[Private] R4R Regarding "On Regional Officers Banning Nations during NationStates Events"

[Dreadton]

https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9198140/ The Court Examiner has brought this R4R on courts rulling regarding the lost of citizenship due to being ejected during a event and not returning.

Having looked at the courts ruling in the matter and the discussion (or lack there of) around this part of the ruling, i believe the CE has made enough of a case to ACCEPT this Request for Review. At min it would give the court a chance to discuss and publish a more indepth rulling.

 

[Pallaith]

Then accept it. We shouldn’t be deciding on accepting r4rs by committee anyway, because that negatively impacts the option for appeals. I learned this when I first joined the Court, people gave us a funny look for deliberating on accepting the r4r.

 

[Eluvatar]

I think accepting it is kind of a waste of time, but it's been long enough since the ruling that I think it's ok to bring it back up and talk it though.

 

[Pallaith]

I think accepting it is kind of a waste of time, but it's been long enough since the ruling that I think it's ok to bring it back up and talk it though.

The Court Examiner has spilled more words on this decision than any that has been challenged thus far, and lays out a variety of arguments. I’m not sure I’d qualify this as a waste of time, and anyway the CE has unquestionable standing.

 

[Eluvatar]

As I said on Discord, it's an awful lot of words to say they disagree with my (and the prior court's) interpretation of "leave".

 

[Dreadton]

i have accepted this R4R. Due to the involved and lengthy nature of the submission, tied with its potential affect on citizenship. I have elected for a 14 day briefing period

 

[Pallaith]

As I said on Discord, it's an awful lot of words to say they disagree with my (and the prior court's) interpretation of "leave".

Well I guess we’re debating this anyway, though for my part I’m doing so assuming that Dreadton is accepting the r4r as he seems inclined to do. EDIT: He has accepted it.

That sort of diminishes the whole thing though doesn’t it? There are major implications depending on how one interprets that word. The law doesn’t put conditions on that word. The Court can certainly make a call, but as we have ruled more recently (see On Resolving Ambiguity in the Absence of Subordinate Rules for Government Bodies), that call has to be based on something, and the CE is certainly arguing that the call was made without any legal or constitutional backing. That backing cannot be assumed, it has to be explicitly stated. So the way this particular case could be reviewed, we could clarify the ruling by drawing these explicit lines, or overturn that part for not actually having any substantial legal or constitutional backing. Either way we will probably also have to render part of it defunct, given subsequent emergency law.

 

[Eluvatar]

I don't see any reason to reinterpret "leave" but I am willing to debate the matter if you, my colleagues, see it as necessary.

 

[Dreadton]

Now that the briefings are done.

The part of the ruling he wishes to strike regarding reasonableness is handled by law. As to what is reasonable, part of it is outlined in the cited law and would have to be further looked at at a case by case bases.

To the meat of the matter, I do think the courts ruling on the loss of citizenship is in error and encroaches into an area expressly given to the RA to govern and has some foundational issues.

The RA set the laws on citizenship, including the loss of citizenship for not returning after a Disease outbreak. They are charged with and given that authority under the Constitution. Nations who become citizens consent to those rules and agree to abide by them when they apply for citizenship. Should they not agree with those rules they are given the chance to ether 1) not become citizens or 2) change the law. Here the court came and superseded that authority and stated it was illegal without reference to a law or ruling that supports their position, nor do they offer any sort of reasoning within the ruling to guide future lawmaking. That alone is enough for me to strike that part of the ruling and ether rewrite it or over rule it.

Now, looking at the facts of the original case and using today's law, would i rule the same as the court then. No. Failure to act is still a choice. Becoming a citizen and agreeing to follow the law is a choice. The courts reliance on the thin logic of a ejection not being "voluntary" fails as a matter of logic and law. We have multiple laws where a person can have their citizenship removed that is not "voluntary" and the logic and laws that apply there also apply here. The Region has declared a disease outbreak as an Emergency. The Region as a whole votes on the course of action to be followed. The Government provides notice to the region on how that course of action will be followed and what happens to the nations that do not follow. Every step of the way the citizen is informed and makes a willing choice to continue. They may choose to not follow procedures and they will need to deal with the results. That is a voluntary act. The same way a citizen can voluntarily break the law and loose their citizenship. They are further given the opportunity and are informed of their ability to return to the region. Should they CHOOSE not to, that is a voluntary act and they can loose citizenship as a result.

I have more to add, particularly law and how it applies here but my lunch is over.

 

[Eluvatar]

The language in the emergency law is consistent with the original language in the revamped legal code, and that uses "leave" to mean voluntary departure from the region. Please review this post in the request for review thread, the way "leave" is used in every post of this thread it comes up, or any time I've used "leave" in this context in any of my posts on this forum.

It is not controversial that the ruling understands "leave" to mean voluntary departure, and it makes sense in the furtherance of our regional democracy. The original language, which was shortened to "leave" from:

1. Assembly members whose nation has CTE'd (Ceased to Exist) or who have moved out of The North Pacific when not on official business shall be removed from membership automatically by the Speaker.

was written this way with an understanding that the UN Delegate had the capability to eject nations unjustly, and that such ejections should not have the effect of removing someone's ability to vote (for example, vote on removing the Delegate from office!)

And while we're at it, here's an even older text:

6) At any time, should sufficient evidence be brought to the Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs that proves that a registered voter fails to meet the requirements for membership due to the deletion of a Nation from NationStates through inactivity or NationStates Moderator intervention, that Nation's name may be purged from the list of registered voters. Should a Nation, whose voter registration has been purged, later be found to have been resurrected in NationStates, or that the Nation become a member of the Region once again, they may re-apply for voting rights according to the procedures in the preceding clauses of this Section. The act of expulsion or banning of a Nation from the Region prior to a trial or a referendum does not affect its status as a registered voter until and unless a final judgment is entered in a judicial proceeding or a final certification is entered in a referendum, whichever is applicable to the given situation. The North Pacific Legal Code may provide authority to the Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs for the periodic purging of the names of registered voters who are no longer eligible to vote in the Region, upon due notice because they no longer meet the requirements of this Section.

The current ruling does not encroach into the RA's turf as it is the Court's role to review the legality of policies or actions, which necessitates interpreting any ambiguities in the laws. The RA is free to write law that replaces any court precedent with a different clarification, and it sometimes does so. In this case, the ruling has stuck for seven years, during which time there has not even been a bill to change this aspect of the law. We do not need the sort of lawyering that leads to a need for texts as detailed and specific down as the 2005-era constitutional provision above. The appropriate way to read "leave" is clear from the legal text, its context, and its history.

Yes the ejections authorized under the "disease control" provisions are summary ejections for a specific cause, and reviewable through the Court after the fact. Yes a nation has a choice as to whether it returns. But the details of how that should work are up to the Regional Assembly, and the law they wrote applies a time limit to return for nations who "leave", and does not specify one for nations ejected. I am sure that the current ruling is the only reasonable interpretation of the current law, and should stand.

