Request for Review: Citizenship Oath Amendment

Gracius Maximus

Gracius Maximus

Tyrant (Ret.)
1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?
The enforcement of the 'Citizenship Oath Amendment' has been inconsistent and the law as it exists prejudices against nations that do opt to refer to themselves as leaders of specific nations. My complaint is that grammatically, functionally, and legally, there is no difference between:

I, the Minister, Ruler of Gracius Maximus, pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for citizenship in The North Pacific.

and

I pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for citizenship in The North Pacific.

except to define 'I' in the context of the oath itself. The only addition is to the qualifier of 'I' in the first instance and not to any other part of the oath. In following Section 6.1 of the Legal Code the oath was given as provided with a qualifier of identity, which is not restricted by the Legal Code.

2. What portions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or other legal document do you believe has been violated by the above? How so?

The Speaker has denied my application on the basis of limiting my right to self-identification and expression within the confines of the law, specifically this action violates:

Bill of Rights

Article 1: The limiting of how I elect to address myself within TNP is a violation of my right to self-determination and imposes on our domestic policy.

Article 2: The limiting in how I elect to address myself and define 'I' is a violation of my right to free speech.

Legal Code

Section 6.1: Citizenship Applications: The failure to recognize that the oath as provided has been given in full without alteration, but with only a qualifying addition, is a violation of my rights to serve in the Regional Assembly. As 6.1 only allows the Speaker to deny applications that fail the security checks if they have been posted correctly, as I contend my oath has been, this is a violation of my rights under the Legal Code.

3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?

There are no Court rulings regarding the updated Oath of Citizenship but there are numerous examples of applications taking place from 1 April 2018 that utilise the same format that I have offered here which were accepted into Regional Assembly membership.

I will also state that I have utilised this same format under multiple versions of the oath, that being a qualifier of specific identity at the start, since 2006.

4. Please establish your standing by detailing how you, personally, have been adversely affected. If you are requesting a review of a governmental action, you must include how any rights or freedoms of yours have been violated. If you are submitting this request in your capacity as the Attorney General or their designee, please note that here instead.

I have been denied the right of self-determination and identification and am actively being denied the right to sit on the Regional Assembly. I believe the violation to be self-evident in that I cannot take up a position within the Regional Assembly until such time as the oath is accepted.

5. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?

I have a mixed past with this region because of actions that took place over 13 years ago. But, I have been active on and off, and a contributing member of the government, the Court, and the Regional Assembly for much of the past 12 years. I have never violated the oath that I have given and I have always been allowed to identify myself as 'the Minister, leader/rule of Gracius Maximus' in my oath declarations. It is a pity that I am now being denied membership in the Regional Assembly because of this.
 
Can I inquire if Justice Stabby will be sitting on this review panel? I ask because the law in question was instigated by their own application rejection following a lack of uniform enforcement of the oath structure and because they stated their preference for this to be reviewed by the Regional Assembly instead of the Court, perhaps showing bias against the rulings of the latter for issues such as this.
 
Submission One

I would like to submit to the Court examples from the Citizenship Application thread where oaths have been altered to include qualifiers and accepted for citizenship since April 2018:

#6156
#6192
#6313
#6326
#6353
#6361
#6415
#6418
#6420
#6478
#6487
#6491
#6499
#6513
#6518
#6520
#6567
#6571
#6574
#6577
#6581
#6587
#6591
#6595
#6600
#6612
#6619
#6623
#6642
#6659
#6676
#6683
#6685
#6690
#6698
#6720
#6724
#6746
#6755
#6756
#6761
#6763
#6770
#6809
#6813
#6822
#6846
#6866
#6901
#6927
#6928
#6929
#6932
#6934
#6949
#6963
#6977
#6988
#7048
#7064
#7076
#7085
#7099
#7116
#7120
#7130
#7135
#7159 (current Speaker approval)
#7176
#7182 (current Speaker approval)
#7187
#7188
#7205
#7206
#7208
#7211
#7219
#7243
#7257
#7258
#7266 (Initially denied but admitted 'on further review' without alteration of the oath)
#7268
#7271 (current Speaker approval)
#7281
#7287
#7298
#7299
#7303
#7306
#7324 (current Speaker approval)
#7341
#7348
#7351
#7358
#7364
#7373
#7381
#7385
#7392
#7397
#7414
#7416
#7422 (current Speaker approval)
#7429
#7431
#7432
---------
These are applications that include a qualifier that were accepted after 24 December 2018:

