What lawyer can do me?
Jan 25th 2004, 3:45 pm
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: What lawyer can do me?
Most of the people here know how Andrew will twist things to feel like an
expert,,,,just forget it dude,,,,,the guy aspires to be something that he
isn't even close. I will give it to him that he know immigration,,,anything
more thatn that he tries hard at and thinks he can shoot anything from the
lip and that will be the law. The most bothersome of all is when is will
consistently mislead people over an issue, sometimes I keep wondering WHY
would somebody do that ?
"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 $5,000" Crown has a choice, that
> is exactly what I am saying but trust the decison to be rational
> (summary conv.) since everything points out to it.
> You are arguing that this is an indictable case and that John does not
> have any chances. On other hand, I am arguing that there are great
> chances for John to be successful considering the law (hybrid leading to
> summary conviction offense) and sketched circumstances of his case.
> You don't have an argument at all and desperately trying to twist the
> words. There is a possibility that this case can be in courts as an
> indictable offense: however, that is way too unlikely, for any
> reasonable person, that is contemplating this case. There is
> possibility to be hit by lightning or to get a winning lottery
> number, so what?
> We are talking about what is reasonable and likely. This case of 200$
> 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.
> Originally posted by Andrew Miller
> --
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
expert,,,,just forget it dude,,,,,the guy aspires to be something that he
isn't even close. I will give it to him that he know immigration,,,anything
more thatn that he tries hard at and thinks he can shoot anything from the
lip and that will be the law. The most bothersome of all is when is will
consistently mislead people over an issue, sometimes I keep wondering WHY
would somebody do that ?
"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 $5,000" Crown has a choice, that
> is exactly what I am saying but trust the decison to be rational
> (summary conv.) since everything points out to it.
> You are arguing that this is an indictable case and that John does not
> have any chances. On other hand, I am arguing that there are great
> chances for John to be successful considering the law (hybrid leading to
> summary conviction offense) and sketched circumstances of his case.
> You don't have an argument at all and desperately trying to twist the
> words. There is a possibility that this case can be in courts as an
> indictable offense: however, that is way too unlikely, for any
> reasonable person, that is contemplating this case. There is
> possibility to be hit by lightning or to get a winning lottery
> number, so what?
> We are talking about what is reasonable and likely. This case of 200$
> is within lower 4% from the upper limit of 5000$. The gentleman seems
> to have a clear record before and that this is his first offense. He is
> not denying what have happen etc. There are so many circumstantial
> points that you can see in his post and likely there are additional.
> The people that are charged under an indictable offence would be ones
> that are likely repeat offenders with higher amount and so forth.
> So, it is clear that, in all likelihood to any reasonable person, his
> citizenship application would not be affected. Your statement that:
> ""pending criminal charges prohibit him from getting citizenship." is
> absolutely WRONG! That is the main discourse here. He has great
> chances to be at the end successful. No reason to listen bad advices
> from a "consultant" / "expert".
> I am on the side of immigrants and in this case John; I would love him
> to succeed and not too listen blindly the negative, arrogant and
> uninformed advices from the self proclaimed "experts". A good lawyer
> can provide additional information which could just bolster John's case.
> Originally posted by Andrew Miller
> --
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Jan 25th 2004, 4:15 pm
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: What lawyer can do me?
in a recent article, Cicero (member18614@british_expats.com) said:
> “Summary conviction offences
> Indictable offences
> An indictable offence is more serious than a summary conviction offence.
> Conviction of an indictable offence exposes you to greater penalties.
>
> Hybrid offences
>
> Many offences can be prosecuted either by summary conviction or
> indictment.
> The person did a theft of about 200$ 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.)
Um...no you don't, but hey...that's beside the point. Let's move on.
> 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.
Sorry, mate. Theft is NOT a summary offence. Furthermore, under your
OWN definition above, you quote that "Many offences CAN be prosecuted..."
Therefore, the level of which it MAY be prosecuted is irrelevant. What IS
relevant is whether the offence is indictable. Theft IS indictable.
