Gotta undo the oath.

[Deleted]

AD, read the section. No writ could be granted if the oath isn't recited as stated in section 1 of 37rz3. It was a mistake on the SOS's part for issuing something that was worthless as it violate the law. The citizenship for Mr. Benjamin cannot stand under the current wording of the law. By the wording of the law, no writ could be granted, therefore, what was granted has no legal binding. (http://kingdomoftalossa.net/index.cgi?lingo=&page=Statute&act=37RZ3)

[Deleted]

Let's look at it in terms of process. If someone applies for citizenship and, on the first day, is issued a writ of citizenship, that writ would be invalid and not legally binding because it would have violated the law. This is what we have here, we have a process that wasn't followed and has therefore nullified the citizenship.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Then the SoS is at fault. Nonetheless, that does not mean he has the power to take back a Grant. Once it is issued, it is done. This is made clear by Umpteenth's language, which states (as I quoted): "At the time this Royal Grant is issued, and from that point forward, the applicant shall be a full citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa."

Accordingly, they are granted all rights, including the Covenantal protection against expulsion for any reason but renunciation or a Cort ruling.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jan 15, 2013 1:46:51 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

Let's look at it in terms of process. If someone applies for citizenship and, on the first day, is issued a writ of citizenship, that writ would be invalid and not legally binding because it would have violated the law. This is what we have here, we have a process that wasn't followed and has therefore nullified the citizenship.

No. In fact, that writ would be valid and binding. We'd probably fire the SoS, but there is no provision for ever taking back a Grant.

[Deleted]

37RZ3 came after 32RZ22 and sort to clarify. Section 3 of 37RZ3 clearly states that a writ cannot be issued if the oath is not recited as stated in section 1. Being as a writ could not be issued, whatever the SoS did is meaningless. Considering that 37RZ3 came after 32RZ22, I would say that 37RZ3 woudl supersede 32RZ22.

But we are now talking in circles and I doubt we will convince each other. I foresee this going to the Cort.

[Deleted]

Jan 15, 2013 1:48:37 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Jan 15, 2013 1:46:51 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

Let's look at it in terms of process. If someone applies for citizenship and, on the first day, is issued a writ of citizenship, that writ would be invalid and not legally binding because it would have violated the law. This is what we have here, we have a process that wasn't followed and has therefore nullified the citizenship.

No. In fact, that writ would be valid and binding. We'd probably fire the SoS, but there is no provision for ever taking back a Grant.

*IF* the grant itself is inorganic or violates statutory law, it has no legal binding. The SOS can issue grants all day but if they do not adhere to the process of immigration as given to us by the law, they are worthless.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jan 15, 2013 1:51:10 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

37RZ3 came after 32RZ22 and sort to clarify. Section 3 of 37RZ3 clearly states that a writ cannot be issued if the oath is not recited as stated in section 1. Being as a writ could not be issued, whatever the SoS did is meaningless. Considering that 37RZ3 came after 32RZ22, I would say that 37RZ3 woudl supersede 32RZ22.

But we are now talking in circles and I doubt we will convince either of us. I foresee this going to the Cort.

If the writ was not supposed to be issued, then that is the fault of the SoS. In which case, you can say that he has broken the law. You cannot say that the writ is void because the law was broken unless the Cort rules as such, because only the Cort has the power to retract citizenship, no matter how it was issued.

Statutes are equally binding; latter ones do not have more power than the former ones.

[Iustì Carlüs Canun]

I am going to wait for a Cort decision on the matter.
I would rather stand by my decision and be shown to have been wrong than try to correct it and turn out to have been right in the first place.
In my defence, I believe I can show dishonesty on M:sr Benjamin's part. Since the oath was returned edited, but still in the "quote" box, I believe it to have been intentional deceit, hoping I wouldn't actually read the oath.

The questions a court would have to answer here:
Even if I went back and edited out the grant, is it still considered to have been issued?
If so, then M:sr Benjamin is a citizen until such time as someone (probably me in this case) takes him to court over returning an incomplete oath.
If it's not considered to have been issued, then we're arguing over nothing, because he was never a citizen to begin with, and he's free to return the complete oath and become one.

Which leads to this: Do I have the power to rescind the grant, it having been brought to my attention that said grant should not have been issued to begin with?
If so, there's nothing to argue about, and we should all go back to what we were doing.
Should a court rule the other way, however, I will happily reinstate M:sr Benjamin's citizenship.

However, until such time as a decision is made by some court or other, I will stand by my decision, and whatever happens, happens.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

They are both still citizens; you can try and have them prosecuted and have their citizenship revoked. The clear letter of the law prohibits your action. The Umpteenth Immigration Act provides that, "At the time this Royal Grant is issued, and from that point forward, the applicant shall be a full citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa." Accordingly, after the Grant has been issued - at that moment - they are protected by the law. And the Sixteenth Covenant establishes very explicitly that no one can lose their citizenship unless they voluntarily renounce or the Cort strips them of it. The SoS is nowhere granted the power to strip citizenship from citizens.

