WORLD ALLIANCE COURT OF JUSTICE

With respect to this Court, Eurussia has exercised its powers under Article 7.

In favor of banjecting 19 confirmed puppet states from evidence of Vendoland.

Vaticanosia has officially charged me with Violation of the WA Constitution. I have this as my only main peace of evidence which Proves that I personally had the right to run for SC. http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=218737&start=529

As clearly stated here by Eurussia during the makings of the WA Constitution it explicitly states that I, the Delegate, may run and hold a position on the Security Council. This along with a TG from Eurussia along the same lines is what put me under the impression that I may freely run for SC. Also I draw your attention to the fact that No-one (Apart From Vaticanosia) has ever objecting to my running for SC. Those who voted for me were fully aware that I was a delegate, and still chose to as they had no objection. In the light of these allegations by Vatacanosia and this court case I have now incurred, I have officially stepped down from the SC, as I do not wish to impair the SC by dragging them into this.
I do however intend to fight this case for my RIGHT to run in the NEXT SC ELECTION. I have full confidence that I will overcome this case as I am fighting for fairness. The delegate is a selfless task (Because it is Non-Executive and Has no power) with no gain, But I do it for my love of the WA, but this is making it seem that I am being punished for selflessly sacrificing my time and effort as delegate. I ask you all, not to be praised or benefitted but to simply have the same rights as every other WA member, Because in all honesty name one thing the Delegate does that any other World Assembly Member Cant? (Apart from spending 15-30 Min a day reading, analysing, and approving well written proposals for the World Assembly to then vote on.). Vatacanosia claims to be doing this in the name of justice but I ask all you WA members today, Is this Justice? Is banning and ejecting the nation who has unconditionally stood by you and spent time to support you fair? Is denying me the right to run for Security Council fair?

New-Zealand wrote:Vaticanosia has officially charged me with Violation of the WA Constitution. I have this as my only main peace of evidence which Proves that I personally had the right to run for SC. http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=218737&start=529

As clearly stated here by Eurussia during the makings of the WA Constitution it explicitly states that I, the Delegate, may run and hold a position on the Security Council. This along with a TG from Eurussia along the same lines is what put me under the impression that I may freely run for SC. Also I draw your attention to the fact that No-one (Apart From Vaticanosia) has ever objecting to my running for SC. Those who voted for me were fully aware that I was a delegate, and still chose to as they had no objection. In the light of these allegations by Vatacanosia and this court case I have now incurred, I have officially stepped down from the SC, as I do not wish to impair the SC by dragging them into this.
I do however intend to fight this case for my RIGHT to run in the NEXT SC ELECTION. I have full confidence that I will overcome this case as I am fighting for fairness. The delegate is a selfless task (Because it is Non-Executive and Has no power) with no gain, But I do it for my love of the WA, but this is making it seem that I am being punished for selflessly sacrificing my time and effort as delegate. I ask you all, not to be praised or benefitted but to simply have the same rights as every other WA member, Because in all honesty name one thing the Delegate does that any other World Assembly Member Cant? (Apart from spending 15-30 Min a day reading, analysing, and approving well written proposals for the World Assembly to then vote on.). Vatacanosia claims to be doing this in the name of justice but I ask all you WA members today, Is this Justice? Is banning and ejecting the nation who has unconditionally stood by you and spent time to support you fair? Is denying me the right to run for Security Council fair?

In case you didn't understand in my last post. I PLEAD NOT GUILTY AND ASK TO AT THE MINIMUM NOT BE BANJECTED. I beleive the link I gave at the top of my last post is enough to prove that I was under the impression I am allowed to be a part of the WA SC.

The Eurussian Government appeals to the honorable Court of Justice to consider on its decision on this case the utmost sincerity and innocence of the New Zealand Government over the charges the Vaticanosian Government has charged the latter.

It is in our utmost belief that whatever the opinion of this Court that we or may not be allowed to join your exclusive sessions, we insist that it is in our understanding of the Constitution, the WA Delegate is indeed an elected representative of the WA Government to the World Assembly and the determination whether it is conclusive enough to say that the delegacy is an arm of the regional government lies to the interpretation of this Court and whatever it may be, our government will respect it and urges this Court that although the constitution implies that whatever violation of any of its provision shall be accorded with a punishment of ban and ejection, this violation in our understanding is willingly committed by the guilty party which is very unlikely to part of the New Zealand Government.

The Eurussian Government, as the Founder of the WA, prays that this Court will take considerations.

I motion the court to eject Vaticanosia for stalling the Court Case. It is obvious (As his last RMB Post Showed) that he is not willing to take part in the court, Instead he is trying to use this as an opportunity to convince nations to withdraw endorsements from me and in turn make me loose my delegateship. This is gross misconduct. I motion the court to eject Vaticanosia if he does not show up in this Court within the Next 24 Hours.

