Cicero

You should not be that stubborn, twist the wordsand take it out of the context - and / or try to understand my points better.

One more time, there is a difference from being convicted of something from a case being in courts. Also there should be differnce made as well in the nature of transgression. Also, he has the right to fight in the courts and he is not a criminal. That is my point. I did not advise him from lying or concealing. Where the hell are you reading those stuff? Read my post again and think a bit about it before replying and taking out of the context two words.

These two cases do not have anything applicable relevant since there was no intention of concealing or advice for it; there was just a reference to use all legal means possible and that's why advise a lawyer. Also, in the most cases employer is asking about convivtions (and differentiate based on seriousness of it) not about pending court cases (for example, if someone files a suit against a person for some serious matter, for no reason whatsoever - one should not suffer becasause of it - it is a simple logic, applicable in any law)

If you have any proofs provide it since the one that you send was just not applicable for this situation.

I don't advice anyone to lie or to do anything illegal. However, I would advice a immigrant to use all legal means to fight for his right and not label him wrongly or capitulate when he has a great chances of being successful.

Andrew Miller

This is exactly what you wrote:

--------------------------------------------
If your process is pending, you can try to buy some time and extend the
court proceedings as much as reasonable and possible, until the immigration
decision is made.
--------------------------------------------

Maybe you should read what you write before starting claiming that you
didn't do it...

And John doesn't have any immigration application pending - he has
citizenship application pending. And pending criminal charges prohibit him
from getting citizenship. That is the whole point.

--

../..

Andrew Miller
Immigration Consultant
Vancouver, British Columbia
email: [email protected]
(delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
________________________________



