Esteemed Chief Justice and Justices of the Court,

My personal apologies for the intrusion upon your Court and forums. My intention for posting is simple- I wish to inform the Court and prosecution that the accused has notified members of The Ragerian Imperium via its regional Discord server that he is going to be gone for an extended period of time (a week) and thus is unable to adequately provide a defense to the allegations the prosecution has brought against the accused. Evidence to that effect is a screenshot taken from The Ragerian Imperium's Discord server by myself, and uploaded to Imgur. The screenshots can be found here. I'd like to make it clear to the prosecution and Court that although it may seem so, the legal arguments I am making in Aav's defense in the remainder of this post aren't his own- they are mine (and may be argued as out-of-place), I will seek to show the Court why this arrangement should continue to remain in the points that follow.

Article 5 (2) of the Judicial Act states the following:

Quote:(2) Upon indictment, the individual will be contacted through at least one reasonable means and given at least one week to defend themselves before an opinion may be delivered. 

While I would agree, without proof, though my trust for this Court is pretty high (at least to extent that is permissible within my own beliefs) that the Court has fulfilled its requirement under Article 5 (2) of the Judicial Act, I would disagree that the conditions laid out by the Court in its acceptance of the case brought by the Chair of the Assembly are consistent with the Charter of the Coalition of the South Pacific. Quite plainly, the Charter states in Article 3 (2):

Quote:2. The right to a fair trial and defense against criminal accusations will not be abridged. No member may be subject to any bill of attainder, be tried for the same crime more than once, or be tried ex post facto.

While this clause does not explicitly grant the Court the right to extend the time period do to extenuating circumstances, the above quoted Article 5 (2) of the Judicial Act makes it clear that the Court must provide "at least one week" for the accused to offer an acknowledgement of the case or to name counsel, one could argue that it is not "fair" for the Court to only provide one week, given that the accused has notified (although not the Court, as he was unaware of the case at the time, one would assume) a Discord chat that he will be gone without internet for an extended period of time. 

Considering the assertion that one can provide a response without access to the internet is absurd, I'm sure the Court would agree with me that it would be impossible for the defendant to access his telegrams (as the Court said it used as its contact method) or any other NationStates related resource. With that said, despite his inability to access the internet the Court is still required to provide "fair trial and defense against criminal accusations" to the accused. With that established, the Court and prosecution would likely both be in agreement with me that the accused, with the evidence provided suggesting inability to access the internet, is not in a position to properly execute a defense of the allegations brought by the prosecution. 

With that said, the Court and the prosecution would likely agree with me that I would be in a good position to a)defend Aav properly, given that I have extensive knowledge and access to much information related to the allegations, H Y D R A and The Ragerian Imperium, and b)would likely merit approval as a defense counsel by the accused, given the nature of our relationship (colleagues in The Ragerian Armada, the Imperium's military force and former colleagues in H Y D R A [when it existed, I served under him as Deputy Director]), and my ability to properly defend the accused to the extent that I can.

With the aforementioned points acknowledged, I compel the Court to accept me, Vulturret, as defense counsel for Aav Verinhall, given the accused's inability to properly "defend" himself, a right that the Coalition of the South Pacific states plainly, "will not be abridged." If the Court were to deny the accused the right to counsel, the Court would be failing to due its basic duty as a body, as is provided by Article 3 (2) of the Charter of the Coalition of the South Pacific mandates that the Court must do. Not to accept me as counsel would be a humiliating show for the Court, as it would deny the defendant his basic rights under the Charter of the Coalition of the South Pacific. Further, if the Court were to not deny the defendant that basic right, it would be clearly (as I stated) not fulfilling its very purpose. 

To summarize, the Court should (and arguably must) accept me as a defense counsel for Aav Verinhall because the accused is unable to provide adequate defense (due to not having internet access and being gone) for himself. I hope the Court and prosecution see this request as reasonable and choose to accept it. I will be able to answer any questions about anything I have said in this post, I can be contacted via forum PM, Discord or telegram. If the Court were to accept me as counsel, work on the defense could begin immediately.

I thank the Court for its time.