#7482 (An incorrectly posted oath that was approved post-Dec 24 edict)
#7511
#7524 (current Speaker approval)
#7527 (current Speaker approval)
#7532 (current Speaker approval)
#7542 (current Speaker approval)
#7547 (current Speaker approval)


This illustrates an inconsistent enforcement of the oath, including from the current Speaker, but also the reality that a qualifier for 'I' does not alter the legality of the oath itself. The material worth of the oath remains intact even with the self-identification added in the examples herein. Nations should be able to identify themselves as they wish when applying for citizenship and not have that right removed arbitrarily by the Speaker or its appointed Deputies.

The latest enforcement of the oath in its strictest sense has only been in place since 24 December 2018. So for nine of the last ten months the oath was observed in full but qualifiers were allowed. There is no clear explanation available as to why the Speaker's office arbitrarily altered the manner in which the oath was accepted and no legal precedent for it having done so. The current Speaker itself approved five applications in November and December so is aware of the precedent of accepting oath's which include a qualifier for 'I' but do not otherwise alter or impact the oath - and has accepted several oaths with qualifiers after the 24 December edict.

The inconsistency in application approval is actually quite amazing. There are at least 113 (I may have missed a few) instances of nations applying for citizenship in the North Pacific with qualifiers such as 'the leader of', 'Prime Minister of', etc. that have been approved since the passage of the new oath of citizenship.

Also, the fact that the Speaker accepted oaths with qualifiers as recently as three weeks ago speaks directly to disparity in treatment by that office towards citizenship applicants.


------


Submission Two

I would like to submit to the Court the current Oath of Office for those either elected or appointed to position within the North Pacific from the Legal Code:

Section 4.1: Oath of Office
Click to expand...
1. All government officials will take the Oath of Office below before assuming their role within the government of The North Pacific.

I, [forum username], do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as [government position], I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of [government position], with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.
Click to expand...

This illustrates an oath within the region that includes a qualifier for 'I' that does not alter the purpose or legality of the oath.

Example from the Oath of Office thread where the qualifier has been altered and accepted since April 2018 (date for illustrative purposes only):

#690
 
Last edited:
As stated in the initial request, the bulk of this review centers around this portion of the Legal Code:

Section 6.1: Citizenship Applications
2. Any resident may apply for citizenship using their regional forum account, by providing the name of their nation in The North Pacific, and swearing an oath as follows:
I pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for citizenship in The North Pacific.
Click to expand...

No piece of this legislation talks about what can and cannot be edited in this oath, and thus, must be interpreted as using the entire oath without any edits.

The proposing citizen argues that by defining who "I" is in the oath, he is not editing the oath, however, the legislation does not give that option. Furthermore, the definition of "I" could be incorrect. For example, "I, the leader of Guslantis", is technically incorrect, as one of my RP characters, King Marcus of Augustus Town is the leader, I am merely the player in charge of the nation. While that was how the old oath was structured, that oath no longer exists.

I would also like the Court to strike all of the oath of office examples from the proposer’s brief. Due to the broken code between our now-Tapatalk forum and XenForo, the [me] command no longer appears as the user’s name badge which would have clearly been in compliance with the oath of office when they were remasked. The remaining examples are mentions to the user’s profile, which is still the user’s forum username.

The proposer makes mention to the fact that there is a lack of uniform enforcement of the oath, done so by former Speakers, namely Darcania, Wonderess, ABC, and their deputies.

The following is their oath:

I, [forum username], do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as [government position], I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of [government position], with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.
Click to expand...