--
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.
> “Summary conviction offences
> 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 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.)
Um...no you don't, but hey...that's beside the point. Let's move on.
> 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.
Sorry, mate. Theft is NOT a summary offence. Furthermore, under your
OWN definition above, you quote that "Many offences CAN be prosecuted..."
Therefore, the level of which it MAY be prosecuted is irrelevant. What IS
relevant is whether the offence is indictable. Theft IS indictable.
--
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.
Jan 25th 2004, 4:25 pm
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: What lawyer can do me?
in a recent article, Singh ([email protected]) said:
> I will give it to him that he know immigration,,,anything
> more thatn that he tries hard at and thinks he can shoot anything from the
> lip and that will be the law.
And you're a qualified lawyer, are you? Where did you study? Where do
you practice? What was your score on the admission exam?
You admit that Andrew knows immigration. It goes without saying then,
Andrew would have a solid understanding on how the LAW relates to
immigration. Immigration and citizenship are in the same class, ergo the
laws would essentially be the same.
Andrew has been correct all along. Shoplifting is an indictable offence
that MAY be prosecuted as a 'hybrid' offence at a later date. However in
this case ("I stole the camera to make my wife happy") is not quite going to
qualify as compassionate grounds.
Furthermore, retailers have lobbied to have shoplifting classified as a
more serious offence. That is why they prosecute thieves when they are
caught, and the criminal record DOES stay on the person's record. I am not
a lawyer, but a very good friend of mine is a crown prosecutor in B.C. We
were actually discussing shoplifting about a month ago (among other
offences).
If you're so concerned about the welfare of the original poster, why
don't you give him your address so he can steal from you? After all, his
wife still wants a digital camera...
--
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.
> I will give it to him that he know immigration,,,anything
> more thatn that he tries hard at and thinks he can shoot anything from the
> lip and that will be the law.
And you're a qualified lawyer, are you? Where did you study? Where do
you practice? What was your score on the admission exam?
You admit that Andrew knows immigration. It goes without saying then,
Andrew would have a solid understanding on how the LAW relates to
immigration. Immigration and citizenship are in the same class, ergo the
laws would essentially be the same.
Andrew has been correct all along. Shoplifting is an indictable offence
that MAY be prosecuted as a 'hybrid' offence at a later date. However in
this case ("I stole the camera to make my wife happy") is not quite going to
qualify as compassionate grounds.
Furthermore, retailers have lobbied to have shoplifting classified as a
more serious offence. That is why they prosecute thieves when they are
caught, and the criminal record DOES stay on the person's record. I am not
a lawyer, but a very good friend of mine is a crown prosecutor in B.C. We
were actually discussing shoplifting about a month ago (among other
offences).
If you're so concerned about the welfare of the original poster, why
don't you give him your address so he can steal from you? After all, his
wife still wants a digital camera...
--
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.
Jan 25th 2004, 7:47 pm
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: What lawyer can do me?
"http://www.iamnotamerican.com" wrote:
>
> in a recent article, Cicero (member18614@british_expats.com) said:
>
> > “Summary conviction offences
>
> > 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 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.)
> Um...no you don't, but hey...that's beside the point. Let's move on.
>
> > 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.
>
> Sorry, mate. Theft is NOT a summary offence. Furthermore, under your
> OWN definition above, you quote that "Many offences CAN be prosecuted..."
> Therefore, the level of which it MAY be prosecuted is irrelevant. What IS
> relevant is whether the offence is indictable. Theft IS indictable.
Here we go again ...
Summary prosecution is a mechanism by which a case is handled in the
court. It does away with a number of the formalities in the court
procedure that are normal for indictable offences. The idea is to
expedite less serious cases through the court system.
In practice, a crime for which a summary prosecution is sought is a less
serious crime, but in fact could be a more serious crime, although a
judge would rarely permit a more serious crime to be prosecuted
summarily. The court system imposes certain criteria on which it will
accept either summary prosecution or an indictment. Some offences, the
court system will accept either a summary prosecution or an indictment,
and this is known as a hybrid offence. These things generally will
affect the limits on sentencing and expungement.