 

[Pallaith]

I agree the Court can settle ambiguity in a reasonable matter and the aim of this decision was undoubtedly intended to protect the rights of nations and avoid giving bad actors a tool to take them away. The problem I keep having here is that because of this ruling, even an ejection or ban that is considered to be a just one doesn’t matter, because citizenship is forced to remain in place. It’s a blunt instrument, this decision, which creates other unintended consequences. And I don’t think we should be citing only old law that isn’t from our legal code to justify this.

The recent moves this Court has made have enshrined the principle that these rulings have to be based on something substantive when resolving ambiguities. As I have said before, if we resolve to affirm this ruling, I believe it is imperative that we clarify that ruling, make clear what those principles are that it relies on, point to the historical context in part, but not rely exclusively on it, and especially point to the constitutional and legal provisions that mandate such a ruling be the law of the land.

As I have also said previously, we have a possibility of contradiction here, because there are situations now that allow for citizenship to be removed in the case of some bans, but we have a Court ruling that says leave means voluntary.

I’m curious to hear what else Dreadton has to add. There’s certainly a lot I take issue with about how the Court went about that decision, but quibbles over process and contrasting how they did it versus how the Court operates today don’t mean the end result wasn’t the correct one. Where I am right now, I do not believe that we should simply declare the decision was right and let it stand without further comment. Clarification is absolutely necessary if nothing else.

 

[Eluvatar]

The legal code provides that:

Section 6.2: Administration and Loss of Citizenship
...
15. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens whose removal is ordered by the Court, whose registered nations in The North Pacific or one of its territories leave or cease to exist, or whose citizenship is voluntarily renounced by notifying the Speaker.
...
19. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who are banned for maintaining a nation in a region or organization at war with The North Pacific.
20. The Speaker may request an evaluation by forum administration on any existing citizen at any time, and forum administration may evaluate any existing citizen at any time and inform the Speaker of its findings.
21. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who are confirmed to be using a second forum account or evading a judicially-imposed penalty.
22. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who are banned by forum administration.

It also provides that:

Section 8.2: Disease Control
...
7. Nations ejected or banned because of the outbreak must be promptly unbanned and invited to return once the emergency is over.
8. During an outbreak, no nation may have their status as a resident or citizen removed solely for leaving the region, so long as they return within three days of the end of the emergency.
9. Following an outbreak, the Speaker must promptly contact any resident or citizen who remains outside the region, and inform them that they are at risk of losing their status if they do not return within three days.

There are defined specific but various processes for removal of citizenship, which are the ways in which the Regional Assembly has determined citizenship should be removed. Ejections for NS rules violations are not one of them, but deletion of the nation would be, for example. The definition of "leave" applies to the process defined by chapter 6 clause 15 and exempted under chapter 8 clause 8.

 

[Dreadton]

The court at the time should have said that. That gives the RA something to work with should they choose to adjust the law.

 

[Dreadton]

Even if we take the leave part as you have posted here, you are not addressing the fact that the citizen not returning is a volunatary act

 

[Eluvatar]

It would be legitimate for the RA to require returning to retain citizenship but be in my reading it has not done so (in the case of ejection).

 

[Dreadton]

It would be legitimate for the RA to require returning to retain citizenship but be in my reading it has not done so (in the case of ejection).

I disagree, when the RA says you have three days after ejection at the end of Zday to return or you lose citizenship, its a pretty clear requirment. However i do think the timeframe is unreasonable. 7 days from the time of notifcation is more reasonable considering the government gets 7 days to do checks, and the notifcation point would be their formal notice to return.

 

[Pallaith]

I disagree, when the RA says you have three days after ejection at the end of Zday to return or you lose citizenship, its a pretty clear requirment. However i do think the timeframe is unreasonable. 7 days from the time of notifcation is more reasonable considering the government gets 7 days to do checks, and the notifcation point would be their formal notice to return.

That may be so, but we would have no basis to decree a 7 day window, that’s pure legislating from the bench.

The reason we have a problem, if one accepts we have a problem, is because the Court made a pronouncement about voluntary vs involuntary exit from the region, and prohibited involuntary means from triggering a loss of citizenship. So anyone who was ejected from the event and invited to return but doesn’t return in 3 days still gets to keep citizenship, even if they are choosing not to return. It doesn’t matter if they make that choice not to return because the Court said so. Voluntary exits are already covered and predictable in their outcomes. This discussion in my view is and should be about reconsidering the extent the Court may have overreached and having a firm constitutional/legal foundation for the principle espoused by the Court. Or, if none can be found, overturning it where needed.

 

[Dreadton]

We need to step back and work through this point by point to see where we at.

 

[Dreadton]

The Court has been asked to review the ruling on @case name. In part, the ruling held :

The court notes, however, that for purposes of losing citizenship, ejections do not constitute leaving the region, since the ejected nation was forcibly removed and took no action to leave. Thus, under the law as it currently stands, ejected citizens would remain citizens until they ceased to exist, returned the region and then departed of their own volition, or failed to post on the forum for over 30 consecutive days.

The Court upholds the ruling in part and overturning the ruling in part.

Upholding

The Court upholds the ruling that ejections do not constitute leaving the region for the purposes of losing citizenship. Throughout the Legal Code and our body of jurisprudence, we have held that the Government is subservient to the people. With Citizenship, this subservience places the burden on the Government to prove that the Citizen acted in a wilful manner that resulted in the legal removal of their citizenship. Our laws place great emphasis on how and when citizenship can be removed, outlining multiple steps that must be taken to remove a person from our rolls. The Speaker is directed to specific events that trigger removal, the Court may only remove citizenship for the Crime of Treason, and the Vice Delegate must present a case to the Regional Assembly for review and a vote before rejecting an application for citizenship. Reviewing the historical context in which the Court held the original case, the laws at the time, and our laws today, a common thread runs through it all. Each clause that addresses the removal of citizenship is preceded by a voluntary action of the Citizen or applicant. Failing to maintain a nation in the region, failing to maintain a nation at all, and conducting acts that are offensive to the community are all voluntary acts, ether the citizens is doing something or choosing to not do something that is required of them. It is with this context we uphold the courts original ruling.

There is well established laws on how an ejection from the region should and must be handled. Section 3.5 of the Legal Code, establishes a multi-step process that the Government must take in when ejecting a nation from the region and that person is entitled to due process. This lends further legal support for the courts original ruling. In the event that a nation is ejected for being a security risk to the region, the code does not provide for the removal of citizenship and does provide for redress to the nation in question. The Court must hold a hearing on the ejection and hold a trial on the underling criminal activity. A process in which the Government must prove the nation acted in some manner. These protections and steps are well established for good reason, to permit the lost of citizenship based solely on an ejection and without due process opens the door for rouge officials to eject and remove citizenship of its opposition and suppress the rights of the people.