"Cicero" <member18614@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > You should not be that stubborn, twist the wordsand take it out of the
    > context - and / or try to understand my points better.
    > One more time, there is a difference from being convicted of something
    > from a case being in courts. Also there should be differnce made as well
    > in the nature of transgression. Also, he has the right to fight in the
    > courts and he is not a criminal. That is my point. I did not advise him
    > from lying or concealing. Where the hell are you reading those stuff?
    > Read my post again and think a bit about it before replying and taking
    > out of the context two words.
    > These two cases do not have anything applicable relevant since there was
    > no intention of concealing or advice for it; there was just a reference
    > to use all legal means possible and that's why advise a lawyer. Also,
    > in the most cases employer is asking about convivtions (and
    > differentiate based on seriousness of it) not about pending court cases
    > (for example, if someone files a suit against a person for some serious
    > matter, for no reason whatsoever - one should not suffer becasause of it
    > - it is a simple logic, applicable in any law)
    > If you have any proofs provide it since the one that you send was just
    > not applicable for this situation.
    > I don't advice anyone to lie or to do anything illegal. However, I
    > would advice a immigrant to use all legal means to fight for his right
    > and not label him wrongly or capitulate when he has a great chances of
    > being successful.
    > Originally posted by Andrew Miller
    > > It is not about the difference between crimes as such has no
    > > relevance - it
    > > is about what you advised, about "buying time".
    > >
    > > John is not yet concealing anything (I hope he won't, for his own
    > > good), but
    > > this is exactly what you suggest him to do by "buying time".
    > >
    > > As you can see on Mr. Wysocki's example "buying time" by concealing
    > > information about the substantial fact that happened between his
    > > citizenship
    > > application and him taking the oath cost him loss of citizenship
    > > and thus
    > > deportation as he is no longer a PR. Do you wish John to face
    > > the same? I
    > > don't.
    > >
    > > Do your own homework and review several other Federal Court cases
    > > like this
    > > and you'll see that even "smaller" crimes that haven't been
    > > disclosed led to
    > > the same unfortunate ending.
    > >
    > > And there is nothing "alleged" here - John admitted to stealing
    > > camera in
    > > his original post.
    > >
    > > --
    > >
    > > ../..
    > >
    > > Andrew Miller
    > > Immigration Consultant
    > > Vancouver, British Columbia
    > > email: [email protected]
    > > (delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
    > > ________________________________
    > >
    > >
    > > "Cicero" <member18614@british_expats.com> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]"]news:1195667.1074925-
    > > [email protected][/url]...
    > > > You seem to be comparing apples and oranges. There is hardly
    > > anything
    > > > similar with those two cases (your link and this case).
    > > > The link is about revocation of citizenship case.
    > > > The gentleman that asked the question is not a citizen and is
    > > not
    > > > concealing anything.
    > > > Also, the case is about the Polish immigrant who concealed that
    > > he is
    > > > under the court proceedings. ("...false representation or fraud
    > > or by
    > > > concealing material circumstances" and "... the issue is whether
    > > Mr.
    > > > Wysocki knowingly concealed his pending criminal charge at the
    > > time he
    > > > took the oath of citizenship.")
    > > > The gentleman here does not want to conceal anything!
    > > > Next, how can you draw parallels peaty theft (allegedly) for
    > > 200$ and
    > > > sexual assault? There is clear difference between misdemeanor
    > > and
    > > > criminal offense?
    > > > Read this about the case, related why he was charged:
    > > > "...signed a document, before a citizenship official, stating
    > > that he
    > > > had not been subject to immigration or criminal proceedings
    > > since filing
    > > > his application"
    > > > Than this:
    > > > "...is charged with an offence under the Criminal Code or an
    > > indictable
    > > > offence under any Act of Parliament."
    > > > This is one more time neither of those two. Why do you want to
    > > make the
    > > > guy criminal or a thief when he is not?
    > > > Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Why you keep
    > > forgetting
    > > > that? With additional time he would get time to defend himself
    > > in the
    > > > court of law.
    > > > Another, how dare you to say to someone:
    > > > "You need to stop smoking, whatever you are smoking"
    > > > That is a rude comment and you should apologize to John.
    > > > Miller is among those who are known to rude, inconsiderate and
    > > arogant
    > > > responses to immigrants here.
    > > > Talk to the lawyer and that is the best way to go! You should
    > > not be
    > > > scared of anything and there are all chances that you will get
    > > your
    > > > citizenship without any problems.
    > > > Originally posted by Andrew Miller
    > > > > Unfortunately "buying time" won't work. See recent Federal
    > > Court
    > > > > decision in
    > > > > similar cases when applicant committed indictable offence
    > > after
    > > > > citizenship
    > > > > application was submitted. Read here:
    > > > >
    > > > > http://decisions.fct-/http://decisions.fct-
    > > > > cf.gc.ca/fct/2003/2003fc1172.html"]http://decisions.fct-
    > > /http://decisions.fct-
    > > > > cf.gc.ca/fct/2003/2003fc1172.html[/url]
    > > > >
    > > > > --
    > > > >
    > > > > ../..
    > > > >
    > > > > Andrew Miller
    > > > > Immigration Consultant
    > > > > Vancouver, British Columbia
    > > > > email: [email protected]
    > > > > (delete REMOVE from the above address before sending
    > > email)
    > > > > ________________________________
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > "Cicero" <member18614@british_expats.com> wrote in
    > > message
    > > > >[email protected][/url]"]news:1195356.1074905-
    > > news:1195356.1074905-
    > > > > [email protected][/url]...
    > > > > > You are not sentenced and you don't appear to be a criminal,
    > > or
    > > > > theif -
    > > > > > you made a stupid mistake - so don't despair!
    > > Disregard
    > > > > negative and
    > > > > > mean spirited advices like from www.
    > > > > iamnotamerican.com in
    > > > > > the previous post:
    > > > >url="http://britishexpats.com/forum/showt...=&threadid=20-
    > > "]http://britishexpats.com/forum/showt...=&threadid=20-
    > > [/url]
    > > > >url="http://britishexpats.com/forum/showt...=&threadid=20-
    > > "]http://britishexpats.com/forum/showt...=&threadid=20-
    > > [/url]
    > > > > [/url]
    > > > > > 4778[/url]
    > > > > > It is not likely that you will have any serious
    > > consequences
    > > > > (neither
    > > > > > related to work or your application) because of this (off
    > > course
    > > > > make
    > > > > > sure not to do something else or similar).
    > > > > > Talk with your lawyer, fight with him for the best results
    > > in
    > > > > the trail.
    > > > > > If your process is pending, you can try to buy some time
    > > and
    > > > > extend the
    > > > > > court proceedings as much as reasonable and possible,
    > > until
    > > > > the
    > > > > > immigration decision is made.
    > > > > > Ask your friends or check with professional or non-
    > > profit
    > > > > organizations
    > > > > > to recommend you a lawyer.
    > > > > > Don't get to hard on yourself just draw the right
    > > conclusions,
    > > > > work on
    > > > > > the court case and move in the positive way.
    > > > > > Good luck with your citizenship application.
    > > > > > Originally posted by John
    > > > > > > I am being charged with shoplifting (200$, very stupid to
    > > get
    > > > > a camera
    > > > > > > for my wife) and will go to law court soon
    > > > > > > My question is this: Do I need to speak to Lawyer for
    > > my
    > > > > case?
    > > > > > > Since police officer told me you can contact any lawyer
    > > for
    > > > > help
    > > > > > > some other questions are:
    > > > > > > If the lawyer will be mandate to appear on court with me,
    > > what
    > > > > he/she
    > > > > > > will do?
    > > > > > > If so, How and where I can find lawyer in canada ( I am
    > > new
    > > > > immigrant
    > > > > > > in canada)?
    > > > > > > Does it cost money to ask lawyer for assistance?
    > > > > > > Does the lawyer do something affecting the
    > > sentence/punishment
    > > > > which I
    > > > > > > will face to?
    > > > > > > If I have criminal record, can i still get job in
    > > canada?
    > > > > > > Does employer do criminal record checking when he/she
    > > decide
    > > > > to hire
    > > > > > > me?
    > > > > > > If anyone is familiar with my case, please advice me how
    > > and
    > > > > what I
    > > > > > > can do to get light sentence/punishment before I go to
    > > court.
    > > > > Actually
    > > > > > > the question is this:
    > > > > > > is there a way I can do to get a light punishment
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Any advice and feedback will be greatly appreciated
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > JOHN
    > > > > > --
    > > > > Posted viaom/http://britishexpats.com/"]http://britishexpats.-
    > > /http://britishexpats.-
    > > > com[/url]
    > > > --
    > > Posted via http://britishexpats.com/"]http://britishexpats.-
    > com[/url]
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Cicero

