|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 7:33:14 GMT -6
I sent you a PM.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 8:01:25 GMT -6
Having reviewed the law and my own authority to act in this matter, I have disused an injunction relevant to this case in the matter. It can be located in the Uppermost Court sub forum.
|
|
Óïn Ursüm
Posts: 1,032
Talossan Since: 3-10-2009
|
Post by Óïn Ursüm on Jan 15, 2013 8:08:48 GMT -6
Yeah, the Cort decides disputes over citizenship (it's dealt with the question of "who's a citizen?" in cases such as Talossa v. Loquatsch and Erni v. Talossa). Edit: replaced 'renunciations' with 'disputes over citizenship' |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 9:12:09 GMT -6
I just noticed this Lowry business. Seems it was a busy night last night.
If Mr. Lowry disputes this being a renunciation and still wishes to be a Talossan, he or his attorney, should get in contact with the court or the magistracy and make the necessary appeal for our review of the matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 9:37:29 GMT -6
I still do not follow that if certain criteria must be met for a grant to be issued, and that criteria has not been met, how the SoS suddenly has this magical power to completely ignore the law and issue a grant. Wouldn't such a grant be illegal?
But you know, great day for the rule of law everywhere! We have now made it that new citizens do not have to follow the law and can disregard it as they see fit. (oh, i don't like this, no worry!) This is just the country I want to live in. Great job!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 9:50:58 GMT -6
I still do not follow that if certain criteria must be met for a grant to be issued, and that criteria has not been met, how the SoS suddenly has this magical power to completely ignore the law and issue a grant. Wouldn't such a grant be illegal? But you know, great day for the rule of law everywhere! We have now made it that new citizens do not have to follow the law and can disregard it as they see fit. (oh, i don't like this, no worry!) This is just the country I want to live in. Great job! I don't mind sharing some of my methodology. About six years ago in New York, a young LPN applied for an NYS license. He was moving from out of state and applying for a license issue under a reciprocal agreement with another state. The state issued a Registered Nursing license and sent a corresponding certificate and card. This was problem because the nurse was an LPN, not an RN. So the state sent a letter informing the nurse of the error and asking him to return the erroneous documents. They included a voluntary surrender form that they requested be signed and returned. After some time, the license was not returned and the voluntary surrender was not completed. So, the state department of education (which licenses healthcare professionals in NYS) went through the normal administrative procedures to revoke the license through the state board of nursing. The reason cited was "license issued in error." The state did not simply say "whoops, we're cancelling it." They couldn't. The license, once issued, was issued. Even though it had been issued illegally (the applicant did not meet the educational requirements of the RN license), it didn't automatically void the license. They had to go through the process of either receiving a voluntary surrender or revoking the license. Had the applicant APPLIED for an RN license while only qualifying as an LPN, the department would have been well justified in denying the application. But once they issued the license, only board action can revoke it. Likewise, the law, as written, states that the SoS should only issue a grant when an oath is administered. The SoS would have acted within the confines of the law had he denied the grant on this basis. However, he missed it, he issued the grant. And the law does not allow the SoS to invalidate his own grants. That is a duty reserved for the court. At issue, should the matter be pressed further, will be whether the reworded oath constitutes a fraudulent application (as provided for in organic law). IT will be hard to argue, since Mr. Benjamin didnt hide anything. He didn't lie. He altered the oath and sent it in and the SoS, erroneously or otherwise, accepted it. Since the law does not state that altering an oath is grounds for revocation of citizenship and since the SoS acted outside of his authority by rescinding a grant of citizenship, I ordered the original grant to be restored. Once a grant (or a license) is issued, the recipient is entitled to all of the rights and protections under the law, including the due process of a citizen. It is not for the SoS to make that determination, just as it was not for a clerk of the Department of Education to simply "cancel" the erroneous license. Without such protection, any clerk at the DMV could cancel a drivers license for a real or perceived fault in an original application. Any doctor could simply find him or herself without a medical license one day because an intake worker notices an error in the spelling of a middle name from years ago. Once licensed, these individuals have right to a hearing and normal revocation procedures for their own protection. Likewise, citizens are entitled to the same oversight and should benefit from the same balance and division of power. |