The Court upholds the ruling because an ejection is not a voluntary act in and of itself. It is the Governments reaction to an emergency and part of its program to address it. Many on this Court has experience and even led the response to a disease outbreak, and we are aware of the chaos of the event, the good and bad actors involved, and what happens or can happen to those who choose to not participate. Furthermore, nothing in the original briefings nor in the briefings for this review, establish a factual rational or legal citation to support an argument that a nations actions during a disease outbreak is sufficiently voluntary and cause for the removal of citizenship. In the context of a disease outbreak, ejections for the duration of the outbreak is an use of regional authority to control an emergency situation.

The remaining aspects to the original ruling have not been challenged in this review and remain established case law.

Overturning

The Court overturns the previous ruling in part, that a ejected citizens cannot lose citizenship unless they ceased to exist, return and depart on their own, or fail to met the other requirements of citizenship. Choosing to not return after being ejected when given a reasonable time frame and under reasonable circumstances, meets the voluntary principle we outlined earlier. Removal of citizenship under these circumstances and the law as written, would be valid under reasonable facts and circumstances. However, the burden remains on the Government to establish that all requirements for the removal were met and that the circumstances were reasonable. A person who's citizenship is removed in this manner is still afforded the ability and opportunity to have their ejection judicially reviewed.

 

[Pallaith]

This is more or less where I am on this matter. I guess you could have been a bit more specific when citing our laws and history as to why there’s something backing up that view of why it’s being upheld, because I thought our biggest critique of that ruling was that it just took for granted that it made sense to rule that way, and didn’t show its work. Maybe the formal draft opinion will go into that more, which is why I’m eager to see that. I think we ought to overturn allowing people to keep citizenship after a Z Day ejection where they don’t return after three days, so at this point, I’m with you, I just want to see the draft opinion so I can suggest final edits and refining.

 

[Eluvatar]

It's unclear, reading the ruling, what we mean by the reasonable window. I think it might help to specify that it would be constitutional for statute to establish such a window (but none has been).

 

[Dreadton]

It's unclear, reading the ruling, what we mean by the reasonable window. I think it might help to specify that it would be constitutional for statute to establish such a window (but none has been).

I left it vague because 1) the original ruling didn't define reasonable but made it a determination to the circumstances involved 2) the time frame that the law establishes is 3 days from the end of the event and that is not before us and hasn't been argued.

 

[Eluvatar]

That time frame is for leaving, not getting kicked out. A nation that leaves was presumably logged in to do that, and can be expected to reverse that action afterward.

 

[Dreadton]

"During an outbreak, no nation may have their status as a resident or citizen removed solely for leaving the region, so long as they return within three days of the end of the emergency.

Following an outbreak, the Speaker must promptly contact any resident or citizen who remains outside the region, and inform them that they are at risk of losing their status if they do not return within three days."

Its three days from when the Speaker Notifies them which is done after the event is over. The law applies to all citizens who the speaker contacts, regardless on if they left on their own or not. Not just the people who leave for the event. so They are given 3 days from the event end if they left on their own and those who are ejected get three days from the Speaker notification. If they left on their own then the ruling being disputed doesnt apply to them under the rulings own definitions. I do not see how we can give a rulling on the three day window under ether statue as thats not being disputed or reviewed under this R4R

 

[Pallaith]

The law clearly provides a window and applies equally to all participants. And an ejection in the context of this event is not the same as an ejection outside of it, especially since it’s by its nature temporary and legally mandated to be addressed by the Speaker.

I’m not of the opinion that we can’t talk about the 3 day provision at all, that was explicitly mentioned in the r4r and is absolutely relevant to this discussion.

I don’t think it hurts to opine that a firmer definition of “reasonable window” would be useful, so long as we aren’t trying to establish some new standard that they have to jump to follow that comes out of nowhere.

 

[Dreadton]

Can I get some examples of how we would want to define it.

 

[Pallaith]

Can I get some examples of how we would want to define it.

No, because the point of saying that isn’t to define it, it’s to suggest the RA define it. That’s not our problem. We’re just identifying something that is good in principle and should be fleshed out. But I can see how bringing up a concept and then not suggesting how to do it might not be useful either.

 

[Dreadton]

Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by [[name]] on the Courts Previous Ruling regarding Regional Officers Ejecting Nations during Nationstates Events.

Opinion drafted by [[name]], joined by [[name(s)]], with [[name(s)]] [abstaining | dissenting]​

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by @TlomzKrano.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Constitution of The North Pacific:

Article 1.1 All nations are guaranteed the rights defined by the Bill of Rights.

Article 1.4 Requirements for citizenship will be determined by law.

Article 1.5 The Regional Assembly may enact, amend or repeal laws by a majority vote.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Bill of Rights of The North Pacific:

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region and its territories. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region and its territories, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region and its territories shall act only in the best interests of the Region and its territories, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.

5. All Nations of The North Pacific and its territories have the right to be protected against the abuse of powers by any official of a government authority of the region and its territories. Any Nation of The North Pacific and its territories has the right to request the recall of any official of a government authority of the region and its territories in accordance with the Constitution, that is deemed to have participated in such acts.

6. No Nation shall be held to answer for a crime in a manner not prescribed by the Constitution or the Legal Code. No Nation shall be subjected to being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. No Nation shall ever be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against itself.

8. The regional power of ejection and banning may not be granted or exercised, nor forum bans imposed, unless expressly authorized pursuant to the Constitution or the Legal Code. Any ejected or banned nation is entitled to prompt judicial review of the matter.

9. Each Nation in The North Pacific and its territories is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region and its territories on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region and its territories shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific and its territories, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific and its territories the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.

11. No governmental authority of the region and its territories has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region and its territories, with the express consent of the Nations of the region and its territories or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Legal Code of The North Pacific:

Legal Code 2.2 Treason will be punished by ejection and banning, and removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit.

Section 3.5: Pre-Sentencing Ejections and Bans
27. The Delegate may eject and/or ban a particular nation from the region pending criminal charges against them, or prior to the conclusion of an ongoing criminal trial in which they are the defendant, only when that nation poses a clear security threat and their removal is necessary for the protection of the region.
28. The Delegate must seek the approval of the Court for any such ejection or ban. Where possible, this approval must be sought prior to the nation's removal from the region. Otherwise, it must be sought within one day of the action.
29. If the ejection or ban is performed during a criminal trial against that nation, approval will be at the discretion of the justice moderating the trial. Otherwise, any single justice may approve or deny the Delegate's request.
30. Any nation ejected or banned under this section may file an appeal of the decision. These appeals may not be denied, and must be decided by the full court.
31. The Delegate must immediately provide any nation ejected or banned under this section with a link to the Courtroom and inform them of their right to file an appeal.
32. If criminal charges are not brought against a nation ejected or banned under this section, or if the criminal charges are rejected by the Court, or if the nation is not found Guilty at the conclusion of the trial, any ban against that nation which was imposed under this section must be revoked.