I explained you earlier and seen to be pointing out to something that I already explained to you which relates to difference betwean the ongoing court case and the case judgment. So, I would again refer you to read with comprehension my elaborations and understand before you try to counter.

On other side, you are going back to the point which is main discourse between you and me.

You are saying now clearly "pending criminal charges prohibit him
from getting citizenship."

That is absolutely not correct! Following your logic any of us immigrants (immigrant you are even after you get a citizenship (even with Canadian citizenship) -not to mention before - no mater at what phase you are) can be accused of something - and that would prevent from getting citizenship.

According to your logic immigrant A files against immigrant B (that is in citizenship procedure) that he have killed, although that is not true, and that prevents person B for getting the citizenship!!? Did you ever hear innocent until proven guilty? There are degrees of transgressions and someone application can't be refused if in court proceedings for a driving violation or petty theft; on other hand there are more serious violation that every states deserves protection from some criminal elements.

First you provide meaningless case reference for this situation - than being stubborn and non-sensical - claim this nonsense. One of the most ridicules claims ever on this forum.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Andrew Miller
This is exactly what you wrote:

--------------------------------------------
If your process is pending, you can try to buy some time and extend the
court proceedings as much as reasonable and possible, until the immigration
decision is made.
--------------------------------------------

Maybe you should read what you write before starting claiming that you
didn't do it...

And John doesn't have any immigration application pending - he has
citizenship application pending. And pending criminal charges prohibit him
from getting citizenship. That is the whole point.

--

../..

Andrew Miller
Immigration Consultant
Vancouver, British Columbia
email: [email protected]
(delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
________________________________

Http://Www.Iamnotamerican.Com

in a recent article, Cicero (member18614@british_expats.com) said:

    >
    > You seem to be comparing apples and oranges. There is hardly anything
    > similar with those two cases (your link and this case).

    > The link is about revocation of citizenship case.
    >
    > The gentleman that asked the question is not a citizen and is not
    > concealing anything.

Actually, the first post from this gentlemen asked how it would affect
his pending citizenship application. Unfortunately, it is gone from there
to the point where the gentleman wants step-by-step information on
everything from his arrest to release from prison.
--
Say "I am not American" in TWELVE languages.
The original "I am not American" T-shirts - as seen on CNN
http://www.iamnotamerican.com
Remove underscores (_) from Email address to reply.

Andrew Miller

It is not about my logic! It is the law.

Please read Section 22 of Citizenship Act below and pay attention to (b):

--------------------------------------------------------------
22. (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, a person shall not be granted
citizenship under section 5 or subsection 11(1) or take the oath of
citizenship

(a) while the person is, pursuant to any enactment in force in Canada,

(i) under a probation order,

(ii) a paroled inmate, or

(iii) confined in or is an inmate of any penitentiary, jail, reformatory or
prison;

(b) while the person is charged with, on trial for or subject to or a party
to an appeal relating to an offence under subsection 29(2) or (3) or an
indictable offence under any Act of Parliament, other than an offence that
is designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act;

(c) while the person is under investigation by the Minister of Justice, the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service
for, or is charged with, on trial for, subject to or a party to an appeal
relating to, an offence under any of sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against
Humanity and War Crimes Act;

(d) if the person has been convicted of an offence under any of sections 4
to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act;

(e) if the person has not obtained the authorization to return to Canada
required under subsection 52(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Act; or

(f) if, during the five years immediately preceding the person's
application, the person ceased to be a citizen pursuant to subsection 10(1).
--------------------------------------------------------------

Is it clear to you now, or you want to argue with the "logic" of the law
this time?

--

../..