The Eurussian Government appeals to this Court to continue the proceeding whether neither of the parties involved will participate or not in the proceedings since all of them have the knowledge that the case is already in the hands of this honorable body and it is our understanding that every sovereign state shall be responsible in engaging in international disputes like this.

The Eurussian Government prays that our manifestation will be considered by this Court.

"Yesterday, we asked New Zealand whether we could become their lawyer for the trial. He accepted, so we are their lawyer for the trial...now if we could only get Vaticanosia could put up their case and the justices selected, we could get this moving."

With respect to this Court, Eurussia has exercised its powers under Article 7.
In favor of banjecting 5 confirmed puppet states from evidence of Vendoland.

When are we actually get down to business. Lets hurry up with this. Can we please have Vaticanosia come face me in court already, I'm tired of waiting.

New-Zealand wrote:When are we actually get down to business. Lets hurry up with this. Can we please have Vaticanosia come face me in court already, I'm tired of waiting.

We agree. Eurussia appeals to New Zealand to communicate with other SC members.

Though nothing has been made official yet, Browera's yes vote essentially seals the deal. Let's get going with the business at hand.

Though I believe the matter I brought before the region is incredibly important, I think time is of the essence in the case of Vaticanosia v. New Zealand and the resulting countersuit.

Vaticanosia has charged New Zealand with violation of Article 5 of the World Alliance Constitution, specifically the clause prohibiting any nation from holding more than one post in the regional government. New Zealand has countered that Vaticanosia has intentionally perverted the course of justice and has no intention of appearing before this.

Before deliberations begin, I intend to set a rule regarding lawsuits in the World Alliance: If any nation has grievance against another nation, they must bring it before the Court here on the regional forum. I intend to utilize this rule for any case that appears before the Court while I am Chief Justice and it is my hope that this process becomes standard practice. With the preponderance of puppets trying to disrupt the harmony of our region, it behooves us to safeguard our judicial process.

In light of that rule, I ask both parties to post in this thread to make their cases against the other and to answer the charges against them. I believe a 48 hour time frame to do so would be fair to both parties, but I would ask my fellow Justices to weigh in on that.

vendoland wrote:Though nothing has been made official yet, Browera's yes vote essentially seals the deal. Let's get going with the business at hand.

Though I believe the matter I brought before the region is incredibly important, I think time is of the essence in the case of Vaticanosia v. New Zealand and the resulting countersuit.

Vaticanosia has charged New Zealand with violation of Article 5 of the World Alliance Constitution, specifically the clause prohibiting any nation from holding more than one post in the regional government. New Zealand has countered that Vaticanosia has intentionally perverted the course of justice and has no intention of appearing before this.

Before deliberations begin, I intend to set a rule regarding lawsuits in the World Alliance: If any nation has grievance against another nation, they must bring it before the Court here on the regional forum. I intend to utilize this rule for any case that appears before the Court while I am Chief Justice and it is my hope that this process becomes standard practice. With the preponderance of puppets trying to disrupt the harmony of our region, it behooves us to safeguard our judicial process.

In light of that rule, I ask both parties to post in this thread to make their cases against the other and to answer the charges against them. I believe a 48 hour time frame to do so would be fair to both parties, but I would ask my fellow Justices to weigh in on that.

As i do agree with chief justice vendoland,a great trial is before us today that is why a 48 hour time frame is fair.....it is essential that the accuser be present or this case will never move forward.I am ready to issue a summon for vaticanosia if the chief justice accepts that.

Zakiristan. wrote:As i do agree with chief justice vendoland,a great trial is before us today that is why a 48 hour time frame is fair.....it is essential that the accuser be present or this case will never move forward.I am ready to issue a summon for vaticanosia if the chief justice accepts that.

I already took the liberty of informing both New Zealand and Vaticanosia of the hearing and asked that they post here, though I did not specify a time limit until we had discussed it.

Being that the majority of the Court agrees with the time period, send both parties a message informing them they have 48 hours to post their charges. When you've sent both, post here so we can properly count down 48 hours from the time the messages were sent.

Telegrams have been wired.

Thank you, Zakiristan.

Both New Zealand and Vaticanosia has until 8:00 PM EST on Wednesday (1:00 AM GMT on Thursday) to post on this forum if they wish to make formal charges.

The Justices will deliberate over Telegram once the cases have been presented.

