[Chambers] On the ability of the Speaker to retract incorrectly granted citizenship

I would like more information, specifically if they were officially added to the citizen role list, or if it was caught immediately. As I might argue that such a distinction matters.

I suppose it might be a good idea to also assess the fail state of an application. One could argue that the Speakers errant acceptance is irrelevant because the application had already failed citizenship checks, and therefore couldn't attain citizenship as the speaker cannot unilaterally overrule those checks. The citizenship would therefore be invalid as any other action but denial is per 6.1.7

Now, as for the removal the errant citizenship. I suppose it depends on if they were ever actually added to the role list. If they were, then the speaker would have to go manually remove them, thus removing their citizenship, but if they simply were fixing what one could equate to a 'typo', then I would say that they were never technically granted citizenship to begin with.

(I am still unsure of how much I like the above argument, and will post more in the morning)
 
Last edited:
Well, I can say that as of yesterday when I started the runoff vote that Land of Broken Dreams was still on the sheet. However, I don't consider inclusion on the sheet to be the point that citizenship actually begins. It begins when the Speaker (or a deputy) makes the post on the forum. The citizenship application thread(s) is(/are) the source of truth.

As to my thoughts on LBD's citizenship... The Speaker's office granted it errantly, but it is not for the Speaker to withdraw it. That's up to the Court.

Now, in the past case with Treize_Dreizehn, it was impossible to say that they were never a citizen to begin with without having to unravel everything they did while a citizen. Is that a benchmark to consider, that one must have had some irreversable effect with their citizenship for the court to say that they can keep it? In the case of LBD, since the forum indicates their last login time to be May 16th when they applied for citizenship, it's safe to assume for now, as of when I typed this that they haven't privately voted in the runoff, so there remains nothing to unravel as far as I can see. If they had done something more than apply for citizenship and disappear, I'd say we couldn't revoke their citizenship, but that's not the case here.


Side note: As one of the Election Supervisors for the special judicial election, I do know the definitive answer to whether LBD voted privately, but obviously I cannot reveal the answer. So, do we need to tell the Election Commission not to count the votes until this R4R is resolved, on the off chance they do sign in again and privately vote?
 
For my initial thoughts, I agree with the line of thinking submitted in Pallaith's brief. Legal Code 6.1.7 states that the Speaker will reject any application that failed evaluation by Vice Delegate or Administration. The absolute wording brings us to this indisputable fact - if an applicant fails either the Vice Delegate check or Administration check, the Speaker will reject their citizenship. This did not happen in this case, so I must conclude that the Speaker’s Office acted unlawfully in granting citizenship to Land of Broken Dreams though they had failed one of the two core evaluations.

The second action, where the Speaker revoked Broken Dreams' citizenship after realizing the error, I conclude to also be an unlawful action for the following reasons. As stated in Legal Code Section 6.2 and as it is cited in Pallaith's brief, the Speaker is given a finite number of reasons in which they are allowed to remove citizenship from a person. As stated in Pallaith's brief, removing citizenship from a nation after realizing an error is not one of the listed reasons in the Legal Code. Such an action is not legally accounted for, therefore the action is unlawful.

I am not wholly confident in Zyvet's reasonings, but some of his explanations caught my eager eye. Zyvet cites the past ruling on Promptness and the Time at which Regional Assembly Membership Begins and Ends. Zyvet notes that the decision of the Speaker to remove citizenship from Broken Dreams may be lawful because of what was at the time of RA Membership Legal Code Section 6.1.10. This provision is now Section 6.1.16 and gives the Speaker 14 days to accept or reject an application. Failure to acknowledge an application in that period results in the applicant automatically obtaining citizenship. What is interesting about the way this provision of the law is used by Zyvet is that Zyvet argues that when the Speaker officially accepts an application, if there is still time left in the 14 days as outlined in 6.1.16, then the remaining time could then be used by the Speaker to correct any mistakes they may have made along the way. I find this argument to be in contradiction with the portion of the RA Membership ruling which states, "membership is neither gained nor lost until the Speaker's Office acknowledges that fact, with the sole exception of the two week limit on the waiting period for RA applicants." Knowing that the RA is made up of all citizens as said in the Constitution Article 2.2, the acceptance of citizenship and acceptance into the RA are legally connected. So, in interpreting this excerpt from the ruling, I am of the belief that it is stating that membership into the RA, or in this case citizenship as well, is dependent on the final word of the Speaker's Office. The exception being Section 6.1.16, where the 14 day time period is for when the Speaker's Office gives no word at all.

As far as the citizenship of Broken Dreams I am inclined to side with the perspective that the Court should order their citizenship to be removed. Aside from their lack of involvement in regional business, citizenship should not have been granted.
 