Andrew Miller
Immigration Consultant
Vancouver, British Columbia
email: [email protected]
(delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
________________________________



"Cicero" <member18614@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > I explained you earlier and seen to be pointing out to something that I
    > already explained to you which relates to difference betwean the
    > ongoing court case and the case judgment. So, I would again refer you
    > to read with comprehension my elaborations and understand before you
    > try to counter.
    > On other side, you are going back to the point which is main discourse
    > between you and me.
    > You are saying now clearly "pending criminal charges prohibit him
    > from getting citizenship."
    > That is absolutely not correct! Following your logic any of us
    > immigrants (immigrant you are even after you get a citizenship (even
    > with Canadian citizenship) -not to mention before - no mater at what
    > phase you are) can be accused of something - and that would prevent from
    > getting citizenship.
    > According to your logic immigrant A files against immigrant B (that is
    > in citizenship procedure) that he have killed, although that is not
    > true, and that prevents person B for getting the citizenship!!? Did
    > you ever hear innocent until proven guilty? There are degrees of
    > transgressions and someone application can't be refused if in court
    > proceedings for a driving violation or petty theft; on other hand there
    > are more serious violation that every states deserves protection from
    > some criminal elements.
    > First you provide meaningless case reference for this situation - than
    > being stubborn and non-sensical - claim this nonsense. One of the most
    > ridicules claims ever on this forum.
    > Originally posted by Andrew Miller
    > > This is exactly what you wrote:
    > >
    > > --------------------------------------------
    > > If your process is pending, you can try to buy some time and
    > > extend the
    > > court proceedings as much as reasonable and possible, until the
    > > immigration
    > > decision is made.
    > > --------------------------------------------
    > >
    > > Maybe you should read what you write before starting claiming that you
    > > didn't do it...
    > >
    > > And John doesn't have any immigration application pending - he has
    > > citizenship application pending. And pending criminal charges
    > > prohibit him
    > > from getting citizenship. That is the whole point.
    > >
    > > --
    > >
    > > ../..
    > >
    > > Andrew Miller
    > > Immigration Consultant
    > > Vancouver, British Columbia
    > > email: [email protected]
    > > (delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
    > > ________________________________
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Andrew Miller

Did you read relevant section of Citizenship Act posted below? And who's
comments are ridiculous now?

I think you owe me an apology.

--

../..

Andrew Miller
Immigration Consultant
Vancouver, British Columbia
email: [email protected]
(delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
________________________________


"Andrew Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:bCAQb.7922$A7.6779@edtnps84...
    > It is not about my logic! It is the law.
    > Please read Section 22 of Citizenship Act below and pay attention to (b):
    > --------------------------------------------------------------
    > 22. (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, a person shall not be
granted
    > citizenship under section 5 or subsection 11(1) or take the oath of
    > citizenship
    > (a) while the person is, pursuant to any enactment in force in Canada,
    > (i) under a probation order,
    > (ii) a paroled inmate, or
    > (iii) confined in or is an inmate of any penitentiary, jail, reformatory
or
    > prison;
    > (b) while the person is charged with, on trial for or subject to or a
party
    > to an appeal relating to an offence under subsection 29(2) or (3) or an
    > indictable offence under any Act of Parliament, other than an offence that
    > is designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act;
    > (c) while the person is under investigation by the Minister of Justice,
the
    > Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service
    > for, or is charged with, on trial for, subject to or a party to an appeal
    > relating to, an offence under any of sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against
    > Humanity and War Crimes Act;
    > (d) if the person has been convicted of an offence under any of sections 4
    > to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act;
    > (e) if the person has not obtained the authorization to return to Canada
    > required under subsection 52(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
    > Act; or
    > (f) if, during the five years immediately preceding the person's
    > application, the person ceased to be a citizen pursuant to subsection
10(1).
    > --------------------------------------------------------------
    > Is it clear to you now, or you want to argue with the "logic" of the law
    > this time?
    > --
    > ../..
    > Andrew Miller
    > Immigration Consultant
    > Vancouver, British Columbia
    > email: [email protected]
    > (delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
    > ________________________________
    > "Cicero" <member18614@british_expats.com> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > I explained you earlier and seen to be pointing out to something that I
    > > already explained to you which relates to difference betwean the
    > > ongoing court case and the case judgment. So, I would again refer you
    > > to read with comprehension my elaborations and understand before you
    > > try to counter.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > On other side, you are going back to the point which is main discourse
    > > between you and me.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > You are saying now clearly "pending criminal charges prohibit him
    > >
    > > from getting citizenship."
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > That is absolutely not correct! Following your logic any of us
    > > immigrants (immigrant you are even after you get a citizenship (even
    > > with Canadian citizenship) -not to mention before - no mater at what
    > > phase you are) can be accused of something - and that would prevent from
    > > getting citizenship.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > According to your logic immigrant A files against immigrant B (that is
    > > in citizenship procedure) that he have killed, although that is not
    > > true, and that prevents person B for getting the citizenship!!? Did
    > > you ever hear innocent until proven guilty? There are degrees of
    > > transgressions and someone application can't be refused if in court
    > > proceedings for a driving violation or petty theft; on other hand there
    > > are more serious violation that every states deserves protection from
    > > some criminal elements.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > First you provide meaningless case reference for this situation - than
    > > being stubborn and non-sensical - claim this nonsense. One of the most
    > > ridicules claims ever on this forum.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Originally posted by Andrew Miller
    > >
    > > > This is exactly what you wrote:
    > >
    > > >
    > >
    > > > --------------------------------------------
    > >
    > > > If your process is pending, you can try to buy some time and
    > > > extend the
    > >
    > > > court proceedings as much as reasonable and possible, until the
    > > > immigration
    > >
    > > > decision is made.
    > >
    > > > --------------------------------------------
    > >
    > > >
    > >
    > > > Maybe you should read what you write before starting claiming that you
    > >
    > > > didn't do it...
    > >
    > > >
    > >
    > > > And John doesn't have any immigration application pending - he has
    > >
    > > > citizenship application pending. And pending criminal charges
    > > > prohibit him
    > >
    > > > from getting citizenship. That is the whole point.
    > >
    > > >
    > >
    > > > --
    > >
    > > >
    > >
    > > > ../..
    > >
    > > >
    > >
    > > > Andrew Miller
    > >
    > > > Immigration Consultant
    > >
    > > > Vancouver, British Columbia
    > >
    > > > email: [email protected]
    > >
    > > > (delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
    > >
    > > > ________________________________
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Cicero