Pledge : NOT GUILTY
Witness's to testify on my behalf :Schorr (Major Player in Moscow Confrence)
Lawyer : Unovia


I have been accused by Vaticanosia to be "Power Hungry". I deny this claim. I believe I had the right to be a part of the SC because when I clearly asked during the creation of it I was told POINT BLANK by the person making the Constitution that I was able to run for SC (Proof :http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=218737&start=529) . I would also like to point out that if you look at the history of the forum that everyone was made aware of this and that nations fought to grant me the right to join the SC. Also I won the SC Election fairly and all nations that voted for me were fully aware that I was delegate and still chose to do so. Thus I have not done anything wrong on those charges.

Secondly, I would like to press charges against Vaticanosia for "Stalling the Judicial Process", "Misconduct" and "False Propoganda". I will split these up into 3 sections :
1) "Stalling the Judicial Process", Time and time again Vaticanosia was told to come carry out the arguement on the Court of Justice forum so that we could get it sorted out. Vaticanosia refused to due so and continued to send me threatening TG's along with filling the RMB with false propoganda.
2) "Misconduct", Vaticanosia sent me personnal TG's of an aggresive nature that demanded that I leave the WA immediately along with innappropriate language to complement the threats. I have enclosed the last TG he sent me as I could not get any of the previous ones due to the TG Inbox refreshing with the new update. Link :http://gyazo.com/c2bddea5ccfbe8cb7cc73482ca01a68c
Sadly the only TG that I was able to recover happened to be one of the less threatening ones, but as you can see this is agressive and thus unacceptable behaviour.
3) "False Propoganda", Vaticanosia has posted on the RMB asking other WA members to withdraw their endorsements for me due to lies he calls the truth. This especially during the court process is unacceptable behaviour. Whilst I tried to maintain a civil and composed attitude Vaticanosia is acting both irresponsible and childishly. This sort of behaviour is not the sort that should be pardoned in our glorious region.


I motion to have Vaticanosia Ejected for those above reasons. I have no faith that Vaticanosia will remain quiet if I win this case. I beleive he may turn to TG's as a way of privately spreading propaganda against me. I ask you COJ member to Eject Vaticanosia from our region. And to clear me as NOT GUILTY. I beleive this to be Justice.

vendoland wrote:Though nothing has been made official yet, Browera's yes vote essentially seals the deal. Let's get going with the business at hand.

Though I believe the matter I brought before the region is incredibly important, I think time is of the essence in the case of Vaticanosia v. New Zealand and the resulting countersuit.

Vaticanosia has charged New Zealand with violation of Article 5 of the World Alliance Constitution, specifically the clause prohibiting any nation from holding more than one post in the regional government. New Zealand has countered that Vaticanosia has intentionally perverted the course of justice and has no intention of appearing before this.

Before deliberations begin, I intend to set a rule regarding lawsuits in the World Alliance: If any nation has grievance against another nation, they must bring it before the Court here on the regional forum. I intend to utilize this rule for any case that appears before the Court while I am Chief Justice and it is my hope that this process becomes standard practice. With the preponderance of puppets trying to disrupt the harmony of our region, it behooves us to safeguard our judicial process.

In light of that rule, I ask both parties to post in this thread to make their cases against the other and to answer the charges against them. I believe a 48 hour time frame to do so would be fair to both parties, but I would ask my fellow Justices to weigh in on that.

The Eurussian Government supports this ruling of the Chief Justice to safeguard the judicial process and independence of the Court of Justice. We hope that this brings true justice to all.

Great Eurussia wrote:End of Term : February 28, 2012

The Court of Justice is the sole judicial arm and law interpreter of the Government composed of three member states nominated by the President approved by the Security Council where one of which shall serve as the Chief Justice and two of which shall serve as Associate Justices whose terms are unlimited unless otherwise replaced or removed by the President approved by the Security Council.

That's what the Constitution says on the matter. Personally, however, I think actual terms for the Justices would be beneficial to everyone. Perhaps the Security Council might consider an amendment to the Constitution?

New-Zealand wrote:Pledge : NOT GUILTY

Both your plea and counter-charges against Vaticanosia have been accepted to the Court record.

vendoland wrote:

Great Eurussia wrote:End of Term : February 28, 2012

The Court of Justice is the sole judicial arm and law interpreter of the Government composed of three member states nominated by the President approved by the Security Council where one of which shall serve as the Chief Justice and two of which shall serve as Associate Justices whose terms are unlimited unless otherwise replaced or removed by the President approved by the Security Council.

That's what the Constitution says on the matter. Personally, however, I think actual terms for the Justices would be beneficial to everyone. Perhaps the Security Council might consider an amendment to the Constitution?

Oops. I haven't noticed that. I'll just correct my posts.

It is my duty to the People of the World Alliance to bring forth this telegram from Vaticanisa. We the court expect to hear each of the parties cases in the next 24 hours. We also forbid Eurussia to banject Vaticanisa before the court ny deliberate.

imgur.com/ZNlZZ9I