|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 15, 2013 2:22:29 GMT -6
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. And yet they were issued. You might blame the SoS or be angry with him about it, but it happened. The SoS can indeed just issue writs all over the place, to whomever he wants, in defiance of the law and process. It would be insane and silly, but he could do it. The Cort would then have to strip them from those citizens, which would be an annoying but simple ruling on their part ("Given the clear violation of procedure and laws set down, and in accordance with the principles behind them, we hereby rule that the grants of citizenship to Bob Bobson and Son Bobbob are invalid.") The SoS is nowhere given the power to examine citizens and strip them of their citizenship if he decides their process was flawed. 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. That sentence makes little sense out of context. That's why I quoted the whole clause two pages ago. It refers to objections made during the petitioning period, not any petitions at all. But even if that were true, it's irrelevant. That is not the relevant section of the statute. The relevant section is where it says that once the grant is issued, the immigrant is a full citizen. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 15, 2013 2:25:55 GMT -6
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. Example to make it clearer: if the SoS granted citizenship to someone who mistyped their birthdate on their app as 1893 instead of 1983, would he have the power to strip them of their citizenship three years later, because the procedure was not exactly followed? Or if the SoS granted you citizenship when you were one day short of the required period, through an oversight, could he now strip you of your citizenship at will? Of course not. Only the Cort could do that. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 2:32:14 GMT -6
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. And yet they were issued. You might blame the SoS or be angry with him about it, but it happened. The SoS can indeed just issue writs all over the place, to whomever he wants, in defiance of the law and process. It would be insane and silly, but he could do it. The Cort would then have to strip them from those citizens, which would be an annoying but simple ruling on their part ("Given the clear violation of procedure and laws set down, and in accordance with the principles behind them, we hereby rule that the grants of citizenship to Bob Bobson and Son Bobbob are invalid.") The SoS is nowhere given the power to examine citizens and strip them of their citizenship if he decides their process was flawed. 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. That sentence makes little sense out of context. That's why I quoted the whole clause two pages ago. It refers to objections made during the petitioning period, not any petitions at all. But even if that were true, it's irrelevant. That is not the relevant section of the statute. The relevant section is where it says that once the grant is issued, the immigrant is a full citizen. I disagree here. If the law states that a grant cannot be issued unless A, B, and C are met, then the SOS has no right to issue citizenship. Those people were never citizens. It may take the Cort to say that,but it would still stand that they were, in fact, never citizens. Also, I see that line as important. Its ambiguity makes the line inorganic. There is no indication in the text prior to the final line implies that the final line is only related to the petitioning period. That may be the spirit of the law but it is not matching the wording of the law. And I believe it is completely relevant because it addresses the right of anyone, including the SOS, to raise an issue,such as a violation of the lawful process, to question a citizenship grant. Finally, clause 4 also says, "An examination period shall begin with the perspective citizen's first posting to Wittenberg after his introduction by the Immigration Minister. At any time at least fifteen days after the beginning of the examination period, any current citizen of Talossa may petititon the soS requesting that a Royal Grant of Citizenship be issued to the prospective citizen." Right there, the very basic process to becoming a citizen is enshrined in the Organic Law. The SOS does not have carte blanche to issue grants. Any grant he issues that is not in accordance with the process as prescribed has no legal binding as he had no right. We're not convincing each other and we're saying the same thing ad nauseum. Thank you for the discussion. I look forward to the Cort cases that will settle this issue. Also, thank you for demonstrating that it is possible for we Talossans to disagree with each other, debate, and not resort to name calling or attacking. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 2:35:45 GMT -6
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. Example to make it clearer: if the SoS granted citizenship to someone who mistyped their birthdate on their app as 1893 instead of 1983, would he have the power to strip them of their citizenship three years later, because the procedure was not exactly followed? Or if the SoS granted you citizenship when you were one day short of the required period, through an oversight, could he now strip you of your citizenship at will? Of course not. Only the Cort could do that. Last post only because I saw it after, I promise. First question - apples and oranges. That was an honest mistake. The SOS would not have power to rescind my citizenship because I am now a citizen. Every other part of the process was followed. The CORT could step in and determine that I intentionally said I was born in 1893 and therefore was dishonest. But that is not what happened here. Second question - more on topic. The process was not followed *and* is inorganic. The SOS had neither the Organic nor statutory right to grant me citizenship. Therefore, I would not be a citizen. What you are suggesting is that the SOS has extra-organic power here. This is a road I do not want to walk down. If this is how the Cort decides, I trust I'll be teaming up with the ZRT to introduce an amendment to end curb this awesome power. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 15, 2013 2:39:59 GMT -6