You are, again, trying to manipulate the truth and you provide just partial citations. But we are now getting closer to core of the matter.

This article is calling the two other articles 29(2) and 29(3) in which describes the nature of an offense. It does not at any point say that all offenses in court proceedings would automatically mean inability to gain citizenship. Why don't you cite original of article 29(2) and 29(3) in which everyone can see is the peaty theft and under misdemeanor charges included or not?

Let me hellp you since you might try to twist the truth again. Here is the section 29 (especailly look at the last section):

"29. (1) For the purposes of this section, "certificate" means a certificate of citizenship, a certificate of naturalization or a certificate of renunciation.

Offences and punishment
(2) A person who

(a) for any of the purposes of this Act makes any false representation, commits fraud or knowingly conceals any material circumstances,

(b) obtains or uses a certificate of another person in order to personate that other person,

(c) knowingly permits his certificate to be used by another person to personate himself, or

(d) traffics in certificates or has in his possession any certificate for the purpose of trafficking,

is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both."

I point you to read again - wtih comprehension this time - and understading the particular case. It is specifically saying "a fine not exceeding 1,000$ or imprisonemnt".

This was a case for 200$ which is less than 1000$, isn't it?

So, clearly this isn't a case which woudl prevent the gentleman to get the citizenship since his offense was for 200$.

If you want to argue the law - you can but this another proof of commons sense proven in the law.

You did not appologize before to the gentelman. You should do that. Also, you should appologize to me for providing a meanigless case link before, manipulative and arogant approach. But likely an appolgy is too much to expect from a person like you.

Sergei

Don't count on it Andrew. Cicero is one of those few who always attack
you and argue with your comments. He or she never even reads the law
and argues only for the sake of arguing and on the basis of his/her
thoughts, opinions, wishes, "logic" or comments heard from someone as
much misinformed as s/he is. Cicero and his/her kind will never admit
their mistakes and will never apologize - they will always try to turn
the table around to continue arguing.


On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:50:20 GMT, "Andrew Miller"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Did you read relevant section of Citizenship Act posted below? And who's
    >comments are ridiculous now?
    >I think you owe me an apology.

Http://Www.Iamnotamerican.Com

in a recent article, Cicero (member18614@british_expats.com) said:

    > Let me hellp you since you might try to twist the truth again. Here is
    > the section 29 (especailly look at the last section):

    > "29. (1) For the purposes of this section, "certificate" means a
    > certificate of citizenship, a certificate of naturalization or a
    > certificate of renunciation.

    > Offences and punishment
    >
    > (2) A person who
    >
    >
    >
    > (a) for any of the purposes of this Act makes any false representation,
    > commits fraud or knowingly conceals any material circumstances,
    >
    >
    >
    > (b) obtains or uses a certificate of another person in order to
    > personate that other person,
    >
    >
    >
    > (c) knowingly permits his certificate to be used by another person to
    > personate himself, or
    >
    >
    >
    > (d) traffics in certificates or has in his possession any certificate
    > for the purpose of trafficking,
    >
    >
    >
    > is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not
    > exceeding one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not
    > exceeding one year or to both."

    > I point you to read again - wtih comprehension this time - and
    > understading the particular case. It is specifically saying "a fine not
    > exceeding 1,000$ or imprisonemnt".

Firstly, the act of which you went to so much trouble to post was with
regards to CITIZENSHIP CERTIFICATES and has diddly to do with shoplifting.

