Your honour,

The Defence does not disagree with the Prosecutions conclusions, but we believe that they err in applying them to the case of the Defendant. Whilst HCLQ1708 established that "membership cannot be forfeited once gained" we believe that it is evident, and the intent of the High Court, that this refers to the involuntarily removal of such by a third party, nor voluntary renunciation. The alternative to this is clearly absurd; our we to consider those players of NationStates who have in the past resided peacefully inside The South Pacific but long since departed present members? To give a simple example; Evil Wolf has, on several separate occasions, been a member of this region and it's forums, but is no longer resident or involved in the region and engaged in active hostilities with it in Lazarus. Should renunciation of membership be impossible then Evil Wolf must still be a member, and as such subject to all our laws and in possession of all the rights and privileges of a member. Comparisons with examples such as Milograd are not relevant, as in this matter the defendant did not renounce their membership of the South Pacific or absent themselves from it whilst committing those acts they were prosecuted for.

Considering that it is self evident that it is the case that membership of The Coalition can be renounced or lost by the voluntary actions of a member, we must then consider the second part of the Prosecution's argument. In this the Prosecution errs again, in that they misunderstand the precedent established in HCLQ1404; it does not matter where an action occurs, for a crime committed against The South Pacific can occur anywhere. What matters is that the individual committing it exists within the legal jurisdiction of The South Pacific as a member of The Coalition, and is thus subject to our laws; should a nation enter The South Pacific with the clear and immediate intent to seize the Delegacy - "plotting against the Coalition" and thus treason - they are not considered members, and are thus not subject to the procedures of the criminal process and may be summarily removed from the region. Jurisdiction does not exist over them as they are not members. It does not matter whether or not an action occurs in a physical locality under The Coalitions sovereignty, what matters is whether the individual committing it is part of our sovereignty.

Thus, your honour, the Defence believes it to be self-evident that as the Defendant is not a member of The South Pacific - having renounced such - and as such cannot be considered part of our sovereignty. As such this Court does not posses jurisdiction in this matter, the Defendant not being subject to it.