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Jan 15, 2013 9:51:22 GMT -6
I still do not follow that if certain criteria must be met for a grant to be issued, and that criteria has not been met, how the SoS suddenly has this magical power to completely ignore the law and issue a grant. Wouldn't such a grant be illegal? But you know, great day for the rule of law everywhere! We have now made it that new citizens do not have to follow the law and can disregard it as they see fit. (oh, i don't like this, no worry!) This is just the country I want to live in. Great job! Officials acting beyond their brief is something we should take care not to allow to occur. A lawless Talossan society is not one in which I wish to engage in - we must respect the rule of law. That the grant was issued when the criteria wasn't met is irrelevant - the grant was issued anyway. That is to say that the damage was done, and if we are unhappy with that, we should follow due process in rectifying that. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 9:56:14 GMT -6
I still do not follow that if certain criteria must be met for a grant to be issued, and that criteria has not been met, how the SoS suddenly has this magical power to completely ignore the law and issue a grant. Wouldn't such a grant be illegal? But you know, great day for the rule of law everywhere! We have now made it that new citizens do not have to follow the law and can disregard it as they see fit. (oh, i don't like this, no worry!) This is just the country I want to live in. Great job! Officials acting beyond their brief is something we should take care not to allow to occur. A lawless Talossan society is not one in which I wish to engage in - we must respect the rule of law. That the grant was issued when the criteria wasn't met is irrelevant - the grant was issued anyway. That is to say that the damage was done, and if we are unhappy with that, we should follow due process in rectifying that. You mean, like a SOS acting beyond their right to issue illegal grants of citizenship? The grant could not be issued. It doesn't matter what he did because, legally, the grant could not be issued. |
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Jan 15, 2013 10:02:33 GMT -6
Officials acting beyond their brief is something we should take care not to allow to occur. A lawless Talossan society is not one in which I wish to engage in - we must respect the rule of law. That the grant was issued when the criteria wasn't met is irrelevant - the grant was issued anyway. That is to say that the damage was done, and if we are unhappy with that, we should follow due process in rectifying that. You mean, like a SOS acting beyond their right to issue illegal grants of citizenship? The grant could not be issued. It doesn't matter what he did because, legally, the grant could not be issued. Read what Admiral Tim wrote again. He is spot on. The SoS issues citizenship grants. If he does so on incorrect grounds, he can be relieved of his duty or taken to court, but no-one can willy-nilly just revoke the grants. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 10:05:40 GMT -6
Officials acting beyond their brief is something we should take care not to allow to occur. A lawless Talossan society is not one in which I wish to engage in - we must respect the rule of law. That the grant was issued when the criteria wasn't met is irrelevant - the grant was issued anyway. That is to say that the damage was done, and if we are unhappy with that, we should follow due process in rectifying that. You mean, like a SOS acting beyond their right to issue illegal grants of citizenship? The grant could not be issued. It doesn't matter what he did because, legally, the grant could not be issued. If you don't like my above examples, you can also look at marriage as an example. Let's say I get married and Rev. Jones officiates. After the ceremony, Rev. Jones signs my wedding license and returns it to the county to issue a marriage certificate. Then some time later a county clerk notices that my wife is a tree and I'm a minor. (Neither of these are true, but indulge me) The County Clerk erred in issuing me a marriage license. They ought not license trees and minors to wed. However, it was issued. Rev. Jones, assuming he/she is lawfully permitted to officiate marriages in this state, officiated this and followed the appropriate procedure to file the signed license with the county. Now let's say the clerk issues the marriage certificate and THEN notices the issue. It is beyond the scope of a clerk's authority to void a marriage (in this state). The clerk will likely go to court to annul the marriage on the basis that minors cannot marry trees and the license was issued in error, but the clerk cannot, of his or her own free will and accord, simply nullify the marriage no matter how illegal the original error was. "xxx shall be done before xxx can be done" is not the same as "xxx must be done before yyy can be done, otherwise yyy is invalid" |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 10:10:29 GMT -6