Given that the law was passed on March 31st, these three Speakers could be under violation of their oath due to a neglect to enforce this law, which could be misfeasance. This should be taken into account when the Court makes its ruling, as an error in one office should not affect the enforcement of a law in another.
 
Last edited:
I would request the basis of the interpretation that a lack of explanation demands a lack of alteration. Chester Arthur and most of his successors, in another universe, would disagree.

Also, in regard to Submission Two and the linking issue, I have modified my submission to accommodate this and left only the example where an addition to the oath was made and accepted.
 
Last edited:
Gracius Maximus:
Can I inquire if Justice Stabby will be sitting on this review panel? I ask because the law in question was instigated by their own application rejection following a lack of uniform enforcement of the oath structure and because they stated their preference for this to be reviewed by the Regional Assembly instead of the Court, perhaps showing bias against the rulings of the latter for issues such as this.
Click to expand...
I was not planning to recuse myself.

You are correct that my citizenship oath was also denied. However, I chose not to challenge the legality of that denial, and instead decided that it would be both less of a hassle and easier to guarantee the results I wanted if I looked at changing the law through the RA rather than relying on a court decision (which would have been much harder to predict, and which could have taken weeks or even months to be ruled upon). I do not fault you for making a different choice, as your situation is not the same as mine. It was certainly not my intent to imply an absolute preference for resolving things through the RA instead of through the Court.

Moreover, the nature of the denial is not parallel - I was denied for removing language from the oath, whereas you were denied for adding it in. This is enough of a distinction, in my mind, that while there may be some overlap the key legal questions raised in each case are separate.

Does this assuage your concern?
 
I have a clarification to request of the petitioner.

Gracius Maximus:
I believe the violation to be self-evident in that I cannot take up a position within the Regional Assembly until such time as the oath is accepted.
Click to expand...

Can you expand on this a bit? Specifically, your rationale for why you feel that you cannot validly take the citizenship oath as "I" instead of "I, the Minister, Ruler of Gracius Maximus"?
 
On behalf of the Speaker's Office:

First I would like to address the matter of the Citizenship Oath. As passed by the Regional Assembly, Section 6.1.2 was amended to read as follows:

2. Any resident may apply for citizenship using their regional forum account, by providing the name of their nation in The North Pacific, and swearing an oath as follows:
I pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for citizenship in The North Pacific.
Click to expand...

The law provides no method for which the oath is to include "qualifiers" following the "I" in the oath. The Legal Code states that an applicant should provide the name of their nation and then swearing the oath as it is written in the law. By adding a qualifier of identity within the oath, they are altering the oath from how it is written in the Legal Code.

Next, I would like to address the issue regarding previously accepted citizenship oaths by previous Speaker's and their Deputies, including a few during my tenure as a Deputy Speaker. Yes, in my opinion, these oaths were accepted when in fact they should have been rejected for not posting the correct oath as listed in the law. This was a matter that was raised to the Speaker's Office towards the end of Speaker Wonderess' term. Once the fact that previous oaths were incorrect we began enforcing the new oath. This is something that I have continued to do so into my term as Speaker.

Finally, I would like to attest that every member of the community has the right to self-determination and address themselves in the manner that they so wish. But I would like to state that this can be done in other manners outside of simply the oath of citizenship. Forum names and signatures are two ways to self identify beyond the oath of citizenship. If an applicant was to post the following it would be accepted by my office:

Nation: Sundred

I pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for citizenship in The North Pacific.

Signed,
Oracle Artemis of the Holy Dominion of Sundred
Click to expand...

The applicant would meet the standard of posting the name of their nation, swearing the proper oath, and still having the opportunity to self-identify.
 
Well, this is a fine mess. At the crux of this issue is inconsistent application of the law on the part of the Speaker's office. Under the Bill of Rights, every nation is guaranteed equal and fair treatment under the Constitution. The lack of consistency in how the Speaker's office has applied the oath requirement for citizenship is inequal and unfair, to the point that it is beyond the power of the Speaker to remedy. Even if Artemis were to pick a policy and stick with it for the rest of his tenure, he cannot guarantee that his successor will not reverse it. Thus, without Court intervention, the nations of The North Pacific are being subject to citizenship requirements that are inherently unfair, because others who applied before them, or who may apply later, may be subject to different criteria.