I disagree here. If the law states that a grant cannot be issued unless A, B, and C are met, then the SOS has no right to issue citizenship. Those people were never citizens. It may take the Cort to say that,but it would still stand that they were, in fact, never citizens. You don't seem to disagree, since this is exactly my view. Emphasis is very much on the last sentence. The SOS does not have carte blanche to issue grants. Any grant he issues that is not in accordance with the process as prescribed has no legal binding as he had no right. Indeed, this may be the case. It would, however, take a Cort ruling to determine this and strip citizenship. The SoS cannot do it unilaterally. That is my entire point. I also thank you for the discussion. Iusti, please reinstate both citizens. You do not have the power to strip their citizenship under any circumstances short of explicit renunciation. And if you are unsure pending Cort guidance, then that argues for NOT expelling them, not leaving them expelled or in legal limbo until you consult authorities. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 15, 2013 2:46:00 GMT -6
Example to make it clearer: if the SoS granted citizenship to someone who mistyped their birthdate on their app as 1893 instead of 1983, would he have the power to strip them of their citizenship three years later, because the procedure was not exactly followed? Or if the SoS granted you citizenship when you were one day short of the required period, through an oversight, could he now strip you of your citizenship at will? Of course not. Only the Cort could do that. Last post only because I saw it after, I promise. First question - apples and oranges. That was an honest mistake. The SOS would not have power to rescind my citizenship because I am now a citizen. Every other part of the process was followed. The CORT could step in and determine that I intentionally said I was born in 1893 and therefore was dishonest. But that is not what happened here. Second question - more on topic. The process was not followed *and* is inorganic. The SOS had neither the Organic nor statutory right to grant me citizenship. Therefore, I would not be a citizen. What you are suggesting is that the SOS has extra-organic power here. This is a road I do not want to walk down. If this is how the Cort decides, I trust I'll be teaming up with the ZRT to introduce an amendment to end curb this awesome power. The SoS has only such power as is organic. Your reaction surprises me, because your view seems to hold that the SoS can strip anyone of citizenship unilaterally if he can find even the smallest flaw in their admission process and personally decides it was not an "honest mistake." Such a power would be obviously open to abuse, given the frequency of small errors. Our SoS is obviously not so petty, but a single person should not be both the police and judge in such a matter. Indeed, the law provides that the Cort are the judges in such matters, not the SoS. |
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jan 15, 2013 4:06:06 GMT -6
Calmer now. But this stinks. Yes. I'm glad I waited until the morning to respond to yesterday's developments. Iusti, please reinstate both citizens. You do not have the power to strip their citizenship under any circumstances short of explicit renunciation. And if you are unsure pending Cort guidance, then that argues for NOT expelling them, not leaving them expelled or in legal limbo until you consult authorities. Yes, please. This is Not Cool. As for Andy, I agree with S:reu Davinescu that his words were not a renunciation. It was a statement of "I'm taking back my signature, you do what you will." Even if it could be construed as a renunciation, I do not believe it could be a knowing and voluntary one because it was premised entirely on false information from the SoS. There is no authority or precedent to suggest that an attempt to "withdraw" one's signature from the citizenship oath results in a loss of citizenship. Like I said on Friday: I am aware that an explicit renunciation of one's citizenship has been interpreted (e.g. by the Court of Chivalry) as a repudiation of the oath of citizenship. I am not aware of the reverse situation coming up: a repudiation of the oath without explicit renunciation. As the oath is the creation of statute, it can be a condition of obtaining citizenship (as the Ziu is empowered to legislate regarding the naturalisation process) but whether adhering to the oath can be made a condition of retaining citizenship is a more doubtful question. It would not seem to qualify as a renunciation under Article XVIII Section 9 or 10 of the OrgLaw. Even if an argument could be made that the oath was sworn with fraudulent intent (which I do not believe to be the case here -- I accept Andy's representations on the matter), citizenship could not be revoked without action by the Uppermost Cort (Art XVIII Sec 5). Absent fraud, I'm not sure what crime could apply here. As far as I know we still don't have a legal definition of treason, and we don't have a crime of lese-majesty (nor would one be organic). And that last reference seems to apply to S:reu Benjamin's citizenship as well. The SoS says he believes S:reu Benjamin's oath was taken dishonestly. Well, Article XVIII Section 5 of the OrgLaw explicitly specifies how to deal with fraud or dishonesty in the naturalisation process after citizenship has been granted: "If the Uppermost Cort shall at any subsequent time find any fraud or dishonesty in a Citizen's original application for citizenship, including his statements to the Cort or to Cosâ members; or if the Uppermost Cort shall convict the Citizen for anti-Talossan activities, it may impose the penalty of expulsion from Talossa. The King may commute such a sentence." S:reu Benjamin' citizenship should not have been granted, true. But it is up to the Cort to deal with that, not the SoS. |
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Jan 15, 2013 5:29:18 GMT -6
OrgLaw: Sixteenth Covenant. Talossan citizenship can only be lost by a citizen's voluntary renunciation of citizenship, or as punishment for a crime determined by the Uppermost Cort.