Kronos:
This did not happen in this case, so I must conclude that the Speaker acted unlawfully in granting citizenship to Land of Broken Dreams though they had failed one of the two core evaluations.

The second action, where the Speaker revoked Broken Dreams' citizenship after realizing their error,...
Click to expand...
It wasn't Speaker Fregerson that first acted unlawfully. It was Deputy Speaker Caius.
 
Sil Dorsett:
It wasn't Speaker Fregerson that first acted unlawfully. It was Deputy Speaker Caius.
Click to expand...
I will rephrase the mentioning of the Speaker in the first quoted paragraph with “Speaker’s Office” for accuracy thanks for catching that.
 
I don't consider inclusion on the sheet to be the point that citizenship actually begins. It begins when the Speaker (or a deputy) makes the post on the forum. The citizenship application thread(s) is(/are) the source of truth.
Click to expand...
That's fine by me, and I tend to agree.

The action of both giving the Citizenship despite failed checks and then taking it away are not in accordance with the law. The Court being the entity to remove the citizenship is cleanest here, as this isn't very likely to happen again.

I would point out this method could be exploited pretty effectively by a maliciously acting speaker. Will comment more tonight.
 
Last edited:
While we wait for the rest of Tlomz's comments I will begin writing a draft opinion covering what we have agreed upon up to now.
 
Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
On the Ability of the Speaker to Retract Citizenship
Opinion drafted by Chief Justice Kronos, joined by Justice Sil Dorsett and Justice Lord Dominator​

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by Fregerson.

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here and its addendum here by Pallaith.

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

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Constitution of the North Pacific:
Article 2. The Regional Assembly

10. The Speaker may appoint deputies to assist them in the execution of any of their powers and duties. Appointment of deputies may be regulated by law and the rules of the Regional Assembly.

-

Article 4. The Court

2. Reviews of laws or government policies and actions must be made by request of an affected party unless there is a compelling regional interest in resolving it.
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Legal Code of The North Pacific:
Chapter 6: Regional Assembly Statutes

Section 6.1: Citizenship Applications

7. The Speaker will reject applicants who fail an evaluation by either forum administration or the Vice Delegate.

-

16. 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.

-

Section 6.2: Administration and Loss of Citizenship

-

18. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens whose removal is ordered by the Court, or whose registered nations in The North Pacific leave or ceases to exist.
19. 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 with their registered nations.
20. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens whose registered nations in The North Pacific are not in the World Assembly, except as part of an operation with the North Pacific Army, if their citizenship was granted by the Regional Assembly after failing an evaluation by forum administration.
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Regional Assembly Rules:
Section 3. Deputy Speaker and Vacancies

2. Unless otherwise specified by law, the Speaker may delegate any of their powers and duties to the Deputy Speaker. Delegation under this section does not relieve the Speaker of any of their powers and duties. Any provisions of law related to the powers and duties of the Speaker, when exercised by the Deputy Speaker under the provisions of this clause, shall apply to the Deputy Speaker.
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the post made by forum administration here.

The Court took into consideration the post made by Deputy Speaker Caius here.

The Court took into consideration the post made by Speaker Fregerson here.

The Court took into consideration prior rulings of the Court here, here, and here.

The Court opines the following:

On Standing

The Speaker filed an inquiry for review of the granting of citizenship for The Land of Broken Dreams by Deputy Speaker Caius and the question of whether or not the Speaker has the legal authority to retract a citizenship granted in error. Article 4.2 of the Constitution says reviews of laws or government policies and actions must be made by request of an affected party unless there is compelling regional interest. The definition of an affected party comes from case law ruled in On Standing and the Definition of Affected Party which says an affected party, with respect to one's ability to request judicial review, is someone who reasonably perceives that their rights have been infringed through action or inaction undertaken by a governmental body or bodies. An affected party also, according to the ruling, includes those affected, adversely or otherwise, by laws passed by the regional assembly and policies enacted by the executive and judicial branches of government. Considering this, the Court finds that the Speaker has no personal standing in this review because their rights have not been infringed upon through the actions taken nor have those actions personally affected them in such a way as to make them perceive that their rights were violated.

However, there is a compelling regional interest both in providing clarity to the citizenship process regarding the Speaker's abilities to grant and remove citizenship from a person, and in upholding the integrity of the citizenship process to maintain the integrity of our regional security. With Article 4.2 of the Constitution including the regional interest exception, this case was accepted.

On the Granting of Citizenship

As said in the petitioner’s request, Section 6.1 of the Legal Code governs the process of citizenship. Within the citizenship process evaluations conducted by the Vice Delegate and Administration take place. Should any of these evaluations fail, the Speaker's Office is bound by Section 6.1.7 of the Legal Code to reject the application. In this case, the nation The Land of Broken Dreams failed the administrative evaluation, but their citizenship was officially granted by the Speaker’s Office. For this reason, the Court finds that granting citizenship to The Land of Broken Dreams was unlawful.

On the Retraction of Citizenship

While Section 6.1 of the Legal Code governs the process of how citizenship may be obtained, Section 6.2 of the Legal Code governs the various ways in which citizenship can be removed. The Court agrees with the interpretation that the list of provisions in Section 6.2 is exhaustive and accounts specifically for the provisions within it. Bearing this in mind, it can be seen clearly that the Speaker has the legal authority to remove citizenships so long as they fully meet any of the criteria set in Section 6.2.18-20. As was argued, removing citizenship after granting citizenship in error is not among the aforementioned provisions.

Thus, The Court finds that the retraction of citizenship from The Land of Broken Dreams was unlawful.

There was an interpretation presented to the Court involving Section 6.1.16. This section of the Legal Code states that the Speaker's Office has 14 days to accept or reject an application. If an application does not receive a formal acceptance or rejection after the 14 day period, citizenship is granted automatically. The interpretation presented to the Court argued that the 14 day period does not end after citizenship is granted or rejected. Instead, it is argued that the 14 day period continues from beginning to end allowing the Speaker's Office to use any remaining time in the period to correct any mistakes like granting citizenship in error. This cannot be the case. There is no way to grasp this interpretation from the law or regional custom. In the ruling On Promptness and the Time at which Regional Assembly Membership Begins and Ends an applicant is not accepted or rejected until the Speaker's Office declares it. The exception to this being the 14 day period in which case citizenship is automatically granted if the Speaker’s Office does not give an official acceptance or rejection at all. We take this to mean that a citizen’s application becomes final in two ways: (1) When the Speaker's Office gives an official notice of acceptance or rejection, and (2) if the 14 day period expires without an official response from the Speaker’s Office. As the Court took into account common practice at the time of the Promptness ruling, we shall do the same. Common practice shows that the official declaration of acceptance or rejection from the Speaker’s Office is considered final. Once an official acceptance or rejection is handed down by the Speaker's Office, the application is considered fully processed. The Speaker’s Office does not have the legal room to alter an application's status after the official declaration has been given. Therefore, the law, court precedent, and common practice currently do not make room for the possibility that this presented interpretation can exist.

On the Solution

As it was unlawful to grant citizenship to The Land of Broken Dreams and unlawful to retract it, and the Speaker’s Office cannot legally undo these unlawful actions, it now falls to the Court to decide a solution to the issue at hand. In the ruling of On the Permanence of Rejected Applications for the Regional Assembly it was decided that despite the granting of membership for Treize_Dreizehn into the Regional Assembly, or becoming a citizen, being unlawful, they could continue to hold membership until such a time as they lost citizenship naturally. The main factor behind this decision was that Treize had been acting as a member of the Regional Assembly in good faith for four months and was heavily involved in the Regional Assembly and the Attorney General's Office. To undo their past actions, along with their citizenship, would require a redo of every vote they ever participated in. Performing this, the Court ruled, was impractical, impossible, and an infringement of the Bill of Rights.

The Court continues to agree with this opinion and makes note of a key difference in this case. That difference being the amount of time The Land of Broken Dreams had been a citizen and the amount of involvement they have in the region so far. As it was argued in a brief, citizenship for The Land of Broken Dreams was accepted on May 19th. There is no evidence in the briefs that support the argument that good faith applies to this case nor does The Land of Broken Dreams in this case find themselves in a similar position to Treize as described in case law. As was argued in brief, a quick glance at the nation's activity shows they have not been seen on the forum since May 16th. Therefore they could not have voted in any elections or Assembly votes that date between May 16th and present day so there are no actions to consider.

Therefore, The Court rules the retraction of citizenship from The Land of Broken Dreams overturned. Following this, it is ordered that the citizenship of The Land of Broken Dreams be removed in accordance with Section 6.2.18 of the Legal Code. The Land of Broken Dreams should be notified by the Speaker's Office of their ability to reapply for citizenship and, if they are formally rejected through legal means, they may appeal their rejection in accordance with regional law.

Here is a draft opinion. Any and all feedback is welcome!
 
I disagree with the justification described in the "On Standing" portion. I do not believe Speaker Fregerson would have been vulnerable to legal repercussions, as the error was not theirs. Deputy Speaker Caius is responsible for the action. However, the question of whether the Speaker must live with the decisions and actions made by Deputy Speakers, even when they know that decision was wrong, is one that I believe would fall under compelling regional interest. Therefore, I would agree that this case was reviewable.

In the "On the Granting of Citizenship" section, I don't believe the matter of the ability to appeal the failed admin check actually matters so much in this case. It was more of an additional effect. However, I agree with the end result that the granting of citizenship was unlawful.

In the "On the Retracting of Citizenship" section, you mentioned that "in the ruling On Promptness and the Time at which Regional Assembly Membership Begins and Ends an applicant is not accepted or rejected until the Speaker declares it." Did you mean "until the Speaker's Office declares it" instead of "until the Speaker declares it?" There's a big difference there, because if it's "Speaker" and not "Speaker's Office", then technically the Speaker (specifically Fregerson in this case) always has the final say, and that doesn't seem to be what the previous ruling decided. Same thing later in the paragraph: "When the Speaker gives an official acceptance or rejection..." Should that be "When the Speaker's Office gives an official acceptance or rejection...?"

I disagree with the "On the Solution" section's justification, although I agree with the end result. I don't believe "good faith" really mattered in the case of Treize_Dreizehn in On the Permanence of Rejected Applications for the Regional Assembly. In that case, citizenship could not be retroactively removed because it would "simultaneously be required [of the Court] to order a recount of all such legislative, non-legislative, and electoral votes, as well as a review of all actions taken as a government official and, potentially, a reopening of voting for any election in which Treize was a candidate. Such alteration of accepted fact is neither practical, possible, nor permitted by the Bill of Rights." On the Form of the Oath of a Delegate is similar. Pallaith didn't argue that the delegate's actions were made in good faith and therefore should stand. He argued that it would be impractical to completely undo a Delegate's actions made while acting under an improperly taken oath. In the case of LBD, removing their illegitimate citizenship does not disrupt past or ongoing regional business, and therefore this action can be done.

Feels as though we might be in concurring opinion territory. We agree on the result. We're just getting there in different ways.
 
I had a feeling some or most of what I wrote either missed the mark or was simply inaccurate. My focus near the end was mostly on finishing the draft.

The standing I knew would depend more on the regional interest than the standing because the main reason the question was brought before the Court was because Fregerson wanted to know if these actions could have consequences in the future. And as both one who did not grant the citizenship and the one who retracted it, Fregerson is not an affected party in any of those scenarios. I was thinking there may have been some standing there based on how the relationship between Speaker and Deputy Speaker works, but it was quite the grasp.

The ability to appeal is an additional effect as it was argued. I added it into the opinion to simply expand on the effect of the unlawful action that's the main purpose it serves there.

In the Retracting Section I need to switch those around to say Speaker's Office I will at some point discover why I keep doing that.

For the good faith portion at the bottom, after being away from the opinion for a few hours, looking back at it I don't really see the relevance I thought talking about good faith had. Zyvet in his brief even said good faith doesn't apply in this case and I agree it does not. I guess I was trying to make it known that was what the Court thinks, that good faith worked in the previous rulings but it doesn't work here.
 
Kronos:
In the Retracting Section I need to switch those around to say Speaker's Office I will at some point discover why I keep doing that.
Click to expand...
Probably because most of the Legal Code references to the word "speaker" refer to the Speaker. I suppose it doesn't actually matter; I forgot about Article 2, Clause 10 of the Constitution, meaning "then technically the Speaker (specifically Fregerson in this case) always has the final say" wasn't correct anyways. Let me rethink that part...
 
Last edited:
I made some edits to the draft. First I removed my reasoning to prove standing and made the primary standing in this review the compelling interest of regional security. The line discussing 6.1.10 was removed. The changes from Speaker to Speaker's Office in the Granting Citizenship section have been made. And at the end in the solution section I removed the discussion regarding good faith. This makes the opinion much shorter than it was previously which I consider better than saying more given the straightforwardness of the questions being asked.
 
I made some more minor edits to the draft. I removed 6.1.10 from the above section as well as the previous court rulings that accounted for good faith. Since they are no longer in the opinion I do not think they need to be mentioned. If common practice has it that they are mentioned regardless of whether or not they are actually used I will put those pieces back in the draft.

I've also been thinking more on the section for Standing. We have found that this case carries a compelling regional interest, that being regional security, but we have found also that the Speaker, personally, does not have standing in this review because they are not an affected party. I feel like the Court should iterate that along with the compelling interest but I'm not wholly sure.
 
Here's how I would word the paragraph on standing...

The Speaker filed an inquiry for review of the granting of citizenship for The Land of Broken Dreams by Deputy Speaker Caius and the question of whether or not the Speaker has the legal authority to retract a citizenship granted in error. As the petitioner is not directly impacted by the decisions made by Deputy Speaker Caius and themselves, the petitioner does not have standing on their own. However, there are regional security implications regarding the errant granting of citizenship, and there is a question of whether the Speaker must simply live with the actions taken by their deputies, even actions the Speaker knows are wrong, once powers of the office are delegated. The court finds this of sufficient and compelling regional interest to resolve.
Click to expand...

Also, please add the following to the draft, as the "assist them..." portion of the line is relevant.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Constitution of The North Pacific:
Article 2. The Regional Assembly
-
10. The Speaker may appoint deputies to assist them in the execution of any of their powers and duties. Appointment of deputies may be regulated by law and the rules of the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I added the provision of the Constitution to the draft.

I don't agree that the question of the case includes whether or not the Speaker has to live with a mistake as a factor. Whether or not someone has to live with a mistake is not something that sounds relevant enough to act as a compelling interest for the Court to review. I think the more meritorious compelling interest at stake here is regional security because of its close ties with citizenship. Quite literally speaking, if the citizenship process is tampered with or performed incorrectly as we have witnessed in this case, the security of the region itself could be at risk. That to me sounds more important over whether or not a government official has to live with what's occurred. In my opinion the Court has already answered the questions needing to be answered.

I think the section on standing should be worded as such.
The Speaker filed an inquiry for review of the granting of citizenship for The Land of Broken Dreams by Deputy Speaker Caius and the question of whether or not the Speaker has the legal authority to retract a citizenship granted in error. As the petitioner is not directly affected by the granting of the citizenship or the retraction of it, they do not have standing as an affected party. However, there is a compelling regional interest when it comes to citizenship. Citizenship shares very close ties with regional security. To uphold the process for citizenship is to uphold regional security. The petitioner's request was accepted on these grounds.
Click to expand...
 
I would agree more with Sil in regards to standing, if slightly modified - I view it more as a case of justifiable concern about the powers of the Speaker’s office in cases of citizenship, which the Speaker has an interest in de-facto. That is, I view the fact that the original granting was made by a DS to be irrelevant, since the question is about retraction of the error is our question, and the answer would be the same whether the Speaker or a DS did it.
 
Kronos:
What modifications do you believe need to be made?
Click to expand...
In terms of standing, I’m still thinking on specifics. I have greater thoughts on the solution section, which I need to fully conceptualize/write before sharing (particularly as stuff relates to our new admin check override).
 
Lord Dominator:
In terms of standing, I’m still thinking on specifics. I have greater thoughts on the solution section, which I need to fully conceptualize/write before sharing (particularly as stuff relates to our new admin check override).
Click to expand...
Rough notes:
Essentially, I would auggest the regional security justification in Standing be replaced by something saying that, as the actions concern the powers of the R4R filer (the Speaker) both as their general office (the initial mistaken acceptance by a deputy) and the Speaker themself (in the subsequent retraction of the same).

That is, the Speaker has standing in this instance because they are filing concerning both the actions of the appointed deputy (and thus the office as a whole) & their actions personally. They are thus inherently an affected party (the wording of the Constitution, which does not require it to be adverse). If you prefer that in regional interest terms - it is in the regional interest that the ability of the Speaker to grant/remove citizenship is well-defined. That regional interest is a good place to also put the security bit, but I view “citizenship is important to regional security“ as a poor standing justification on its own, when there’s better options existing by the nature of the R4R filer.
 
The nature of the filer's government position, though I agree it should be taken into account to allow government officials to question their own actions, is not regarded when accounting for standing in a case. Article 4.2 of the Constitution says reviews of laws or government policies and actions must be made by request of an affected party unless there is compelling regional interest. Of course affected party is vague in this provision and leaves it open to interpretation until it is more clearly defined. That definition, however, lies in a previous ruling of the Court named On Standing and the Definition of Affected Party and it says, "an affected party, with respect to one’s the ability to request judicial review, is someone who reasonably perceives that their rights have been infringed through action or inaction undertaken by a governmental body or bodies. An affected party also include those affected, adversely or otherwise, by laws passed by the regional assembly and policies enacted by the executive and judicial branches of government." Based on this definition, the Speaker's rights were not infringed upon. Now, you could argue that the passing of Section 6.1 of the Legal Code fits under the "laws passed by the regional assembly" which give the Speaker personal standing, but that is such a stretch it would be better to simply stick with the compelling regional interest.

But, legally speaking, the Speaker was not personally affected by the citizenship being granted in error, and the Speaker was not personally affected by retracting the citizenship after it was mistakenly granted. The Speaker in the initial request said that as the Speaker and head of the Speaker's Office, the actions taken, and the ruling of this Court on the matter, may leave the Speaker's Office open to future legal battles, specifically regarding criminal charges. This Court cannot determine whether someone does or does not have standing based on what may happen to them in the future. This Court can only rule on what has already happened. Considering that and the case law, the Speaker does not qualify as an affected party and thus has no standing in that regard. The only standing they brought in this review is the compelling interest of regional security, which fits with what is said in 4.2 of the Constitution. From my perspective, the Legal Code defines the Speaker's abilities in granting/removing citizenship rather clearly. Clear enough that the Speaker's Office themselves should have known as much. Though there is always the chance that perhaps this clarity isn't currently realized. So, I will add the Speaker's ability to grant/remove citizenship being more defined to the draft alongside regional security.

I edited the Standing portion of the Draft to say this.
The Speaker filed an inquiry for review of the granting of citizenship for The Land of Broken Dreams by Deputy Speaker Caius and the question of whether or not the Speaker has the legal authority to retract a citizenship granted in error. Article 4.2 of the Constitution says reviews of laws or government policies and actions must be made by request of an affected party unless there is compelling regional interest. The definition of an affected party comes from case law ruled in On Standing and the Definition of Affected Party which says an affected party, with respect to one's ability to request judicial review, is someone who reasonably perceives that their rights have been infringed through action or inaction undertaken by a governmental body or bodies. An affected party also, according to the ruling, includes those affected, adversely or otherwise, by laws passed by the regional assembly and policies enacted by the executive and judicial branches of government." Considering this, the Court finds that the Speaker has no personal standing in this review because their rights have not been infringed upon through the actions taken nor have those actions personally affected them in such a way as to make them believe that their rights were violated.

However, there is a compelling regional interest both in providing clarity to the citizenship process regarding the Speaker's abilities to grant and remove citizenship from a person, and in upholding the integrity of the citizenship process to also uphold the integrity of our regional security. With Article 4.2 of the Constitution including the regional interest exception, this case was still accepted regardless of the Speaker's lack of standing.
Click to expand...

Gentle reminder that this coming Monday, June 6th, marks day 14 of our 14 day deliberation period. While the Court Rules say we will "endeavor", meaning try very hard, to reach an opinion within 14 days of the brief period closing, I'd still like if this opinion was issued before then and especially before it passes.
 
Fair points all aroun, I’m good with that version - the important bit in my view is that we’re talking about the powers of the Speaker re: citizenship, and that adequately covers it.
 
Yes

Looking back at the prior draft for the Solution section I agree with the beginning and also with the removal of the good faith portion. However, unlike those cases we are not dealing with significant activity from the individual to be removed (or a sitting delegate) & also with the admin check, not an oath or the VD check. Those can both be reasonably overcome by a good faith standard. As the admin check is based on looking for duplicate people and the like. Further, the Regional Assembly has created a method of overturning the admin check for specific individuals. Considering both factors (though either one is sufficient), it would be improper to not undo all accidentally passed admin checks (this case in particular however just at this time obviously) while instructing the Speaker to inform the individual now lacking citizenship of their option to appeal as such. In regards to overturning all actions, that is problematic no matter the length (for instance, someone who has voted is still counted for turnout counts, which would necessitate editing the vote totals on all voted actions in their time as a citizen), absent extreme reasons to make that necessary.
 
I am very uncomfortable with what that implies. This case is very specific to a single nation so including others that have faced a similar incident, if others even have, would be venturing way outside the scope of this review.
 
I agree with Kronos on this. We should stick to the question we were asked, which is whether Fregerson removing LBD's citizenship after it was attained improperly was legal.
 
Sorry, will have a full reply tonight to finish out my stuff - got a bit busy and wasn’t able to finish up. Will be good to go then.
 
Okay. To be clear, I have no issues with the draft at present, and would be joining on the opinion. I only have a more expanded reasoning on why/how they’re being dropped from citizenship (and why we shouldn’t try to undo a citizenship entirely to null their actions as a citizen absent good reason). I have spoilered for convenience, forgive my minor errors.

As it was unlawful to grant citizenship to The Land of Broken Dreams and unlawful to retract it, it now falls to the Court to decide a solution to the issue at hand. In the ruling of On the Permanence of Rejected Applications for the Regional Assembly it was decided that despite the grant of citizenship being invalid, Treize Dreizehn could continue to hold citizenship until such time as they naturally lost it. Crucially however, this opinion opens by indicating it is the opinion of the Court that there was then little to no existing legal guidance as to who had the power to reverse a prior rejection by the Vice Delegate. This is not the case with the admin check, where it is abundantly clear that only an admin can do so. With no ambiguity possible, any consideration of how good faith actions as a citizen are is irrelevant, as they clearly never met the legal requirements at the time and there is no reason to continue to allow them to be a citizen any longer.

The opinion in On the Permanence of Rejected Applications for the Regional Assembly makes mention of the possibility of retroactively nullifying every action made while Treize Dreizehn was a citizen, it is as unwise to do so in this case as it was then. Undoing every previous action by an individual as a citizen is not a option to be taken lightly, and would almost certainly be unconstitutional to boot.

Therefore, while the removal by the Speaker of The Land of Broken Dreams citizenship was itself illegal, the granting of said citizenship itself remains illegal and their citizenship is hereby removed by order of the Court. Any actions or votes they may have taken as a citizen that were dependent on holding citizenship will be considered legal, and the Speaker’s office should directly inform them of their removal as a citizen, how to reapply, and the ability to ask for any admin denial of their citizenship be overturned (should such happen again).

This is only slightly different in my mind to my original post of reasoning above (I realized the difference that matters is the ambiguity in the other case, and consequently the lack of such here). In any case, assuming you both continue to disagree with it I would ask that it be included as a concurring opinion - that is, something to the effect of “LD joined on [sections] and concurs on [section] regarding what is to be done for different reasons”. [text of above, probably in a spoiler]
 
Last edited:
I don’t wholly agree with what the explanation is saying. It brings up good faith as shown in the Permanence ruling and also in the ruling named On the Oath of a Delegate where a Delegate‘a entire term was called into question because of an invalid oath. The Court ruled all of their actions were legal because even though the oath was invalid, they acted in good faith as if the oath was valid, and that made all the difference.

It has been stated both in brief and in deliberation that the good faith exception that has been handed down in those previous rulings does not apply in this case so I do not agree with keeping LBD’s actions as legal. And, the citizenship of LBD was retracted, albeit illegally, but even then they are technically not a citizen at this time so they would not be able to participate in most regional business where citizenship is required.

The profile of LBD on the forum has also not been seen online since the day they registered. If they had supposedly done anything during that time, their last seen date would be more recent. However it has not changed, bringing me to believe that the Court does not need to consider any actions taken by LBD, because no actions have been take by LBD. That is what makes me disagree with most of the proposed reasoning.

Even though it has been consistently said that good faith in this case is irrelevant, should we still mention it in the ruling even when it doesn’t apply?
 
Sil Dorsett:
... citizenship could not be retroactively removed because it would "simultaneously be required [of the Court] to order a recount of all such legislative, non-legislative, and electoral votes, as well as a review of all actions taken as a government official and, potentially, a reopening of voting for any election in which Treize was a candidate. Such alteration of accepted fact is neither practical, possible, nor permitted by the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...
I still contend that this is the deciding factor, and "good faith" had nothing to do with it. I don't see a reason to add any reference to good faith to the solution section.
 
My only mention of good faith is to say it doesn’t apply (because there’s no ambiguity in their citizenship being illegally granted) - perhaps the idea on why actions of citizenship shouldn’t be undone obliquely includes that, but it’s entirely secondary to the main point of “we really shouldn’t be retroactively undoing citizenship without a good reason.”

I have however edited down the middle section per Sil, as I realize that’s essentially what I was missing last night.
Kronos:
Even though it has been consistently said that good faith in this case is irrelevant, should we still mention it in the ruling even when it doesn’t apply?
Click to expand...
In this case, entirely to say that it doesn’t apply - in consideration of the closest thing to precedent this instance has, I believe it necessary to say that factors considered there are not being considered because they’re irrelevant.
Kronos:
The profile of LBD on the forum has also not been seen online since the day they registered. If they had supposedly done anything during that time, their last seen date would be more recent. However it has not changed, bringing me to believe that the Court does not need to consider any actions taken by LBD, because no actions have been take by LBD. That is what makes me disagree with most of the proposed reasoning.
Click to expand...
I’m unclear, are you arguing that we should be officially undoing their actions as citizen (or more likely, their affect on voter turnout)? The only remaining parts of my draft bit that deal with their actions is indicating that their actions will continue to be legally valid, and the now-deleted bits only dealt with why we would not be undoing them retroactively.
Kronos:
I don’t wholly agree with what the explanation is saying.
Click to expand...
Well yes, I rather figured - which is why I asked about it being attached as concurring, as unless there’s disagreement over the point of retroactivity we agree on the solution, just evidently not why we say this solution.
 
Lord Dominator:
I’m unclear, are you arguing that we should be officially undoing their actions as citizen (or more likely, their affect on voter turnout)? The only remaining parts of my draft bit that deal with their actions is indicating that their actions will continue to be legally valid, and the now-deleted bits only dealt with why we would not be undoing them retroactively.
Click to expand...
I was saying that we should not even consider the actions of LBD because there are none to consider. LBD was last seen online May 16th, and that date has not changed for the entirety of this case so I concluded based on this information that there are no actions to decide keeping valid/striking as invalid because there are no actions to look at. The only concern then, is whether or not the granting and retracting of his citizenship was legal, of which the court already knows the answer.
 
Kronos:
I was saying that we should not even consider the actions of LBD because there are none to consider. LBD was last seen online May 16th, and that date has not changed for the entirety of this case so I concluded based on this information that there are no actions to decide keeping valid/striking as invalid because there are no actions to look at. The only concern then, is whether or not the granting and retracting of his citizenship was legal, of which the court already knows the answer.
Click to expand...
Ah, I understand. If the intent is to edit that draft bit I made into something for the actual opinion I don’t mind it’s removal as such (I believe in covering bases, even if it isn’t strictly necessary) for the purpose of agreement/adding the whole to it - otherwise see my notes on concurrence.
 
Lord Dominator:
Ah, I understand. If the intent is to edit that draft bit I made into something for the actual opinion I don’t mind it’s removal as such (I believe in covering bases, even if it isn’t strictly necessary) for the purpose of agreement/adding the whole to it - otherwise see my notes on concurrence.
Click to expand...

I understand your point of mentioning good faith even if it doesn't necessarily apply. It was argued in a brief after all that alone gives it some room to be considered if only just in short part of the opinion. I edited the draft to say this in the solution section what are you thoughts on this?
As it was unlawful to grant citizenship to The Land of Broken Dreams and unlawful to retract it, it now falls to the Court to decide a solution to the issue at hand. In the ruling of On the Permanence of Rejected Applications for the Regional Assembly it was decided that despite the granting of membership for Treize_Dreizehn into the Regional Assembly, or becoming a citizen, being unlawful, they could continue to hold membership until such a time as they lost citizenship naturally. The main factor behind this decision was that Treize had been acting as a member of the Regional Assembly in good faith for four months and was heavily involved in the Regional Assembly and the Attorney General's Office. To undo their past actions, along with their citizenship, would require a redo of every vote they ever participated in. Performing this, the Court ruled, was impractical, impossible, and an infringement of the Bill of Rights.

The Court continues to agree with this opinion and makes note of a key difference in this case. That difference being the amount of time The Land of Broken Dreams has been a citizen and the amount of involvement they have in the region so far. As it was argued in a brief, citizenship for The Land of Broken Dreams was accepted on May 19th. There is no evidence in the briefs that support the argument that good faith applies to this case nor does The Land of Broken Dreams in this case find themselves in a similar position to Treize as described in case law. Therefore, the Court agrees that the good faith exception does not apply in this case and the actions of The Land of Broken Dreams are then susceptible to being undone. However, the Court will not order any actions be undone in this case. As was argued in brief, a quick glance at the nation's activity shows they have not been seen on the forum since May 16th. Therefore they could not have voted in any elections or Assembly votes that date between May 16th and present day so there are no actions that can be undone by the Court.

Therefore, The Court rules the retraction of citizenship from The Land of Broken Dreams overturned. Following this, it is ordered that the citizenship of The Land of Broken Dreams be removed in accordance with Section 6.2.18 of the Legal Code. The Land of Broken Dreams should be notified by the Speaker's Office of their ability to reapply for citizenship and, if they are formally rejected through legal means, they may appeal their rejection in accordance with regional law.
Click to expand...
 
I disagree with the following line.
Therefore, the Court agrees that the good faith exception does not apply in this case and the actions of The Land of Broken Dreams are then susceptible to being undone.
Click to expand...
This would imply that actions could be undone, which conflicts directly with...
To undo their past actions, along with their citizenship, would require a redo of every vote they ever participated in. Performing this, the Court ruled, was impractical, impossible, and an infringement of the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

Are you implying that if the actions a nation took were minimal then they could be overturned or undone? That's not how I read that section of On Permanence. My reading is that undoing anything would be an infringement of the Bill of Rights. This is how I would write the penultimate paragraph...

The Court continues to agree with this opinion and makes note of a key difference in this case. That difference being the amount of time The Land of Broken Dreams has been a citizen and the amount of involvement they have in the region so far. As it was argued in a brief, citizenship for The Land of Broken Dreams was accepted on May 19th. There is no evidence in the briefs that support the argument that good faith applies to this case nor does The Land of Broken Dreams in this case find themselves in a similar position to Treize as described in case law. Therefore, the Court agrees that the good faith exception does not apply in this case and the actions of The Land of Broken Dreams are then susceptible to being undone. However, the Court will not order any actions be undone in this case. As was argued in brief, a quick glance at the nation's activity shows they have not been seen on the forum since May 16th. Therefore, they could not have voted in any elections or Assembly votes that date between May 16th and present day so there are no actions that can be undone by the Court., should the Court attempt to undo them, would result in an infringement of the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah that is mostly what I was implying my reasoning is because Permanence is one of the only examples of case law on good faith. The situation in that case seems very similar to this one with noticeable differences. And with the Court explaining how the nation had acted in good faith for four months I interpreted that as being a sort of minimum for the good faith exception. I will make the edits suggested but for the latter edits at the end can I instead end the sentence early with "...Assembly votes that date between May 16th nd present day so there are no actions to consider"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top