Section 6.2: Administration and Loss of Citizenship
15. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens whose removal is ordered by the Court, whose registered nations in The North Pacific or one of its territories leave or cease to exist, or whose citizenship is voluntarily renounced by notifying the Speaker.
16. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who, for over 30 consecutive days, neither post on the regional forum, nor post on the regional message board of The North Pacific or one of its territories with their registered nations.
17. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens whose registered nations in The North Pacific or one of its territories are not in the World Assembly, except as part of an operation with the North Pacific Army, if their citizenship was granted after failing an evaluation by forum administration. This requirement will not apply if the citizens request and then pass another evaluation by forum administration.
18. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens to whom they granted citizenship in error, if the error is discovered within 7 days of granting their citizenship.
19. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who are banned for maintaining a nation in a region or organization at war with The North Pacific.
21. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who are confirmed to be using a second forum account or evading a judicially-imposed penalty.
22. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who are banned by forum administration.

Section 7.3: Onsite Authority
16. Violators of NationStates rules, residents banned offsite by forum administration, or residents who maintain a nation in a region or organization at war with The North Pacific, may be subject to summary ejection or banning.
17. Residents banned on the basis of forum bans imposed by forum administration may not be banned for longer than the length of the ban imposed by forum administration.
18. Nations recruiting for other regions may be subject to summary ejection or banning.
19. Nations for which the Court has issued an indictment permitting it may be ejected or banned.
20. Nations that have been so sentenced by the Court will be ejected or banned.
21. The official performing an ejection or ban will promptly inform the region and Government.

Section 8.2: Disease Control
3. A NationStates event involving an outbreak of an infectious disease shall be considered an actual emergency, and does not require a declaration by the RA.
4. In advance of an outbreak, or promptly after an outbreak begins, the government must present a poll to the public regarding how the government should respond. The poll must contain at least three substantially different options. The government will respond according to the will of the public expressed through that poll.
5. During an outbreak, the delegate is authorized to act in any reasonable manner to pursue the adopted plan. This includes, but is not limited to, ejecting or banning nations from the region who have entered the region during the crisis, imposing restrictions on national movement into the region, and granting Border Control to other government officials for the duration of the event.
6. No more than 30 days before the historical start of the event, the Delegate may appoint a Citizen to assist in the regional response to an infectious disease outbreak. The appointee is exempt from constitutional restrictions on holding multiple government offices for purposes of their appointment. The appointee's term shall end at the conclusion of the event.
7. Nations ejected or banned because of the outbreak must be promptly unbanned and invited to return once the emergency is over.
8. During an outbreak, no nation may have their status as a resident or citizen removed solely for leaving the region, so long as they return within three days of the end of the emergency.
9. Following an outbreak, the Speaker must promptly contact any resident or citizen who remains outside the region, and inform them that they are at risk of losing their status if they do not return within three days.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of [[other document or referenced text]]:

2007 TNP LAW 28 Article III Section 2 Assembly members whose nation has CTE'd (Ceased to Exist) or who have moved out of The North Pacific when not on official business shall be removed from membership automatically by the Speaker.
2005 Constitution Article 1 Section 2 Subsection 6 At any time, should sufficient evidence be brought to the Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs that proves that a registered voter fails to meet the requirements for membership due to the deletion of a Nation from NationStates through inactivity or NationStates Moderator intervention, that Nation's name may be purged from the list of registered voters. Should a Nation, whose voter registration has been purged, later be found to have been resurrected in NationStates, or that the Nation become a member of the Region once again, they may re-apply for voting rights according to the procedures in the preceding clauses of this Section. The act of expulsion or banning of a Nation from the Region prior to a trial or a referendum does not affect its status as a registered voter until and unless a final judgment is entered in a judicial proceeding or a final certification is entered in a referendum, whichever is applicable to the given situation. The North Pacific Legal Code may provide authority to the Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs for the periodic purging of the names of registered voters who are no longer eligible to vote in the Region, upon due notice because they no longer meet the requirements of this Section.

On Regional Officers Banning Nations during NationStates Events and its Related Filings

The Court opines the following:

Historical Background and Original Ruling

In 2016, during the annual Z-day event, then citizen Gracius Maximus was ejected by a government official as part of the event. He then challenged the action, alleging several errors in law. First, that the Delegate did not delegate ejection authority making the ejection by another regional officer unlawful. Second, that the action violated his freedom to engage his nation as he saw fit. Finally, his ejection could jeopardize his standing as an elected official and member of the Regional Assembly.

The Court, under the law of that period, ruled that the Delegate must explicitly authorize a regional officer to eject nations during the event, that such authorization is subjected to a reasonableness standard, and that such power is inherent to the Governmental authority to address the emergency.

The Court further opined that an ejection in this manner cannot result in the loss of citizenship. In order for a citizen ejected during the event to lose citizenship, they had to return to the region and leave again, cease to exist, or fail to meet the activity requirements. It is this final part that is being challenged in this Request for Review.

Review

The Court discussion thread on this matter was thin on reasoning for this part of the ruling. The Court looked into the earlier version of the regions governing documents for perspective. When looking at the 2005 and 2007 versions, the provisions regarding loss of citizenship revolve around actions of the individuals and protections against rogue government officials. Both the 2005 and 2007 versions, outline the burden on the government to support the ejection and removal of a citizen from the region and expressly limit the potential damage that an ejection may cause. It is in this context we view the original ruling.


Holding

The Court upholds the ruling that ejections do not constitute leaving the region for the purposes of losing citizenship. Throughout the Legal Code and our body of jurisprudence, we have held that the Government is subservient to the people. With Citizenship, this subservience places the burden on the Government to prove that the Citizen acted in a wilful manner that resulted in the legal removal of their citizenship. Our laws place great emphasis on how and when citizenship can be removed, outlining multiple steps that must be taken to remove a person from our rolls. The Speaker is directed to specific events that trigger removal, the Court may only remove citizenship for the Crime of Treason, and the Vice Delegate must present a case to the Regional Assembly for review and a vote before rejecting an application for citizenship. Reviewing the historical context in which the Court held the original case, the laws at the time, and our laws today, a common thread runs through it all. Each clause that addresses the removal of citizenship is preceded by a voluntary action of the Citizen or applicant. Failing to maintain a nation in the region, failing to maintain a nation at all, and conducting acts that are offensive to the community are all voluntary acts, whether the citizens are doing something or choosing to not do something that is required of them. It is with this context we uphold the court's original ruling.

There are well established laws on how an ejection from the region should and must be handled. Section 3.5 of the Legal Code, establishes a multi-step process that the Government must take in when ejecting a nation from the region and that person is entitled to due process. This lends further legal support for the courts original ruling. In the event that a nation is ejected for being a security risk to the region, the code does not provide for the removal of citizenship and does provide for redress to the nation in question. The Court must hold a hearing on the ejection and hold a trial on the underlying criminal activity. A process in which the Government must prove the nation acted in some manner. These protections and steps are well established for good reason, to permit the loss of citizenship based solely on an ejection and without due process opens the door for rogue officials to eject and remove citizenship of its opposition and suppress the rights of the people.