Nothing is said about retracted or altered oaths here, or is it?
In any way, let's get rid of this oath-swearing altogether. NOW NOW NOW.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andreas Lorentz on Jan 15, 2013 5:33:10 GMT -6
...Yes, please. This is Not Cool. As for Andy, I agree with S:reu Davinescu that his words were not a renunciation. It was a statement of "I'm taking back my signature, you do what you will."... Yes, precisely. I was trying to not get all wordy about it, but that's what I was saying. I have no desire to leave, and thought I had previously made that clear. |
|
ián txáglh
člověk/doutetoca/crastiun
Posts: 500
Talossan Since: 6-27-2012 (or earlier)
|
Post by ián txáglh on Jan 15, 2013 5:36:29 GMT -6
I'm reconsidering my citizenship now.Calmer now. But this stinks. the same here. |
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Jan 15, 2013 5:40:50 GMT -6
To be honest, on days like this I have to fight back the feeling that "Reunision" was a mistake.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 6:01:41 GMT -6
Just a reminder, if judicial remedy is sought, someone has to bring suit and file it with the courts.
We aren't Spider-Man, we can't just appear and try to fix stuff (or shoot webs out of our hands which would be mad cool).
|
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Jan 15, 2013 6:47:37 GMT -6
Just a reminder, if judicial remedy is sought, someone has to bring suit and file it with the courts. We aren't Spider-Man, we can't just appear and try to fix stuff (or shoot webs out of our hands which would be mad cool). Can't the SoS just reinstate the citizens? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 7:04:45 GMT -6
Just a reminder, if judicial remedy is sought, someone has to bring suit and file it with the courts. We aren't Spider-Man, we can't just appear and try to fix stuff (or shoot webs out of our hands which would be mad cool). Can't the SoS just reinstate the citizens? I cannot answer that question without getting into opinions that might affect my ability to adjudicate this case if it comes before the UC. What I will say is, if the SoS does reinstate them, does that clarify whether the SoS acted within his authority? Does it help us to understand the limits of the law and which area needs changing? It would be a bandaid. Part of the problem I have been trying to address since I first took over as AG was that we lack meaningful legal precedent. What we have is tradition. Each office has something they have traditionally done (or not done). Then, we (as a country) make new laws, sometimes without repealing old ones, to expand, restrict or modify duties of folks rather than enforcing the laws on the books. If people want to ignore the courts and simply legislate around every single road block, then the courts are limited in being able to protect. Or, someone could file suit against the chancery and we can have a decisive ruling. Because our clerk is out of communication range at the moment (based on the non response to a recent few emails) and (as far as I'm aware) there is no known deputy (a situation we will have to resolve forthwith) and the need for immediate resolution, I will give permission to post in the court sub forum briefs from the affected parties or their legal representative for consideration. |
|
|
|
Post by Iudas Levì Bentxamì on Jan 15, 2013 7:12:06 GMT -6
How would I do that?
|
|
"Ceterum censeo republicam proclamandum esse."