I would like to be crystal clear that I do not believe any particular interpretation of Chapter 6 Clause 2 is inherently a violation of rights. The Constitution, in Article II, states that "Requirements for citizenship will be determined by law." It is therefore fine to say "You must post these exact words in this exact order to become a citizen," or "You may insert some other words inbetween the first two, and you'll still be able to become a citizen." As long as such a policy were enforced consistently from the time when the law was adopted in April, we wouldn't have a problem. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed, and the chance that the Speaker's office had to establish a permanent precedent has been let slip through its fingers. Now it has fallen to the Court to establish it for them.

And now the question put: which policy should the Court order? I submit that for an oath to be valid, it should be posted word for word, without deviation. To allow otherwise would require the Speaker to make a judgment call on what qualifiers should be allowed after the word "I". Could I submit an application beginning "I, who am not General COE, but in fact am JAL using COE's computer"? If I later violated the oath, could I evade charges, claiming that I never swore the oath in the first place, and it was, in fact, JAL using my computer? These are questions that the Speaker's office should not have to contemplate - indeed, allowing any deviation from the oath risks putting us right back in the same situation, with a Speaker's office that vacillates from term to term on how much deviation is acceptable. The entire POINT of the citizenship oath amendment of last year was to eliminate the inconsistency in Speaker policy that had persisted up to that point. Sadly, it was not enough to pass a law. The court must now enforce it as written, uphold the rejection of Gracius Maximus' application for citizenship, and order the Speaker's office to reject all applications that deviate from the text of the oath in the law in the future. That is the only way to guarantee the right of nations to be treated equally and fairly under the provisions of the Constitution (in this case, the provision that "requirements for citizenship will be determined by law.")

Those who know me understand that I do not come to this understanding lightly. I have long been a proponent that the Speaker's office be given the power and autonomy it needs to make manifest the will of the citizenry, without undue limitation by the Court. I have also often said that when we err, we should err so that more people are given citizenship, more people retain citizenship, and more votes are counted. However, in this case, the right to equal and fair treatment outweighs the general inclination to "just let them vote."
 
King SillyString:
I have a clarification to request of the petitioner.



Can you expand on this a bit? Specifically, your rationale for why you feel that you cannot validly take the citizenship oath as "I" instead of "I, the Minister, Ruler of Gracius Maximus"?
Click to expand...
To me, this question devolves to who ‘I’ am in regards to the North Pacific. If I take the oath as it is written, without the opportunity afforded others to qualify who ‘I’ is then there is an assumption, in my opinion, that this is a uniform application for me in an OOC sense. As the administration of this forum has been generous and provided me with the opportunity to play the game as I see fit historically, I am one of the few players to have multiple accounts on this forum. I maintain that those accounts are separate in regards to how they deal with TNP and when I post my oath it is definitively as the leader of Gracius Maximus and not as any other entity which might be linked to me on this forum, IC or OOC.

Therefore, I believe it to be imperative that I be afforded equal opportunity to apply with a qualifier, just as the 113 other applicants that have done so since the passage of the law have been.
 
Has the Court extended the period for briefs on this request? The Court Rules indicate that the period will be for five days from acceptance (21 January) unless it is extended.

Thank you.
 
No, the period for submitting briefs ended on the 26th. Your response to the question I asked you will, of course, be taken into account.
 
Is there an update on the status of this request available from the Court? I know the seven day window is only a suggestion within the Rules and not a hard and fast policy. Thanks!
 
I apologize for the delay on this. We have come to a rough agreement and are finalizing some specifics and phrasing. It should not be much longer.
 
court_seal.png


Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by Gracius Maximus on Alterations to the Citizenship Oath
Opinion drafted by SillyString, joined by Eluvatar and OwenStacey​

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by Gracius Maximus.

