Withdrawn: Folland vs. President Johnson & Acadia

The Government of Folland is charging President Johnson and the Government of Acadia with Violation of the USNW Charter, specifically Article 4 of Fundamental Rights. The Right to Life and Freedom. Folland deems the recent "Sovereignty Act" is a violation to every free citizen's of the world right to true Sovereignty. With the war over and the war criminal(s) dealt with, Acadia has no more reason to remain in Fraesia, much less take control of the Government there.

The Government of Folland demands the return of Fraesia to it's people and for all Acadian control of the country to be relinquished immediately.

Holy crap you scared me. MY president's last name is Johnson XD

As The Vice-Consul is from Paradise, the Commonwealth will also abstain from taking a side.

Oh, God.

*aims nukes* XD

---

Acadia completely disagrees with Folland in this case, as Acadia is not denying anyone the right to life and freedom, and would like to point out that these rights are guaranteed in the Acadian Constitution.

Acadia does have a reason to remain in Fraesia as it rebuilds and stabilizes its new government. Currently Acadia is rebuilding roads, cities, government facilities, and relocating affected citizens to stable areas.

LOL

---

Okaiken will remain neutral as this case does not involve Okaiken in any matter.

Moving to Active Cases.

^Thanks!

Mike: That is an opinion . Acadia still has its legal rights to govern Freasia. The constitution must be approved by the Acadian legislature in order to prevent corruption and other problems that have occured in the past.

Acadia does have a right to decide on its content as the government was overthrown by Acadia. Nowhere in the charter does it say this behavior is illegal. A similar incident has occurred in the past when Insluo annexed the land on the peninsula south of them.

If you would've overthrown their government, you should have a say on the new one, don't you think?

That's your opinion.

Again, that is not anywhere in the charter. Therefore Acadia is breaking no laws by occupying Fraesia.

So I have two countries, with two different opinions on this.

Insulo supports the Acadian occupation of Fraesia and does not believe Acadia has any obligation to return the lands occupied in military actions.

Kaskaskia continues to oppose the Acadian occupation of Fraesia. Kaskaskia believes that this is setting a precedent for Acadian intervention and military action against the smaller nations of Euphemia, which Kaskaskia believes is a threat to it's sovereignty and the sovereignty of its allies. Kaskaskia continues to have no official relations with the nation of Acadia.

LOLOLOL The Euphemian nations seem to hate Acadia

Jon (Insluo): Thank you for the support.
Sauberbmw: Thanks! Acadia will gladly welcome any foreign aid in rebuilding Fraesia.
Qorten: Thanks! The Acadian occupation will only last until a constitution is ratified. Once it becomes independent, it will be independent.

Acadia does not recognize the need for this trial to continue. Acadia is clearly not violating any law. Members may have their own opinions on the occupation, but as I just mentioned, no law is being violated.

The concept of crime against humanity was finally defined by the Allies in article 6 (c) of the Nuremberg Charter (August 8, 1945) as follows: “murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated”

In bold are the examples set forth by the allies/Regals of crimes against humanity. None of which are being committed by the Acadian Federation.