The Court upholds the ruling because an ejection is not a voluntary act in and of itself. It is the Government's reaction to an emergency and part of its program to address it. Many on this Court have experience and even led the response to a disease outbreak, and we are aware of the chaos of the event, the good and bad actors involved, and what happens or can happen to those who choose to not participate. Furthermore, nothing in the original briefings nor in the briefings for this review, establish a factual rational or legal citation to support an argument that a nation's actions during a disease outbreak is sufficiently voluntary and cause for the removal of citizenship. In the context of a disease outbreak, ejections for the duration of the outbreak is a use of regional authority to control an emergency situation.


Overturning

The Court overturns the previous ruling in part, that an ejected citizen cannot lose citizenship unless they cease to exist, return and depart on their own, or fail to meet the other requirements of citizenship. Choosing to not return after being ejected when given a reasonable time frame and under reasonable circumstances, meets the voluntary principle we outlined earlier. Removal of citizenship under these circumstances and the law as written, would be valid under reasonable facts and circumstances. However, the burden remains on the Government to establish that all requirements for the removal were met and that the circumstances were reasonable. A person whose citizenship is removed in this manner is still afforded the ability and opportunity to have their ejection judicially reviewed.

On the Reasonableness of the Return Requirement

What is a reasonable time frame between ejection and the loss of citizenship? That is a question that requires each specific case and circumstances to be reviewed. Starting the clock from the time the event ends, but for some technical reason the borders are still closed would be unreasonable. Another example would be giving the citizen a very narrow window to return or the nation not being informed that they can and must return to retain citizenship. Both would be unreasonable circumstances and would bring to question the nation's loss of citizenship and the conduct of the Government.

Conclusion

 

[Pallaith]

Alright, I made some tweaks, tried to have the ruling line up a bit more with recent rulings in structure and style. Tried my hand at some phrasing and some additional content I felt should be included. Notably, this review is less about the decision and more about a part of the substance of it - the concept of loss of citizenship for ejected nations. I would join this opinion as written.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by [[name]] on the Loss of Citizenship When Ejected.

Opinion drafted by Dreadton, joined by [[name(s)]], with [[name(s)]] [abstaining | dissenting]​

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by @TlomzKrano.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Constitution of The North Pacific:

Article 1.1 All nations are guaranteed the rights defined by the Bill of Rights.

Article 1.4 Requirements for citizenship will be determined by law.

Article 1.5 The Regional Assembly may enact, amend or repeal laws by a majority vote.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Bill of Rights of The North Pacific:

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region and its territories. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region and its territories, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region and its territories shall act only in the best interests of the Region and its territories, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.

5. All Nations of The North Pacific and its territories have the right to be protected against the abuse of powers by any official of a government authority of the region and its territories. Any Nation of The North Pacific and its territories has the right to request the recall of any official of a government authority of the region and its territories in accordance with the Constitution, that is deemed to have participated in such acts.

6. No Nation shall be held to answer for a crime in a manner not prescribed by the Constitution or the Legal Code. No Nation shall be subjected to being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. No Nation shall ever be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against itself.

8. The regional power of ejection and banning may not be granted or exercised, nor forum bans imposed, unless expressly authorized pursuant to the Constitution or the Legal Code. Any ejected or banned nation is entitled to prompt judicial review of the matter.

9. Each Nation in The North Pacific and its territories is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region and its territories on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region and its territories shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific and its territories, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific and its territories the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.

11. No governmental authority of the region and its territories has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region and its territories, with the express consent of the Nations of the region and its territories or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Legal Code of The North Pacific:

Legal Code 2.2 Treason will be punished by ejection and banning, and removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit.

Section 3.5: Pre-Sentencing Ejections and Bans
27. The Delegate may eject and/or ban a particular nation from the region pending criminal charges against them, or prior to the conclusion of an ongoing criminal trial in which they are the defendant, only when that nation poses a clear security threat and their removal is necessary for the protection of the region.
28. The Delegate must seek the approval of the Court for any such ejection or ban. Where possible, this approval must be sought prior to the nation's removal from the region. Otherwise, it must be sought within one day of the action.
29. If the ejection or ban is performed during a criminal trial against that nation, approval will be at the discretion of the justice moderating the trial. Otherwise, any single justice may approve or deny the Delegate's request.
30. Any nation ejected or banned under this section may file an appeal of the decision. These appeals may not be denied, and must be decided by the full court.
31. The Delegate must immediately provide any nation ejected or banned under this section with a link to the Courtroom and inform them of their right to file an appeal.
32. If criminal charges are not brought against a nation ejected or banned under this section, or if the criminal charges are rejected by the Court, or if the nation is not found Guilty at the conclusion of the trial, any ban against that nation which was imposed under this section must be revoked.

Section 6.2: Administration and Loss of Citizenship
15. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens whose removal is ordered by the Court, whose registered nations in The North Pacific or one of its territories leave or cease to exist, or whose citizenship is voluntarily renounced by notifying the Speaker.
16. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who, for over 30 consecutive days, neither post on the regional forum, nor post on the regional message board of The North Pacific or one of its territories with their registered nations.
17. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens whose registered nations in The North Pacific or one of its territories are not in the World Assembly, except as part of an operation with the North Pacific Army, if their citizenship was granted after failing an evaluation by forum administration. This requirement will not apply if the citizens request and then pass another evaluation by forum administration.
18. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens to whom they granted citizenship in error, if the error is discovered within 7 days of granting their citizenship.
19. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who are banned for maintaining a nation in a region or organization at war with The North Pacific.
21. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who are confirmed to be using a second forum account or evading a judicially-imposed penalty.
22. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who are banned by forum administration.

Section 7.3: Onsite Authority
16. Violators of NationStates rules, residents banned offsite by forum administration, or residents who maintain a nation in a region or organization at war with The North Pacific, may be subject to summary ejection or banning.
17. Residents banned on the basis of forum bans imposed by forum administration may not be banned for longer than the length of the ban imposed by forum administration.
18. Nations recruiting for other regions may be subject to summary ejection or banning.
19. Nations for which the Court has issued an indictment permitting it may be ejected or banned.
20. Nations that have been so sentenced by the Court will be ejected or banned.
21. The official performing an ejection or ban will promptly inform the region and Government.

