Esteemed justices,

Aav Verinhall is, ostensibly, the same identity as @Aav Whitehall, a former Legislator. Aav Whitehall's forum signature here supports this, as it outright states "Aav Verinhall".

(     )

On July 26, the Cabinet posted on the NationStates Gameplay forum regarding the recent proscriptions of, among others, HYDRA Command. In the stated reasons for the HYDRA Command proscriptions, the Cabinet noted:

Sensitive Intel suggests that HYDRA Command/TRI had a Legislator planted in TSP for the purpose of stealing internal logs and information.

(Original Link |     )

On July 29, Aav Verinhall posted a reply that reads much like a confession to the allegation from the proscription report. The reply states in full:

*clap* So TSP finally noticed that their application process for legislators is a piece of junk? I was the head director of HYDRA, and let me say, all of that stuff about HYDRA is true. TRI? Not so much. Thanks for the support though! *sarcastic laugh*

(Original Link |     )

The evidence above clearly establishes probable cause that Aav Whitehall committed Espionage (stealing internal logs and passing them on to other leadership within HYDRA Command) and Organized Crime (by having intent, as General of HYDRA Command, to commit the crime of Espionage within the South Pacific for the benefit of said organization).

Does the court agree with the above assertion, and will the Court therefore pursue an indictment process for Aav Whitehall?

Reply

Esteemed Justice,

More evidence has suggested that @Aav Whitehall is indeed connected to HYDRA, and is most likely a major member of it. In his NationStates nation, Aav Verinhall he has posted a dispatch titled "Aav Verinhall's Service Record", which has images and the names of military badges. Some badges are of from HYDRA, shown in the images (and link) below.

Link to Dispatch | 

The Sakhalinsk Empire, Legislator of the South Pacific
Currently a citizen and legislator of TSP. I am active as Sverigesriket in Europe.

Complete Conflict of Interest

Reply

Notice of Reception
High Court of the South Pacific

---

The Court has taken notice of this indictment request, and will proceed to consider the evidence presented. A ruling on whether there is probable cause to proceed to a criminal case will be issued no later than August 05.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

Indictment

Whereas Roavin has requested this Court to indict Aav Verinhall through the following request:

The evidence above clearly establishes probable cause that Aav Whitehall committed Espionage (stealing internal logs and passing them on to other leadership within HYDRA Command) and Organized Crime (by having intent, as General of HYDRA Command, to commit the crime of Espionage within the South Pacific for the benefit of said organization). Does the court agree with the above assertion, and will the Court therefore pursue an indictment process for Aav Whitehall?

Whereas this Court is empowered by Article V, Section 1 of the Judicial Act to indict individuals when it finds probable cause that they may have committed a crime, as codified in the Criminal Code.

It is resolved with respect to this Review Request as follows:

1. The Court finds probable cause that Aav Verinhall may have commmitted Espionage.
   
2. Aav Verinhall shall be contacted through telegram and given until 12 August 2018 to respond to the charge levied against them.
   
3. The Court invites all able and willing members to submit any evidence or testimony relevant to this criminal case, no later than 12 August 2018.
   
4. The Court reserves the right to consult with, and request evidence and private testimonies from, other government institutions and individuals, for the purposes of research and clarification of context.
   
5. The Court, in compliance with the Charter and the Judicial Act, retains the sole right to issue an opinion on this Criminal Case.
   

It is so ordered.

Kris Kringle
Chief Justice

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

(This post was last modified: 08-05-2018, 11:27 PM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

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:

(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):

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.

Vulturret
Emperor of The Ragerian Imperium

Reply

Counselor, you have no authority to order or compel this Court to do anything. In addition, the Court does not take kindly to threats or accusations, should it fail to act a certain way. You are a guest in this venue, and are required to behave accordingly. If you have a request to make, you will respectfully ask for leave and will carefully explain the legal and evidentiary arguments that support your position.

The Court takes notice of the present inability of Aav Verinhall to appear before this Court, and is prepared to exercise leniency or recognise a counsel, but you will not be recognised as counsel for the accused until evidence is produced to show that they have appointed you to act in such capacity.

It is so ordered.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

I am present now. What am I supposed to do at this point? Things have changed since I've last been here, and I'm writing this sorta hurriedly. I just got back from camping, and will be present (mostly) for the next bit of August, and then not so much once school happens. But, the point is, I'm here now.

Apologies, Your Honor.

Aav Verinhall
They/Them

 

Reply

In accordance with the Indictment, you have until the end of August 12 to present a defence regarding the charge levied against you.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

Your Honor, I would like to request an extra 144 hours (six days), as I need to prepare my defense.

Aav Verinhall
They/Them

 

Reply

The Court takes this as indication that the accused intends to dispute the charge of espionage levied against them, and grants the request for six calendar days to prepare a defence. Save the intervention of exceptional circumstances, as determined by this Court, the given time shall not be subject to extension.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply