Gotta undo the oath.

[Iudas Levì Bentxamì]

So am I not a citizen either since I scratched the bit about the King from my oath?

[Iustì Carlüs Canun]

You did no such thing. I sent you the oath, you returned an exact quote of it with "So sworn" and your name at the bottom.
Not a strikethrough to be found.

[Iudas Levì Bentxamì]

The backspace key generally doesn't leave a strikethrough.

[Iustì Carlüs Canun]

Upon further investigation: Well, how about that? You didn't return the oath I sent you. So I guess you're not a citizen.
Any more questions?

[Iudas Levì Bentxamì]

Duly noted.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Estimats cüncitaxhiêns, it is on like Donkey Kong. The SoS has stripped at least one Talossan (two?) of their citizenship on the technicality that they don't want to swear allegiance to the Talossan monarchy. Nothing more calculated to bring about a Radical Republican uprising could be imagined.

As far as I am concerned, Andy L and Judah B are both still citizens of Talossa, and I hope the incoming party leader will set out a strategy to deal with this in his closing speech to the ZRT convention. I urge Peculiarist and ModRad leaders - as well as those members of the CSPP who don't consider this fair play - to consult with us ASAP on a plan of action.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Of course it's so convenient to ignore the fact that S:reu Lowry actually told the SoS to throw him out. I love creative rewriting of facts.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

The SoS chose to take that "request" seriously. The SoS made Andy Lowry choose between his Republican principles and his Talossan citizenship. This will not stand.

I made something of a conscious hypocrite of myself taking the oath, but I will certainly not condemn any other citizenship for refusing to do so. The SoS has made a grave mistake here which will certainly reflect on this Government's future.

[Iustì Carlüs Canun]

Jan 14, 2013 22:22:00 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

I am enforcing the law as it stands. The law says "no oath, no citizenship." End of discussion.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Has it not crossed your mind whether this was wise to do so?

Oh, I see, you're Mr Bean. Clearly not, then. But you've singlehandedly ripped the goodwill of Reunision wide open. Now Republicans have no choice but to fight to remove the Oath, rather than agreeing to ignore it or to hypocritically swear it. You have bought the Royalist leadership of Talossa the fight of its life. Well done.

[Iustì Carlüs Canun]

Jan 14, 2013 22:35:32 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Has it not crossed your mind whether this was wise to do so?

My job is to enforce the law. I have done so.
Was it wise of M:sr Benjamin to refuse to swear the oath, as the law requires him to do?

Oh, I see, you're Mr Bean. Clearly not, then. But you've singlehandedly ripped the goodwill of Reunision wide open.

There was goodwill?

Now Republicans have no choice but to fight to remove the Oath, rather than agreeing to ignore it or to hypocritically swear it. You have bought the Royalist leadership of Talossa the fight of its life. Well done.

Weren't you going to fight it anyway? The ZRT has had 44 seats in the Cosa this entire time. Five different people could have proposed a bill to change the Oath, but no one has.

[Vitxalmour Conductour]

While one may be able to make coherent, compelling and logical arguments that the retraction of the Oath of Citizenship should equal a renunciation of Citizenship, there is currently nothing in the Organic Law or Statutory Law supporting such correlation. Such an assumption has as much grounds as the assumption that the Oath could be amended to one's personal taste, in that neither have any current standing in Talossan law. It would behoove supporters of either assumption to draft legislation regarding such an interpretation.

[Deleted]

The SOS asked Lowry if he still wished to withdraw his citizenship, Lowry responded in the affirmative. Therefore, the SOS did not strip him of his citizenship because he refused to take the oath. Lowry made the decision to no longer be a citizen and, according to the law, the SOS obliged. This isn't confusing.

The law also states that one *must* take the oath to be a citizen. Being as it has come up that a person never took the oath, that person technically was never a citizen. Therefore, the SOS, also following the law, updated Kingdom records. This isn't confusing.

If either Lowry or Benjamin feel they have been wronged, it is up to them to take it to the Cort. If you want to see the policy changed, start lobbying to get the votes in the Ziu. This isn't confusing.

Otherwise, quit making accusatory remarks and making it seem like we're on the path to tyranny with an abusive SOS. If you have an issue with the law, work to change it. This isn't confusing.

I'm seriously not understanding how this is in any way confusing or how certain individuals here can so blatantly revision what happened when we can all scroll back up to the posts and see for ourselves.

[Vitxalmour Conductour]

Jan 14, 2013 23:28:49 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

The SOS asked Lowry if he still wished to withdraw his citizenship, Lowry responded in the affirmative. Therefore, the SOS did not strip him of his citizenship because he refused to take the oath. Lowry made the decision to no longer be a citizen and, according to the law, the SOS obliged. This isn't confusing.

He was not asked if he wanted to withdraw his citizenship, he was asked, "Do you still wish to withdraw your signature from the oath, with the knowledge that doing so will end your citizenship?" I merely posit that there is nothing in Talossan Law which indicates that such a withdrawal would end his citizenship. Whether his response counts as a renunciation is irrelevant to my point.

The law also states that one *must* take the oath to be a citizen. Being as it has come up that a person never took the oath, that person technically was never a citizen. Therefore, the SOS, also following the law, updated Kingdom records. This isn't confusing.

Perfectly correct.

[Deleted]

Jan 14, 2013 23:47:01 GMT -6 Vitxalmour Conductour said:

Jan 14, 2013 23:28:49 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

The SOS asked Lowry if he still wished to withdraw his citizenship, Lowry responded in the affirmative. Therefore, the SOS did not strip him of his citizenship because he refused to take the oath. Lowry made the decision to no longer be a citizen and, according to the law, the SOS obliged. This isn't confusing.

He was not asked if he wanted to withdraw his citizenship, he was asked, "Do you still wish to withdraw your signature from the oath, with the knowledge that doing so will end your citizenship?" I merely posit that there is nothing in Talossan Law which indicates that such a withdrawal would end his citizenship. Whether his response counts as a renunciation is irreleveant to my point.

The law also states that one *must* take the oath to be a citizen. Being as it has come up that a person never took the oath, that person technically was never a citizen. Therefore, the SOS, also following the law, updated Kingdom records. This isn't confusing.

Perfectly correct.

Then it is up to the Cort to decide or for a new clarifying law to be introduced and passed. Nevertheless, the only person that can bring this case would be Mr. Lowry himself.