Section 8.2: Disease Control
3. A NationStates event involving an outbreak of an infectious disease shall be considered an actual emergency, and does not require a declaration by the RA.
4. In advance of an outbreak, or promptly after an outbreak begins, the government must present a poll to the public regarding how the government should respond. The poll must contain at least three substantially different options. The government will respond according to the will of the public expressed through that poll.
5. During an outbreak, the delegate is authorized to act in any reasonable manner to pursue the adopted plan. This includes, but is not limited to, ejecting or banning nations from the region who have entered the region during the crisis, imposing restrictions on national movement into the region, and granting Border Control to other government officials for the duration of the event.
6. No more than 30 days before the historical start of the event, the Delegate may appoint a Citizen to assist in the regional response to an infectious disease outbreak. The appointee is exempt from constitutional restrictions on holding multiple government offices for purposes of their appointment. The appointee's term shall end at the conclusion of the event.
7. Nations ejected or banned because of the outbreak must be promptly unbanned and invited to return once the emergency is over.
8. During an outbreak, no nation may have their status as a resident or citizen removed solely for leaving the region, so long as they return within three days of the end of the emergency.
9. Following an outbreak, the Speaker must promptly contact any resident or citizen who remains outside the region, and inform them that they are at risk of losing their status if they do not return within three days.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of [[other document or referenced text]]:

2007 TNP LAW 28 Article III Section 2 Assembly members whose nation has CTE'd (Ceased to Exist) or who have moved out of The North Pacific when not on official business shall be removed from membership automatically by the Speaker.
2005 Constitution Article 1 Section 2 Subsection 6 At any time, should sufficient evidence be brought to the Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs that proves that a registered voter fails to meet the requirements for membership due to the deletion of a Nation from NationStates through inactivity or NationStates Moderator intervention, that Nation's name may be purged from the list of registered voters. Should a Nation, whose voter registration has been purged, later be found to have been resurrected in NationStates, or that the Nation become a member of the Region once again, they may re-apply for voting rights according to the procedures in the preceding clauses of this Section. The act of expulsion or banning of a Nation from the Region prior to a trial or a referendum does not affect its status as a registered voter until and unless a final judgment is entered in a judicial proceeding or a final certification is entered in a referendum, whichever is applicable to the given situation. The North Pacific Legal Code may provide authority to the Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs for the periodic purging of the names of registered voters who are no longer eligible to vote in the Region, upon due notice because they no longer meet the requirements of this Section.

On Regional Officers Banning Nations during NationStates Events and its Related Filings

The Court opines the following:

On Standing
The petitioner is the Court Examiner, and enjoys universal standing for all questions before this Court. There is no question of proper standing in this case.

On the Court's Prior Ruling
In 2016, during the annual Z-day event, then citizen Gracius Maximus was ejected by a government official as part of the event. He then challenged the action, alleging several errors in law. First, that the Delegate did not delegate ejection authority making the ejection by another regional officer unlawful. Second, that the action violated his freedom to engage his nation as he saw fit. Finally, his ejection could jeopardize his standing as an elected official and member of the Regional Assembly.

The Court, under the law of that period, ruled that the Delegate must explicitly authorize a regional officer to eject nations during the event, that such authorization is subjected to a reasonableness standard, and that such power is inherent to the Governmental authority to address the emergency.

The Court further opined that an ejection in this manner cannot result in the loss of citizenship. In order for a citizen ejected during the event to lose citizenship, they had to return to the region and leave again, cease to exist, or fail to meet the activity requirements. It is this final part that is being challenged in this Request for Review.

The Court discussion thread on this matter was thin on reasoning for this part of the ruling. The Court looked into the earlier version of the regions governing documents for perspective. When looking at the 2005 and 2007 versions, the provisions regarding loss of citizenship revolve around actions of the individuals and protections against rogue government officials. Both the 2005 and 2007 versions outline the burden on the government to support the ejection and removal of a citizen from the region and expressly limit the potential damage that an ejection may cause. It is in this context we view the original ruling.

On the Loss of Citizenship When Ejected
Throughout the Legal Code and our body of jurisprudence, we have held that the Government is subservient to the people. With Citizenship, this subservience places the burden on the Government to prove that the Citizen acted in a willful manner that resulted in the legal removal of their citizenship. Our laws place great emphasis on how and when citizenship can be removed, outlining multiple steps that must be taken to remove a person from our rolls. The Speaker is directed to specific events that trigger removal, the Court may only remove citizenship for the Crime of Treason, and the Vice Delegate must present a case to the Regional Assembly for review and a vote before rejecting an application for citizenship. Reviewing the historical context in which the Court held the original case, the laws at the time, and our laws today, a common thread runs through it all. Each clause that addresses the removal of citizenship is preceded by a voluntary action of the Citizen or applicant. Failing to maintain a nation in the region, failing to maintain a nation at all, and conducting acts that are offensive to the community are all voluntary acts, whether the citizens are doing something or choosing to not do something that is required of them. It is with this context we uphold the court's original ruling.

There are well established laws on how an ejection from the region should and must be handled. Section 3.5 of the Legal Code establishes a multi-step process that the Government must follow when ejecting a nation from the region, and that person is entitled to due process. This lends further legal support for the Court's original ruling. In the event that a nation is ejected for being a security risk to the region, the legal code does not provide for the removal of citizenship and does provide for redress to the nation in question. The Court must hold a hearing on the ejection and hold a trial on the underlying criminal activity, a process in which the Government must prove the nation acted in some manner. These protections and steps are well established for good reason. To permit the loss of citizenship based solely on an ejection and without due process opens the door for rogue officials to eject and remove citizenship of its opposition and suppress the rights of the people.

An ejection is not a voluntary act in and of itself. It is the Government's reaction to an emergency and part of its program to address it. Many on this Court have experience and even led the response to a disease outbreak, and we are aware of the chaos of the event, the good and bad actors involved, and what happens or can happen to those who choose to not participate. Furthermore, nothing in the original briefings nor in the briefings for this review establish a factual rational or legal citation to support an argument that a nation's actions during a disease outbreak is sufficiently voluntary and cause for the removal of citizenship. In the context of a disease outbreak, ejections for the duration of the outbreak is a use of regional authority to control an emergency situation.

Part of the emergency law governing the disease outbreak event regulates the time frame in which nations should return after leaving, and establishes this time frame as 3 days. As part of this process, the Speaker is mandated to contact all ejected nations and inform them of their right to return and the time frame allotted to them to make their return. The Regional Assembly determined this period of time and the amount of grace afforded to impacted nations in making their return. Because of these efforts, we consider it reasonable for citizenship to be at risk if an ejected nation chooses not to return after being contacted and given time to hear of and act on the warning provided by the Speaker. When this grace period elapses, and they have been properly informed, their decision not to return is just as voluntary as any self-directed departure from the region would be under non-emergency situations. Removal of citizenship under these circumstances would be valid and acceptable under the existing framework. However, the burden remains on the Government to establish that all requirements for the removal were met and that the circumstances were reasonable. A person whose citizenship is removed in this manner is still afforded the ability and opportunity to have their ejection judicially reviewed.

On Reasonable Requirements for Return
As has been stated, the Regional Assembly currently provides for 3 days before a nation's citizenship is in jeopardy after departing the region during the disease outbreak. But is this time frame reasonable? The petitioner argued at length about the Assembly's role in determining limits to citizenship, and its broad authority in emergency situations. This Court can imagine circumstances wherein impacted nations may functionally be unable to meet the Assembly's requirements, such as starting or enforcing the 3 day clock when it is mechanically impossible for the ejected nations to return to the region. The Assembly could also forgo fully informing the impacted nations of their ability to return, and rely on their confusion or lack of knowledge to cause them to run out of time. This requirement would not be reasonable under such circumstances. Instead, the Assembly would need to give nations a fair shot to receive and act on their requirements, and every nation would need to have the same opportunity afforded to them without any being treated differently. Considering the law as currently written, with all of its stipulations, this Court considers the disease outbreak's requirements for return to be reasonable.