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Gracius Maximus, and the clarification submitted here.

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by bootsie.

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Artemis.

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Crushing Our Enemies.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Bill of Rights of The North Pacific:
1. All Nations of The North Pacific are sovereign. Each Nation has the right of self-determination in that Nation's domestic policies, including, but not limited to, issue selection and WA membership.

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. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.

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

9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific 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.
Click to expand...
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Legal Code of The North Pacific:
Section 6.1: Citizenship Applications
2. Any resident may apply for citizenship using their regional forum account, by providing the name of their nation in The North Pacific, and swearing an oath as follows:
I pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for citizenship in The North Pacific.
Click to expand...
3. A copy of the laws applicants are pledging to obey must be available to them at all times.
4. An application for citizenship ceases to be valid if at any time the applicant's declared nation in The North Pacific is not located in The North Pacific.
5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate the citizenship applicant and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty. The Vice Delegate will have 3 days to perform a security evaluation and pass or fail the applicant. The Vice Delegate must consult the Security Council if there is reasonable concern as to whether an applicant should be admitted.
6. The Speaker will reject applicants who fail an evaluation by either forum administration or the Vice Delegate.
7. If an applicant is rejected for failing an evaluation by the Vice Delegate, the Regional Assembly shall immediately debate the rejection and will hold a majority vote on whether to uphold it. The vote must begin two days after the rejection occurs.
8. The Regional Assembly may overturn a previous decision to uphold the rejection of an applicant by majority vote.
9. The Speaker will accept all other applicants with valid applications.
10. The Speaker will process applications within 14 days. If an applicant has not been approved or rejected within that time, they will be automatically granted citizenship.
Click to expand...
The Court took into consideration the previous version of the citizenship oath:
I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of [INSERT YOUR TNP NATION], pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.
Click to expand...
The Court opines the following:

On Standing in this Inquiry

The Court has determined that Gracius Maximus does have the standing to bring this request for review. As an individual denied citizenship by the Speaker, Gracius Maximus was unquestionably directly personally affected by the Speaker's actions and this case hinges on the question of whether his rights, specifically, have been violated by these actions. Any person who believes they have been wrongfully denied citizenship by the Speaker would have the standing to request a review of the legality of that denial.

On Violation of the Right to Set Domestic Policy

The petitioner has stated that being required to take the citizenship oath as written and not being permitted to alter the it to include his identifier of choice violates his right under Article 1 of the Bill of Rights to set domestic policy in his nation.

The Court does not agree. Article 1 protects only those decisions and actions taken by a nation on the NationStates website which affect its tracked statistics, or its appearance or description when being viewed. It does not protect interactions between nations or between players, whether that be via in-game telegram, on the Regional Message Board, or on an external platform, as those cease to be "domestic".

On Violation of the Right to Free Speech

The petitioner has also argued that being required to take the citizenship oath as written and not being permitted to alter the it to include his identifier of choice violates his right under Article 2 of the Bill of Rights to free speech.

The Court does not agree. As is stated in the brief submitted by the Speaker, the Petitioner is free to self-identify as he feels proper and necessary within his post applying for citizenship, so long as such identification is done outside the specific text of the oath. The Court does not find that this small restriction on the location of one's identifier constitutes an infringement of a nation's right to free speech, as that speech remains free to occur.

On Alteration of the Citizenship Oath

The fundamental question before the Court is whether the oath of citizenship must be taken exactly as it appears in the Legal Code, or if alterations to its content to allow for personal identification can be permitted.

The section of the Legal Code which deals with citizenship applications defines the specific oath that must be sworn, and does not make any allowance for oaths that are textually distinct but functionally identical. Additionally, in examining the rights granted to all nations by the Bill of Rights, the Court has found nothing which requires an alternate oath to be permitted or accepted by the Speaker.

