Dr_Oracle v. TheOrangeWizard, May 2018

Case

With bgbba, presiding, on 25th May 2018, Dr_Oracle sued TheOrangeWizard alleging the unwarranted removal of his citizenship. TheOrangeWizard was ordered to restore Dr_Oracle's citizenship.

Proceedings

Dr_Oracle:

I'd like to bring TheOrangeWizard to trial for unwarranted removal of my citizenship

bgbba:

I will preside Dr_Oracle Please State your case

Dr_Oracle:

I have been an active citizen for 7 months, and have contributed a considerable amount of wealth time and 'wisdom' to Yoahtl. In the past week I have been very busy with assignments, but I have still logged in intermittently to check on things. Removing my citizenship has ulterior motives in suppressing my criticism of the present regime

bgbba:

TheOrangeWizard State your case

TheOrangeWizard:

My legal justification is simple: Citizenship is granted at the discretion of the Alcuahtl. As to this particular case, while Dr Oracle has been a tremendously valuable contributor to Yoahtl in the past, he is no longer doing so. Should that change I would be more than happy to grant citizenship once again. He still has the ability to express his criticisms of me in the general channel

Aki:

I’d like to add that oracle has intentionally neglected logging on as a protest of yoahtl’s government and has not sold Obsidian, leading to /secretprojects/ to get Obsidian.

Dr_Oracle:

Thanks for confirming the one party state totalitarianism, Aki

bgbba:

Oracle, do you believe that you are entitled to citizenship on the basis of past contributions?

Dr_Oracle:

There has never been an instance of citizenship being revoked due to an explained temporary lull in activity Not once

bgbba:

TheOrangeWizard Do you dispute this?

TheOrangeWizard:

I can't think of any particular instance so no

Aki:

Yes there is

bgbba:

Example?

Aki:

Me I had to be readded to groups

Modshot:

you left

Aki:

When I joined back after a few months of absence

bgbba:

That didn’t mean you were removed from citizenship ship

Dr_Oracle:

Was your absence explained and temporary

bgbba:

No

Aki:

It was explained though

bgbba:

It was explained

Aki:

And clearly temporary

Dr_Oracle:

Months isn't temporary

bgbba:

But not temporary

Aki:

I’m here now

bgbba:

Bro you left the discord and said you didn’t want to be part of Yoahtl anymore

Aki:

I said I didn’t want to be doxxed Big difference

Modshot:

Aki, bg held off you being taken out for the longest time but I held the order to revoke your citizenship

Aki:

My heart is touched But I am a previous example

bgbba:

Okay, does anybody else have anything to say?

TheOrangeWizard:

I have no further comments

Dr_Oracle:

Nothing further your honour

bgbba:

Okay, so here's the dealio:

The Charter of Yoahtl explicitly states that citizenship is granted at the discretion of the Alcuahtl, but not held at the discretion of the Alcuahtl. What this means, and what has been practiced by all previous alcuahtls dealing with this situation, is clear. The precedent is clear: Citizenship is revoked on grounds of unexplained inactivity or inactivity with insufficient explanation. Oracle has both clearly explained why he is inactive (and remained active in discord), and also not been inactive for long enough or in total enough time to justify the revokation of citizenship.

Furthermore, while creating new citizenships falls to the Alcuahtl as he is in charge of foreign affairs, I hold that the council has an obligation under the charter to have a say in what occurs to citizens once they are granted citizenship, including potential revokation of citizenship. The Charter makes it clear that the Council of Yoahtl is in charge of internal affairs, and that these internal affairs are those which affect the citizens or occur within the territory of Yoahtl.

BustaNuht has remained councillor despite being far more inactive than Oracle. This is an unfair double standard that amounts to a violation of equal treatment under Article 1 Section 7.

I find that Dr_Oracle is entitled to his citizenship until his absence is no longer justified by his explanation for being absent. In addition, I would like to set the precedent that the Alcuahtl must prove that the government has a compelling interest in removing the citizenship, and that the justification for being absent is not sufficient.