Holding
We affirm the previous ruling in its entirety. Ejection does not constitute leaving the region, and therefore citizenship cannot be removed when a nation is ejected. However, we clarify that a nation which is ejected during a disease outbreak event or similar emergency situation, and does not voluntarily return under the Assembly's requirements for return, may have its citizenship removed, so long as those requirements and the circumstances surrounding the potential return are reasonable.

 

[Dreadton]

I can accept this, i will work on final formating

 

[Pallaith]

@Eluvatar it's been a week, can we get your thoughts? I don't think this one should linger this much unnecessarily, can you get back to us before the weekend is up? Or can you confirm a good time in the near future?

 

[Dreadton]

Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by @TlomzKrano on the Loss of Citizenship When Ejected.

Opinion drafted by @Pallaith , joined by @Dreadton , with @Eluvatar abstaining ​

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by @TlomzKrano.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Constitution of The North Pacific:

Article 1.1 All nations are guaranteed the rights defined by the Bill of Rights.

Article 1.4 Requirements for citizenship will be determined by law.

Article 1.5 The Regional Assembly may enact, amend or repeal laws by a majority vote.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Bill of Rights of The North Pacific:

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region and its territories. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region and its territories, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region and its territories shall act only in the best interests of the Region and its territories, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.

5. All Nations of The North Pacific and its territories have the right to be protected against the abuse of powers by any official of a government authority of the region and its territories. Any Nation of The North Pacific and its territories has the right to request the recall of any official of a government authority of the region and its territories in accordance with the Constitution, that is deemed to have participated in such acts.

6. No Nation shall be held to answer for a crime in a manner not prescribed by the Constitution or the Legal Code. No Nation shall be subjected to being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. No Nation shall ever be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against itself.

8. The regional power of ejection and banning may not be granted or exercised, nor forum bans imposed, unless expressly authorized pursuant to the Constitution or the Legal Code. Any ejected or banned nation is entitled to prompt judicial review of the matter.

9. Each Nation in The North Pacific and its territories is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region and its territories on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region and its territories shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific and its territories, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific and its territories the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.

11. No governmental authority of the region and its territories has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region and its territories, with the express consent of the Nations of the region and its territories or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Legal Code of The North Pacific:

Treason will be punished by ejection and banning, and removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit.

27. The Delegate may eject and/or ban a particular nation from the region pending criminal charges against them, or prior to the conclusion of an ongoing criminal trial in which they are the defendant, only when that nation poses a clear security threat and their removal is necessary for the protection of the region.
28. The Delegate must seek the approval of the Court for any such ejection or ban. Where possible, this approval must be sought prior to the nation's removal from the region. Otherwise, it must be sought within one day of the action.
29. If the ejection or ban is performed during a criminal trial against that nation, approval will be at the discretion of the justice moderating the trial. Otherwise, any single justice may approve or deny the Delegate's request.
30. Any nation ejected or banned under this section may file an appeal of the decision. These appeals may not be denied, and must be decided by the full court.
31. The Delegate must immediately provide any nation ejected or banned under this section with a link to the Courtroom and inform them of their right to file an appeal.
32. If criminal charges are not brought against a nation ejected or banned under this section, or if the criminal charges are rejected by the Court, or if the nation is not found Guilty at the conclusion of the trial, any ban against that nation which was imposed under this section must be revoked.

15. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens whose removal is ordered by the Court, whose registered nations in The North Pacific or one of its territories leave or cease to exist, or whose citizenship is voluntarily renounced by notifying the Speaker.
16. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who, for over 30 consecutive days, neither post on the regional forum, nor post on the regional message board of The North Pacific or one of its territories with their registered nations.
17. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens whose registered nations in The North Pacific or one of its territories are not in the World Assembly, except as part of an operation with the North Pacific Army, if their citizenship was granted after failing an evaluation by forum administration. This requirement will not apply if the citizens request and then pass another evaluation by forum administration.
18. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens to whom they granted citizenship in error, if the error is discovered within 7 days of granting their citizenship.
19. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who are banned for maintaining a nation in a region or organization at war with The North Pacific.
21. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who are confirmed to be using a second forum account or evading a judicially-imposed penalty.
22. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who are banned by forum administration.

16. Violators of NationStates rules, residents banned offsite by forum administration, or residents who maintain a nation in a region or organization at war with The North Pacific, may be subject to summary ejection or banning.
17. Residents banned on the basis of forum bans imposed by forum administration may not be banned for longer than the length of the ban imposed by forum administration.
18. Nations recruiting for other regions may be subject to summary ejection or banning.
19. Nations for which the Court has issued an indictment permitting it may be ejected or banned.
20. Nations that have been so sentenced by the Court will be ejected or banned.
21. The official performing an ejection or ban will promptly inform the region and Government.

3. A NationStates event involving an outbreak of an infectious disease shall be considered an actual emergency, and does not require a declaration by the RA.
4. In advance of an outbreak, or promptly after an outbreak begins, the government must present a poll to the public regarding how the government should respond. The poll must contain at least three substantially different options. The government will respond according to the will of the public expressed through that poll.
5. During an outbreak, the delegate is authorized to act in any reasonable manner to pursue the adopted plan. This includes, but is not limited to, ejecting or banning nations from the region who have entered the region during the crisis, imposing restrictions on national movement into the region, and granting Border Control to other government officials for the duration of the event.
6. No more than 30 days before the historical start of the event, the Delegate may appoint a Citizen to assist in the regional response to an infectious disease outbreak. The appointee is exempt from constitutional restrictions on holding multiple government offices for purposes of their appointment. The appointee's term shall end at the conclusion of the event.
7. Nations ejected or banned because of the outbreak must be promptly unbanned and invited to return once the emergency is over.
8. During an outbreak, no nation may have their status as a resident or citizen removed solely for leaving the region, so long as they return within three days of the end of the emergency.
9. Following an outbreak, the Speaker must promptly contact any resident or citizen who remains outside the region, and inform them that they are at risk of losing their status if they do not return within three days.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of 2007 TNP LAW 28:

Assembly members whose nation has CTE'd (Ceased to Exist) or who have moved out of The North Pacific when not on official business shall be removed from membership automatically by the Speaker.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of 2005 Constitution:

At any time, should sufficient evidence be brought to the Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs that proves that a registered voter fails to meet the requirements for membership due to the deletion of a Nation from NationStates through inactivity or NationStates Moderator intervention, that Nation's name may be purged from the list of registered voters. Should a Nation, whose voter registration has been purged, later be found to have been resurrected in NationStates, or that the Nation become a member of the Region once again, they may re-apply for voting rights according to the procedures in the preceding clauses of this Section. The act of expulsion or banning of a Nation from the Region prior to a trial or a referendum does not affect its status as a registered voter until and unless a final judgment is entered in a judicial proceeding or a final certification is entered in a referendum, whichever is applicable to the given situation. The North Pacific Legal Code may provide authority to the Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs for the periodic purging of the names of registered voters who are no longer eligible to vote in the Region, upon due notice because they no longer meet the requirements of this Section.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of On Regional Officers Banning Nations during NationStates Events and its Related Filings


The Court opines the following:

On Standing
The petitioner is the Court Examiner, and enjoys universal standing for all questions before this Court. There is no question of proper standing in this case.

