventually appointed as Governore General?

Whatever happened to Ceveztria/Ausavia outside RP / OOC can never change the fact that in RP, a treaty was signed and in OOC the lands was handed over to Eurussia via the Map Claims Thread. We think there is nothing to say more as we have presentef everything legally.

Eurussia believes that we are disputing here the things that shouldn't be disputed at all. Much more, legally speaking, has no basis from the beginning. In anyway, we have presented our arguments and it seems that the prosecuting Party cannot produce any legally binding document that could invalidate the Treaty of Annexation between Eurussia and Ceveztria. With which Eurussia continues to enjoy sovereignty as enshrined by Article II of the WA Constitution that protects our rights.

We ask the tribunal if it has further inquiry?

New Tarajan Sun May 25, 2014 9:47 pm

Citing the fact Eurussia continues to fail to see our position and its merits, as we have already said, we believe the Court has now all the elements to resolve this case.
We believe it to be unnecessary, and even an abuse to the patience of this Court, to keep trying to make Eurussia see the reality and the ground of our thesis.

Thus, we do not have further inquiries, on our side.
The truth is quiet obvious.

We wish to require to the honourable Judges to finally issue their verdict.
Thank you.

OOC: I wish to underline only one, last, small thing before the verdict: you didn't answer to my question. And sometimes, not answering is an answer of its own.
This is all.

Europe and Asia Sun May 25, 2014 10:51 pm

If the defense has finished, the court will close oral arguments.

Great Eurussia Mon May 26, 2014 5:10 am

New Tarajan wrote:Citing the fact Eurussia continues to fail to see our position and its merits, as we have already said, we believe the Court has now all the elements to resolve this case.
We believe it to be unnecessary, and even an abuse to the patience of this Court, to keep trying to make Eurussia see the reality and the ground of our thesis.

Thus, we do not have further inquiries, on our side.
The truth is quiet obvious.

We wish to require to the honourable Judges to finally issue their verdict.
Thank you.

OOC: I wish to underline only one, last, small thing before the verdict: you didn't answer to my question. And sometimes, not answering is an answer of its own.
This is all.

OOC: Why do we even have to use an 'OOC' discussion when we are dealing directly on the merits of the case? I mean, just provide evidences to counter our RP / OOC / IRL statements. It's just confusing us further when all the RP / OOC / IRL facts are already in front us all. That's it.

Sponsored content

(Concluded) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

(Concluded) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Re: (Concluded) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Re: (Concluded) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Re: (Concluded) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Re: (Concluded) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Re: (Concluded) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Re: (Concluded) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Re: (Concluded) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Re: (Concluded) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Eurussian News

Re: (Concluded) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Eurussian Position

Re: (Concluded) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Eurussian Position

Re: (Concluded) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Re: (Concluded) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Eurussian Position

Eurussian Position

Re: (Concluded) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Eurussian Position

Re: (Concluded) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Eurussian Position

Re: (Concluded) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Re: (Concluded) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Re: (Concluded) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Re: (Concluded) New Tarajan vs Eurussia