    > This was a case for 200$ which is less than 1000$, isn't it?
The section you quoted was merely referring to the possible fine, the
maximum of which is $1000. Once again, has nothing to do with shoplifting,
or the value of the item being stolen by the thief...let alone the fine/jail
time resulting from being a thief of anything other than citizenship
certificates.

    > So, clearly this isn't a case which woudl prevent the gentleman to get
    > the citizenship since his offense was for 200$.

So clearly this isn't a case which would demonstrate you know of which
you speak. If you want to put up a good argument, at least have a grasp of
the topic at hand.

Please.

--
Say "I am not American" in TWELVE languages.
The original "I am not American" T-shirts - as seen on CNN
http://www.iamnotamerican.com
Remove underscores (_) from Email address to reply.

Andrew Miller

You obviously have no idea how to read and comprehend the law and have no
legal background of any kind. And you have just proven this.

Section 29 (in Part VII - Offenses) of Citizenship Act deals only with
offenses committed under the Act, and lists those offences and penalties for
such. It has absolutely nothing to do Section 22 clearly called
Prohibitions.

And it is Section 22 that clearly states when grant of citizenship or even
taking the oath is prohibited - among other things when being "charged with,
on trial for or subject to or a party to an appeal relating to an offence
under subsection 29(2) or (3) or an indictable offence under any Act of
Parliament, other than an offence that is designated as a contravention
under the Contraventions Act."

What part of "being charged with, <...> or an indictable offence under any
Act of Parliament" you can't understand? And you are talking about
"comprehension"?

Let me dissect for easier comprehension how subsection (b) of Section 22
should be read and understood:

---------------------------------------------------------
(b) - while the person is charged with, on trial for or subject to or a
party to an appeal relating to:

- an offence under subsection 29(2) or (3)

or

- an indictable offence under any Act of Parliament, other than an offence
that is designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act;
----------------------------------------------------------

And again - Part VII (Offenses) of Citizenship Act states only what are the
offences under (read against) the Citizenship Act. Not under or against any
other Act of Parliament.

Every Act of Parliament (including IRPA and Citizenship Act) lists what are
the offences against such Act, not against any other Act.

Looks who's talking about "manipulation" - someone who tries to use for one
matter a part of the law dealing with completely different matter. Shame on
you...


--

../..

Andrew Miller
Immigration Consultant
Vancouver, British Columbia
email: [email protected]
(delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
________________________________



"Cicero" <member18614@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > You are, again, trying to manipulate the truth and you provide just
    > partial citations. But we are now getting closer to core of the matter.
    > This article is calling the two other articles 29(2) and 29(3) in which
    > describes the nature of an offense. It does not at any point say that
    > all offenses in court proceedings would automatically mean inability to
    > gain citizenship. Why don't you cite original of article 29(2) and
    > 29(3) in which everyone can see is the peaty theft and under misdemeanor
    > charges included or not?
    > Let me hellp you since you might try to twist the truth again. Here is
    > the section 29 (especailly look at the last section):
    > "29. (1) For the purposes of this section, "certificate" means a
    > certificate of citizenship, a certificate of naturalization or a
    > certificate of renunciation.
    > Offences and punishment
    > (2) A person who
    > (a) for any of the purposes of this Act makes any false representation,
    > commits fraud or knowingly conceals any material circumstances,
    > (b) obtains or uses a certificate of another person in order to
    > personate that other person,
    > (c) knowingly permits his certificate to be used by another person to
    > personate himself, or
    > (d) traffics in certificates or has in his possession any certificate
    > for the purpose of trafficking,
    > is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not
    > exceeding one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not
    > exceeding one year or to both."
    > I point you to read again - wtih comprehension this time - and
    > understading the particular case. It is specifically saying "a fine not
    > exceeding 1,000$ or imprisonemnt".
    > This was a case for 200$ which is less than 1000$, isn't it?
    > So, clearly this isn't a case which woudl prevent the gentleman to get
    > the citizenship since his offense was for 200$.
    > If you want to argue the law - you can but this another proof of commons
    > sense proven in the law.
    > You did not appologize before to the gentelman. You should do that.
    > Also, you should appologize to me for providing a meanigless case link
    > before, manipulative and arogant approach. But likely an appolgy is
    > too much to expect from a person like you.
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Sergei

Told you Andrew - Cicero won't apologize and he will try to twist
things around just for the sake of arguing.

Or he is so stupid that he doesn't even realize that he is wrong - in
such case nothing you or anyone can do to help him. He needs to seek
some mental help.

I really admire your patience Andrew, but I think that everyone
already understands how stupid Cicero is and what the law says. Thus
there is no point to feed the troll anymore...