On the Court's Prior Ruling
In 2016, during the annual Z-day event, then citizen Gracius Maximus was ejected by a government official as part of the event. He then challenged the action, alleging several errors in law. First, that the Delegate did not delegate ejection authority making the ejection by another regional officer unlawful. Second, that the action violated his freedom to engage his nation as he saw fit. Finally, his ejection could jeopardize his standing as an elected official and member of the Regional Assembly.

The Court, under the law of that period, ruled that the Delegate must explicitly authorize a regional officer to eject nations during the event, that such authorization is subjected to a reasonableness standard, and that such power is inherent to the Governmental authority to address the emergency.

The Court further opined that an ejection in this manner cannot result in the loss of citizenship. In order for a citizen ejected during the event to lose citizenship, they had to return to the region and leave again, cease to exist, or fail to meet the activity requirements. It is this final part that is being challenged in this Request for Review.

The Court discussion thread on this matter was thin on reasoning for this part of the ruling. The Court looked into the earlier version of the regions governing documents for perspective. When looking at the 2005 and 2007 versions, the provisions regarding loss of citizenship revolve around actions of the individuals and protections against rogue government officials. Both the 2005 and 2007 versions outline the burden on the government to support the ejection and removal of a citizen from the region and expressly limit the potential damage that an ejection may cause. It is in this context we view the original ruling.

On the Loss of Citizenship When Ejected
Throughout the Legal Code and our body of jurisprudence, we have held that the Government is subservient to the people. With Citizenship, this subservience places the burden on the Government to prove that the Citizen acted in a willful manner that resulted in the legal removal of their citizenship. Our laws place great emphasis on how and when citizenship can be removed, outlining multiple steps that must be taken to remove a person from our rolls. The Speaker is directed to specific events that trigger removal, the Court may only remove citizenship for the Crime of Treason, and the Vice Delegate must present a case to the Regional Assembly for review and a vote before rejecting an application for citizenship. Reviewing the historical context in which the Court held the original case, the laws at the time, and our laws today, a common thread runs through it all. Each clause that addresses the removal of citizenship is preceded by a voluntary action of the Citizen or applicant. Failing to maintain a nation in the region, failing to maintain a nation at all, and conducting acts that are offensive to the community are all voluntary acts, whether the citizens are doing something or choosing to not do something that is required of them. It is with this context we uphold the court's original ruling.

There are well established laws on how an ejection from the region should and must be handled. Section 3.5 of the Legal Code establishes a multi-step process that the Government must follow when ejecting a nation from the region, and that person is entitled to due process. This lends further legal support for the Court's original ruling. In the event that a nation is ejected for being a security risk to the region, the legal code does not provide for the removal of citizenship and does provide for redress to the nation in question. The Court must hold a hearing on the ejection and hold a trial on the underlying criminal activity, a process in which the Government must prove the nation acted in some manner. These protections and steps are well established for good reason. To permit the loss of citizenship based solely on an ejection and without due process opens the door for rogue officials to eject and remove citizenship of its opposition and suppress the rights of the people.

An ejection is not a voluntary act in and of itself. It is the Government's reaction to an emergency and part of its program to address it. Many on this Court have experience and even led the response to a disease outbreak, and we are aware of the chaos of the event, the good and bad actors involved, and what happens or can happen to those who choose to not participate. Furthermore, nothing in the original briefings nor in the briefings for this review establish a factual rational or legal citation to support an argument that a nation's actions during a disease outbreak is sufficiently voluntary and cause for the removal of citizenship. In the context of a disease outbreak, ejections for the duration of the outbreak is a use of regional authority to control an emergency situation.

Part of the emergency law governing the disease outbreak event regulates the time frame in which nations should return after leaving, and establishes this time frame as 3 days. As part of this process, the Speaker is mandated to contact all ejected nations and inform them of their right to return and the time frame allotted to them to make their return. The Regional Assembly determined this period of time and the amount of grace afforded to impacted nations in making their return. Because of these efforts, we consider it reasonable for citizenship to be at risk if an ejected nation chooses not to return after being contacted and given time to hear of and act on the warning provided by the Speaker. When this grace period elapses, and they have been properly informed, their decision not to return is just as voluntary as any self-directed departure from the region would be under non-emergency situations. Removal of citizenship under these circumstances would be valid and acceptable under the existing framework. However, the burden remains on the Government to establish that all requirements for the removal were met and that the circumstances were reasonable. A person whose citizenship is removed in this manner is still afforded the ability and opportunity to have their ejection judicially reviewed.

On Reasonable Requirements for Return
As has been stated, the Regional Assembly currently provides for 3 days before a nation's citizenship is in jeopardy after departing the region during the disease outbreak. But is this time frame reasonable? The petitioner argued at length about the Assembly's role in determining limits to citizenship, and its broad authority in emergency situations. This Court can imagine circumstances wherein impacted nations may functionally be unable to meet the Assembly's requirements, such as starting or enforcing the 3 day clock when it is mechanically impossible for the ejected nations to return to the region. The Assembly could also forgo fully informing the impacted nations of their ability to return, and rely on their confusion or lack of knowledge to cause them to run out of time. This requirement would not be reasonable under such circumstances. Instead, the Assembly would need to give nations a fair shot to receive and act on their requirements, and every nation would need to have the same opportunity afforded to them without any being treated differently. Considering the law as currently written, with all of its stipulations, this Court considers the disease outbreak's requirements for return to be reasonable.

Holding
We affirm the previous ruling in its entirety. Ejection does not constitute leaving the region, and therefore citizenship cannot be removed when a nation is ejected. However, we clarify that a nation which is ejected during a disease outbreak event or similar emergency situation, and does not voluntarily return under the Assembly's requirements for return, may have its citizenship removed, so long as those requirements and the circumstances surrounding the potential return are reasonable.

 

[Dreadton]

Should I break the Constitution citing down like i did the legal code?

 

[Pallaith]

No, I think it’s fine. Also I wasn’t sure I revised enough of your decision to become the author on it.

 

[Dreadton]

can drop joined and use AND

 

[Pallaith]

can drop joined and use AND

I don't think I have ever seen such an opinion before but I think it's more accurate and fair since you wrote the whole thing and I just put in some additional bones, etc

 

[Dreadton]

Ok will do when it goes out, I’m ready to post and close this t4r

 

[Dreadton]

Ruling issued, this r4r is now closed