# \[PRE-TRIAL\] Civil Suit: The Fourth Imperium v. The Citizenship Office **URL:** \ **Category:** The Conclave\ **Created:** [February 10, 2024, 1:34am UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/pre-trial-civil-suit-the-fourth-imperium-v-the-citizenship-office/17786 "2024-02-10T01:34:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 8
**Author:** ![Zukchiva](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/zukchiva/32/15649_2.png) [@Zukchiva](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Zukchiva)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2024, 12:07am UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/pre-trial-civil-suit-the-fourth-imperium-v-the-citizenship-office/17786/8 "2024-02-21T00:07:04Z")
The Conclave presents its verdict: > [@](#): > > ![](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/uploads/default/original/1X/7cb763aa5ae42b0275b55b5cadf5299cccb4a3d3.png) > Ruling on Admissability of Pre-Trial Motion for The Fourth Imperium v. The Citizenship Office > > The Conclave unanimously declares the following. > > Per the Standing Orders of the Conclave, the Conclave must decide on whether a trial should go forward based upon the merit and need for trial. It is the Conclave’s opinion that this Pre-Trial motion should be **dismissed** due to a lack of need regardless of merit. > > The Conclave understands the Plaintiff’s concerns in being denied citizenship simply due to following the orders of the Eastern Pacific Sovereign Army. However, the requests made by the Defense to maintain Citizenship - a forum post by the Plaintiff followed by verification by the Army’s Overseeing Officer - were reasonable and ultimately would have allowed the Plaintiff to keep Citizenship without much issue in the necessary timeframe of 48 hours. > > Beyond this case, the Conclave also believes this matter is better handled by directly fixing the legislation in question. In that vein, the Conclave recommends the Magisterium to re-examine how the Army exemption set out in the Citizenship Act Section 3.7 interacts with the rest of the Act (since it is not clear how Section 3.6 interacts with the exemption) and resolve the conflict established by the Citizenship Act’s Army exemption in Section 3.7 and the Army exemption in Section 5.5 of the Eastern Pacific Sovereign Army Act. > > Therefore, the Conclave unanimously considers this motion for trial **inadmissible and dismissed**. > > * * * > > > [@](#): > > > > > **Arbiter Bachtendekuppen attaches the following concurring opinion within this spoiler, representing his own more specific thoughts on the matter. Arbiter Libertanny supports this opinion.** > > > > > > I concur with today’s ruling, but write separately to explain my thinking on some issues we encountered with the Citizenship Act (CA) and the EPSA act. > > > > > > The Citizenship Office (“the Office") performed a Citizenship audit under Section IV of the Citizenship Act concluding, among other things, that GE’s recorded WA Nation was without WA, and he would lose citizenship unless a correction or change was made within 48 hours. That same day, but after the audit was completed, the OO of EPSA affirmed applicants’ status as an active EPSA soldier. To no avail, as the Office took the position that “_citizens themselves notify us of WA status change here, and the OO assent_”, and “_As God-Emperor has indicated that he would prefer to be stripped of citizenship than change status for the EPSA exception benefits, I’m not sure your affirmation will be sufficient.”._ The Office has not clarified since whether it was sufficient or not. GE has not made a post. > > > > > > GE made an application for suit, and this Conclave published an injunction pending pre-trial adjudication. > > > > > > Pouring over the Citizenship Act, one finds that a Citizen of TEP must “_maintain continuous WA membership with the nation they stated as their WA nation in their application_” (CA 3.5). An exception applies, as “_Clauses 3.2 and 3.5 shall not apply to any active soldier of the Eastern Pacific Sovereign Army (“EPSA”) as verified by the Overseeing Officer._” (CA 3.7). > > > > > > The law does not state when or how it is to be determined that a Citizen is an active EPSA soldier. The law does however state that the Grand Vizier shall lead and set out the procedures of the Office (CA 2.2.) using “_an official forum thread (“Thread”) that can be utilized for official records, inquiries, the posting of applications, acceptance or denial of applications, acceptance of requests, and other purposes as seen proper by the Office or this law_” (CA 2.4). > > > > > > And the Grand Vizier has done so. The first post of said thread contains the Grand Vizier’s rule that \_“If you are an EPSA soldier, you must indicate “EPSA” as your WA nation. The Overseeing Officer will confirm your membership to the Office.”. > > > > > > GE has not done so. Moreover, it is not in dispute that the OO verified GE’s status as EPSA soldier only after the audit. One could therefore assume that the audit itself was correctly performed. > > > > > > But our misery does not end here. Does the verification of the OO, without GE posting anything, suffice as a remedy under 4.2 CA? Because 3.7 CA does not grant exemption from 4.2, and 4.2 does not mention mere affirmation of EPSA-status _after the audit_ as a remedy. And there is more. Section 5.5 of the EPSA-act plainly states that “_Residents of The East Pacific will not lose their Citizenship if (…) their World Assembly nation changes on the orders of the EPSA_”. So even if one would assume that the CA points to GE losing his Citizenship, the EPSA act plainly bars such consequences. Can the Office apply 4.2 CA without breaking 5.5 of the EPSA Act? > > > > > > So in all probability, a trial would lead to a verdict where the Conclave cannot find the audit regarding GE to be nullified, as it was properly conducted, while TEP law both says GE loses Citizenship (4.1 CA) and doesn’t (EPSA Act 5.5). I call it Schrödingers’ Citizenship. > > > > > > TEP law as involved in this issue would benefit from the Magisterium sorting out these issues, rather than a cumbersome civil trial ending unavoidably in the above conclusion. > > > > > > For these reasons, I concur. This thread will be locked in a few days. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/pre-trial-civil-suit-the-fourth-imperium-v-the-citizenship-office/17786)._