On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 23:44:46 GMT, "Andrew Miller"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >You obviously have no idea how to read and comprehend the law and have no
    >legal background of any kind. And you have just proven this.
    >Section 29 (in Part VII - Offenses) of Citizenship Act deals only with
    >offenses committed under the Act, and lists those offences and penalties for
    >such. It has absolutely nothing to do Section 22 clearly called
    >Prohibitions.
    >And it is Section 22 that clearly states when grant of citizenship or even
    >taking the oath is prohibited - among other things when being "charged with,
    >on trial for or subject to or a party to an appeal relating to an offence
    >under subsection 29(2) or (3) or an indictable offence under any Act of
    >Parliament, other than an offence that is designated as a contravention
    >under the Contraventions Act."
    >What part of "being charged with, <...> or an indictable offence under any
    >Act of Parliament" you can't understand? And you are talking about
    >"comprehension"?
    >Let me dissect for easier comprehension how subsection (b) of Section 22
    >should be read and understood:
    >---------------------------------------------------------
    >(b) - while the person is charged with, on trial for or subject to or a
    >party to an appeal relating to:
    >- an offence under subsection 29(2) or (3)
    >or
    >- an indictable offence under any Act of Parliament, other than an offence
    >that is designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act;
    >----------------------------------------------------------
    >And again - Part VII (Offenses) of Citizenship Act states only what are the
    >offences under (read against) the Citizenship Act. Not under or against any
    >other Act of Parliament.
    >Every Act of Parliament (including IRPA and Citizenship Act) lists what are
    >the offences against such Act, not against any other Act.
    >Looks who's talking about "manipulation" - someone who tries to use for one
    >matter a part of the law dealing with completely different matter. Shame on
    >you...

Cicero

The crucial part is here related to indictable offence:

“ OR - an indictable offence under any Act of Parliament, other than an offence
…�

There are three types of offenses (from a CND lawyer site – not a “consultant’s� site - and can be found in any law book):

“Summary conviction offences
Summary conviction offences encompass the most minor offences in the Criminal Code. Examples are "communicate for the purpose of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute," "cause disturbance," and "harassing telephone calls."
Indictable offences
An indictable offence is more serious than a summary conviction offence. Conviction of an indictable offence exposes you to greater penalties.
Hybrid offences
Many offences can be prosecuted either by summary conviction or indictment. The Crown chooses or elects the mode of prosecution. Such offences are referred to as "hybrid" (or "Crown option" or "dual procedure"). Hybrid offences include impaired driving, assault and theft under $5,000. Crown chooses to proces summary or indictable offence�

The person did a theft of about 200$ which is way below 5000$. (the 1,000$ reference done in my previous post was due a clear omission in previous reference of Miller and misinterpretation. I can admit when making a mistake.)

The offense seems in the case to be summary conviction or in the worst case a hybrid (dual) offense – however, NOT an indictable offense; which means that there are great chances of him what he applied for. So even in case of dual or hybrid with way below $5000 limit it would be absolutely more likely (anything is possible) to go with summary case.

That explains that all the way my opinion was RIGHT. So, advice is still go to the lawyer and fight for your rights and no one would be able to take away you getting the citizenship. You were waiting too long for the PR and to come into Canada.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Andrew Miller

Andrew Miller

And again you are interpreting things the way you like it, not as they are.

As your own quote states:

------------------------------------------
Hybrid offences

Many offences can be prosecuted either by summary conviction or indictment.
The Crown chooses or elects the mode of prosecution. Such offences are
referred to as "hybrid" (or "Crown option" or "dual procedure"). Hybrid
offences include impaired driving, assault and theft under $5,000. Crown
chooses to process summary or indictable offence�
-------------------------------------------

Crown can choose if hybrid offence will be processed as summary or
indictable offence. If Crown decides that particular hybrid case will be
processed an indictable offence then it is an indictable offence.

It is **either** summary conviction **or** indictable offence after Crown
makes selection and case will be prosecuted as selected, not as "hybrid" one
as you stated. Read your own quote again.

--

../..

Andrew Miller
Immigration Consultant
Vancouver, British Columbia
email: [email protected]
(delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
________________________________