[Deleted]

Jan 15, 2013 1:55:03 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Jan 15, 2013 1:51:10 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

37RZ3 came after 32RZ22 and sort to clarify. Section 3 of 37RZ3 clearly states that a writ cannot be issued if the oath is not recited as stated in section 1. Being as a writ could not be issued, whatever the SoS did is meaningless. Considering that 37RZ3 came after 32RZ22, I would say that 37RZ3 woudl supersede 32RZ22.

But we are now talking in circles and I doubt we will convince either of us. I foresee this going to the Cort.

If the writ was not supposed to be issued, then that is the fault of the SoS. In which case, you can say that he has broken the law. You cannot say that the writ is void because the law was broken unless the Cort rules as such, because only the Cort has the power to retract citizenship, no matter how it was issued.

Statutes are equally binding; latter ones do not have more power than the former ones.

Then we are dealing with two laws that exist in full force that directly contradict each other. My reading of 37RZ3 is that no royal grant of citizenship can be issued unless they recite the oath as given in section 1. You're saying under clause 7 of 35RZ22, it doesn't matter because the grant was issued. I'm going to point out that that very line is inorganic in the notion that it contradicts the right of the Cort to invalidate or revoke citizenship if they find the person was dishonest during the process.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jan 15, 2013 2:01:56 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

Then we are dealing with two laws that exist in full force that directly contradict each other. My reading of 37RZ3 is that no royal grant of citizenship can be issued unless they recite the oath as given in section 1. You're saying under clause 7 of 35RZ22, it doesn't matter because the grant was issued. I'm going to point out that that very line is inorganic in the notion that it contradicts the right of the Cort to invalidate or revoke citizenship if they find the person was dishonest during the process.

There is no contradiction. You are just arguing that the SoS broke the law by issuing the writ. That does not invalidate the writ, which the law clearly states immediately provides full rights and citizenship - including the protection against losing said citizenship except by renunciation or Cort ruling. If the statute said that only redheads will be granted citizenship, and a brunette immigrated but later dyed their hair, the SoS could not strip their citizenship. In the same way, the SoS is not the Oath Police.

What would be inorganic about that statute? The Cort can already strip citizenship for any crime, as delineated in the OrgLaw in two separate places.q

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Let me put this another way that may be clearer: the SoS is not any sort of enforcer or police. If you do think that they broke the law and were dishonest in getting citizenship by altering the oath or rescinding it, respectively, then the only body that can strip them of that citizenship in penalty is the Cort.

[Ián B. Anglatzarâ]

I'm reconsidering my citizenship now.

Calmer now. But this stinks.

[Deleted]

Jan 15, 2013 2:08:35 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Jan 15, 2013 2:01:56 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

Then we are dealing with two laws that exist in full force that directly contradict each other. My reading of 37RZ3 is that no royal grant of citizenship can be issued unless they recite the oath as given in section 1. You're saying under clause 7 of 35RZ22, it doesn't matter because the grant was issued. I'm going to point out that that very line is inorganic in the notion that it contradicts the right of the Cort to invalidate or revoke citizenship if they find the person was dishonest during the process.

There is no contradiction. You are just arguing that the SoS broke the law by issuing the writ. That does not invalidate the writ, which the law clearly states immediately provides full rights and citizenship - including the protection against losing said citizenship except by renunciation or Cort ruling. If the statute said that only redheads will be granted citizenship, and a brunette immigrated but later dyed their hair, the SoS could not strip their citizenship. In the same way, the SoS is not the Oath Police.

What would be inorganic about that statute? The Cort can already strip citizenship for any crime, as delineated in the OrgLaw in two separate places.q

I'm saying that because the process as prescribed by law wasn't followed, no grant could not be issued. What you're implying is that the SoS can cart blanche issue grants of citizenship all day with complete and utter disregard for Organic and statutory law. I'm saying that if the process is not followed, the SoS had no right to issue the grant. If he had no right to issue the grant, no grant could have been issued. In the case of Mr. Benjamin, the process was violated and therefore, it didn't matter what the SoS did because no grant could be issued.

The wording of clause 7 is as follows, "Any and all objections raised to the immigration made after this Royal Grant will be moot." Which would mean, it wouldn't matter if the person lied on their application because, frankly, it is moot. It cannot be used against them. This directly contradicts the Organic right of the Cort under Article XVIII, Section V, for the Cort to address an objection about the person's citizenship application and, if they determined they lied, would have the right to revoke citizenship. If it is all moot, the Cort cannot use that information. But, the right of the Cort to investigate an application of a citizenship and possibly determine that the person was dishonest or committed fraud during the process and therefore revoke citizenship is organic, therefore it would nullify the part of statutory law that says everything prior to the grant is moot.

[Deleted]

Jan 15, 2013 2:10:23 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Let me put this another way that may be clearer: the SoS is not any sort of enforcer or police. If you do think that they broke the law and were dishonest in getting citizenship by altering the oath or rescinding it, respectively, then the only body that can strip them of that citizenship in penalty is the Cort.

But if he didn't have the right to issue the grant, no grant could be issued. What your suggesting is the total and absolute power of the SoS to grant citizenship outside of the process prescribed in the law.