I’m not sure that this wording actually fixes the loophole. It states that only citizens and residents may face trial. However, what happens if someone resigns citizenship, moves out of the region, commits treason, and then reapplies for citizenship?
One could argue that since they were not a citizen or resident at the time, they were not subject to our laws.
I feel like a better compromise would be, the praesidium may deny residentship thus citizenship to prospective TEP members should they have reasonable and evidentiary belief that the member in question committed treasonous acts against TEP. Any member that is denied with the following reason however, may appeal the ban through TEP’s judicial processes.
Fuck, you’re so right. Fixed.
There’s still a problem if we don’t find out about it until after they’re in the region. What you’ve described is exactly how we already work – it’s not a compromise, it’s the status quo.
There’s a difference between having the right to a trial or not, and whether TEP law applies. If it states that a Citizen or Resident may face trial, it doesn’t say that TEP law does not apply to a non-Citizen or non-Resident.
So in your scenario, if you’re not a Resident or Citizen, you can just be banned for treason without a trial. But TEP law still applies.
I would also like to note that the Conclave has changed its views on this on appeal:
See [APPELLATE TRIAL] The East Pacific v. Soramra (JoWhatup) - #21 by Merlo
With respect to this reversal, I withdraw this amendment.
Acknowledged