"Cicero" <member18614@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > The crucial part is here related to indictable offence:
    > “ OR - an indictable offence under any Act of Parliament, other than
    > an offence
    > …â€?
    > There are three types of offenses (from a CND lawyer site – not a
    > “consultant’sâ€? site - and can be found in any law book):
    > “Summary conviction offences
    > Summary conviction offences encompass the most minor offences in the
    > Criminal Code. Examples are "communicate for the purpose of obtaining
    > the sexual services of a prostitute," "cause disturbance," and
    > "harassing telephone calls."
    > Indictable offences
    > An indictable offence is more serious than a summary conviction offence.
    > Conviction of an indictable offence exposes you to greater penalties.
    > Hybrid offences
    > Many offences can be prosecuted either by summary conviction or
    > indictment. The Crown chooses or elects the mode of prosecution. Such
    > offences are referred to as "hybrid" (or "Crown option" or "dual
    > procedure"). Hybrid offences include impaired driving, assault and theft
    > under $5,000. Crown chooses to proces summary or indictable offenceâ€?
    > The person did a theft of about 200$ which is way below 5000$. (the
    > 1,000$ reference done in my previous post was due a clear omission in
    > previous reference of Miller and misinterpretation. I can admit when
    > making a mistake.)
    > The offense seems in the case to be summary conviction or in the worst
    > case a hybrid (dual) offense – however, NOT an indictable offense; which
    > means that there are great chances of him what he applied for. So even
    > in case of dual or hybrid with way below $5000 limit it would be
    > absolutely more likely (anything is possible) to go with summary case.
    > That explains that all the way my opinion was RIGHT. So, advice is
    > still go to the lawyer and fight for your rights and no one would be
    > able to take away you getting the citizenship. You were waiting too long
    > for the PR and to come into Canada.
    > Originally posted by Andrew Miller
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Cicero

It is not what I am interpreting wringly but what the law is saying: “Hybrid offences include … theft under $5,000� Crown has a choice, that is exactly what I am saying but trust the decison to be rational (summary conv.) since everything points out to it.
You are arguing that this is an indictable case and that John does not have any chances. On other hand, I am arguing that there are great chances for John to be successful considering the law (hybrid leading to summary conviction offense) and sketched circumstances of his case.
You don’t have an argument at all and desperately trying to twist the words. There is a possibility that this case can be in courts as an indictable offense: however, that is way too unlikely, for any reasonable person, that is contemplating this case. There is possibility to be hit by lightning or to get a winning lottery number, so what?
We are talking about what is reasonable and likely. This case of 200$ is within lower 4% from the upper limit of 5000$. The gentleman seems to have a clear record before and that this is his first offense. He is not denying what have happen etc. There are so many circumstantial points that you can see in his post and likely there are additional. The people that are charged under an indictable offence would be ones that are likely repeat offenders with higher amount and so forth.
So, it is clear that, in all likelihood to any reasonable person, his citizenship application would not be affected. Your statement that: “"pending criminal charges prohibit him from getting citizenship." is absolutely WRONG! That is the main discourse here. He has great chances to be at the end successful. No reason to listen bad advices from a “consultant� / “expert�.
I am on the side of immigrants and in this case John; I would love him to succeed and not too listen blindly the negative, arrogant and uninformed advices from the self proclaimed “experts�. A good lawyer can provide additional information which could just bolster John’s case.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Andrew Miller

Andrew Miller

At this time his citizenship application is within prohibitions of
Citizenship Act, period. Once his criminal proceedings are over situation
may be different, but as of now he is prohibited from taking the oath and he
must inform CIC about the pending charge.

--

../..

Andrew Miller
Immigration Consultant
Vancouver, British Columbia
email: [email protected]
(delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
________________________________


"Cicero" <member18614@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > It is not what I am interpreting wringly but what the law is saying:
    > “Hybrid offences include … theft under $5,000â€? Crown has a choice, that
    > is exactly what I am saying but trust the decison to be rational
    > (summary conv.) since everything points out to it.
    > You are arguing that this is an indictable case and that John does not
    > have any chances. On other hand, I am arguing that there are great
    > chances for John to be successful considering the law (hybrid leading to
    > summary conviction offense) and sketched circumstances of his case.
    > You don’t have an argument at all and desperately trying to twist the
    > words. There is a possibility that this case can be in courts as an
    > indictable offense: however, that is way too unlikely, for any
    > reasonable person, that is contemplating this case. There is
    > possibility to be hit by lightning or to get a winning lottery
    > number, so what?
    > We are talking about what is reasonable and likely. This case of 200$
    > is within lower 4% from the upper limit of 5000$. The gentleman seems
    > to have a clear record before and that this is his first offense. He is
    > not denying what have happen etc. There are so many circumstantial
    > points that you can see in his post and likely there are additional.
    > The people that are charged under an indictable offence would be ones
    > that are likely repeat offenders with higher amount and so forth.
    > So, it is clear that, in all likelihood to any reasonable person, his
    > citizenship application would not be affected. Your statement that:
    > “"pending criminal charges prohibit him from getting citizenship." is
    > absolutely WRONG! That is the main discourse here. He has great
    > chances to be at the end successful. No reason to listen bad advices
    > from a “consultantâ€? / “expertâ€?.
    > I am on the side of immigrants and in this case John; I would love him
    > to succeed and not too listen blindly the negative, arrogant and
    > uninformed advices from the self proclaimed “expertsâ€?. A good lawyer
    > can provide additional information which could just bolster John’s case.
    > Originally posted by Andrew Miller
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com