Therefore, the Court finds that alterations to the oath cannot be permitted, and that they render the oath, and thus the application for citizenship, invalid. The Attorney General's brief lays out a succinct argument for why this must be the case. Permitting applicants to change the text would force the Speaker to adjudicate the fine line of what is and is not a valid identifier, or what qualifies as a change to the content of the oath that alters its meaning. It is also quite likely that, when the holder of the office changes, so too will the Speaker's interpretation of what is permitted. There is too great a risk that permitting the Speaker to make a judgement call on the content of the citizenship oath will result in unequal treatment under the law.

On Violation of Fair and Equal Treatment

Finally, the petitioner has stated that the Speaker has violated his right to fair and equal treatment under the Bill of Rights due to inconsistency in accepting and denying citizenship oaths whose texts have been altered from that which was set out in the law.

In reviewing the evidence presented, the Court firmly agrees with the petitioner. His right to fair and equal treatment has been violated, and so has that of other nations who submitted altered citizenship oaths in their applications. Accepted or denied, they have not been treated equally.

The Attorney General is absolutely correct that the scale of this unequal treatment is beyond the power of the Speaker to remedy. Establishing a policy now and enforcing it consistently going forward would not address prior missteps, and would not change the citizenship status of anyone who has it and should not, or who does not have it and should.

However, the Court does have the power to alleviate some of the iniquity. In accordance with precedent set on the question of continued citizenship of Treize Dreizehn, we find that the citizenship previously granted to individuals who altered the text of their oaths is valid. They may continue to be counted as citizens, entitled to all of the rights and privileges afforded to any other citizen under our laws until and unless they lose citizenship by normal legal processes.

Additionally, we find it necessary to address the validity of the oaths these citizens took. Although the Court has found that alterations to the oath render it invalid, we also believe it would do irreparable harm to rule that altered oaths which have heretofore been taken and accepted are invalid and not legally binding. Such a move would introduce iniquity between citizens who swore the correct oath, and who could therefore be prosecuted for Gross Misconduct, and those who did not and therefore could not.

Based on the evidence the court has reviewed as part of this request, the majority of incorrect oaths appear to be unintentional - likely copied, or based on, an earlier legal version of the current oath. Therefore, we extend the principle of good faith that was established in the ruling on Treize Dreizehn's citizenship. Those citizens who took an incorrect oath are granted the presumption of having acted in good faith, of having intended to swear the correct oath but making a simple mistake. As such, they will also be presumed to be bound by the correct oath as it stood in the law at the time of the citizen's admittance.

However, the court cannot categorically determine that there are no current citizens who specifically intended to swear an incorrect oath and did not intend to be bound by the correct citizenship oath, but who were nevertheless granted citizenship. Accordingly, the court will allow 60 days for any citizen who swore an incorrect oath to reject the presumption of good faith that has been afforded to them, and to petition the Court to release them from the obligations of the citizenship oath. Anybody released from the oath in this fashion will simultaneously forfeit their citizenship. The Speaker, or any individual authorized to act on their behalf, must contact the citizens affected by this ruling and advise them of their right to relinquish citizenship.

On The Speaker's Responsibility and Authority to Determine a Valid Oath

The Speaker and their designees are expected to accept valid applications not rejected by forum administration or the Vice Delegate. This language necessitates they determine the validity of applications, and not blindly grant citizenship to anybody who posts anything in the application thread.

The Speaker is therefore instructed to accept applications only if they contain the citizenship oath exactly as specified under the law. Further, the Speaker is instructed to reject any application which contains text that clearly indicates an intention not to abide by the oath, or by which the applicant makes clear that they are not swearing the oath or applying for citizenship.

On Duality

Lastly, the petitioner has raised the idea of multiple accounts, nations, or identities belonging to a single player being treated differently based on the phrasing used in swearing the citizenship oath. The Court wishes to make clear that the use of “the leader of” in a citizenship application does not mean that the oath applies only to the actions taken by that specific nation. Any player bound by the laws of The North Pacific is not released from their legal obligations solely by acting under another name or capacity.
 
I thank the Court for this ruling, and the Speaker's Office will promptly begin reviewing our records for citizens who have sworn the incorrect oath and inform them of this ruling and advise them of their rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top