Incidentally, the same is true of US Citizenship. Once citizenship is issued, revocation on grounds of fraudulent application or material misstatement comes from the court, not Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Such as here: www.ice.gov/news/releases/1204/120427charleston.htm |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 10:19:13 GMT -6
You mean, like a SOS acting beyond their right to issue illegal grants of citizenship? The grant could not be issued. It doesn't matter what he did because, legally, the grant could not be issued. If you don't like my above examples, you can also look at marriage as an example. Let's say I get married and Rev. Jones officiates. After the ceremony, Rev. Jones signs my wedding license and returns it to the county to issue a marriage certificate. Then some time later a county clerk notices that my wife is a tree and I'm a minor. (Neither of these are true, but indulge me) The County Clerk erred in issuing me a marriage license. They ought not license trees and minors to wed. However, it was issued. Rev. Jones, assuming he/she is lawfully permitted to officiate marriages in this state, officiated this and followed the appropriate procedure to file the signed license with the county. Now let's say the clerk issues the marriage certificate and THEN notices the issue. It is beyond the scope of a clerk's authority to void a marriage (in this state). The clerk will likely go to court to annul the marriage on the basis that minors cannot marry trees and the license was issued in error, but the clerk cannot, of his or her own free will and accord, simply nullify the marriage no matter how illegal the original error was. "xxx shall be done before xxx can be done" is not the same as "xxx must be done before yyy can be done, otherwise yyy is invalid" Actually, if you were issued the license, it would be considered null under the law and it wouldn't take judicial action for the state to say "hey, wait a minute, they didn't meet the criteria, they weren't married." Because, you know, this didn't happen to same sex couples in New Paltz back in 2004 or anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 10:19:49 GMT -6
You mean, like a SOS acting beyond their right to issue illegal grants of citizenship? The grant could not be issued. It doesn't matter what he did because, legally, the grant could not be issued. Read what Admiral Tim wrote again. He is spot on. The SoS issues citizenship grants. If he does so on incorrect grounds, he can be relieved of his duty or taken to court, but no-one can willy-nilly just revoke the grants. Oh please, you're only supporting it because you got what you wanted- a blatant disregard for the law and the process of immigration. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 10:37:02 GMT -6
"xxx shall be done before xxx can be done" is not the same as "xxx must be done before yyy can be done, otherwise yyy is invalid" Actually, it is. shall [shal; unstressed shuh l] Show IPA auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person shall, 2nd shall or ( Archaic ) shalt, 3rd shall, present plural shall; past singular 1st person should, 2nd should or ( Archaic ) shouldst or should·est, 3rd should, past plural should; imperative, infinitive, and participles lacking. 1. plan to, intend to, or expect to: I shall go later. 2. will have to, is determined to, or definitely will: You shall do it. He shall do it. 3. (in laws, directives, etc.) must; is or are obliged to: The meetings of the council shall be public. 4. (used interrogatively in questions, often in invitations): Shall we go? |
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Jan 15, 2013 10:38:27 GMT -6
Read what Admiral Tim wrote again. He is spot on. The SoS issues citizenship grants. If he does so on incorrect grounds, he can be relieved of his duty or taken to court, but no-one can willy-nilly just revoke the grants. Oh please, you're only supporting it because you got what you wanted- a blatant disregard for the law and the process of immigration. I struggle to see the logic and reason in arguing thus. The amount of times you've called Miestra out on getting personal, I would have thought you would have avoided doing so yourself. |
|