So, the result is that crimes that are prosecuted summarily tend to be
for less serious crimes, and those that are indictable are more serious
crimes, but the term summary offence is not always a true indication of
the seriousness of the crime, unlike the US system of felony and
misdemeanour which the Canadian terms are likened to.
While sometimes other laws do measure crimes by the mode selected for
actual prosecution, or sometimes by the mode for possible prosecution,
sometimes, the crime itself must be used as the indicator of its
seriousness, not whether it was summary prosecution or an indictment.
>
> in a recent article, Cicero (member18614@british_expats.com) said:
>
> > “Summary conviction offences
>
> > 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 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.)
> Um...no you don't, but hey...that's beside the point. Let's move on.
>
> > 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.
>
> Sorry, mate. Theft is NOT a summary offence. Furthermore, under your
> OWN definition above, you quote that "Many offences CAN be prosecuted..."
> Therefore, the level of which it MAY be prosecuted is irrelevant. What IS
> relevant is whether the offence is indictable. Theft IS indictable.
Here we go again ...
Summary prosecution is a mechanism by which a case is handled in the
court. It does away with a number of the formalities in the court
procedure that are normal for indictable offences. The idea is to
expedite less serious cases through the court system.
In practice, a crime for which a summary prosecution is sought is a less
serious crime, but in fact could be a more serious crime, although a
judge would rarely permit a more serious crime to be prosecuted
summarily. The court system imposes certain criteria on which it will
accept either summary prosecution or an indictment. Some offences, the
court system will accept either a summary prosecution or an indictment,
and this is known as a hybrid offence. These things generally will
affect the limits on sentencing and expungement.
So, the result is that crimes that are prosecuted summarily tend to be
for less serious crimes, and those that are indictable are more serious
crimes, but the term summary offence is not always a true indication of
the seriousness of the crime, unlike the US system of felony and
misdemeanour which the Canadian terms are likened to.
While sometimes other laws do measure crimes by the mode selected for
actual prosecution, or sometimes by the mode for possible prosecution,
sometimes, the crime itself must be used as the indicator of its
seriousness, not whether it was summary prosecution or an indictment.
Jan 25th 2004, 8:17 pm
#35
Forum Regular
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 73
Re: What lawyer can do me?
No. I argumented earler on that and here are no new arguments from you.
OK. So now you are leaving possiblity that he would be able to get his citizenship? That is contrary to your previous statments and much closer to my although does not go far enough and you are trying to backtrack again.
Oh, well...
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 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.
OK. So now you are leaving possiblity that he would be able to get his citizenship? That is contrary to your previous statments and much closer to my although does not go far enough and you are trying to backtrack again.
Oh, well...
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 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.
Jan 25th 2004, 8:19 pm
#36
Forum Regular
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 35
Re: What lawyer can do me?
Cicero,
I usually do not engage in meaningless arguments, however, after reading your posts I would have to say that you are ridiculous. What are you trying to accomplish by your arguments and constantly diminishing the seriousness of John's action? Why are you so biased to John's innocense?
What is this: "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�."
You are accusing Andrew of calling John a thief. What is John then? Or who was he when he was trying to carry the merchandise out from the store without paying for it? Just the fact that John admits shoplifting doesn't make him a less of a shoplifter whatsoever! The fact is the fact! And neither you, nor anybody else can predict the likelihood of John repeating his action - contrary to your statements.
What do you want?? A country full of shoplifters?? Are you saying: just because shoplifting is not a crinimal offence you can go around and shoplift and apologize admitting your guillt - if you're caught doing it? Wrong! It's not just accidentally running over somebody toes with your shopping cart at Wallmart. It more than that.
Diego
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 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.
I usually do not engage in meaningless arguments, however, after reading your posts I would have to say that you are ridiculous. What are you trying to accomplish by your arguments and constantly diminishing the seriousness of John's action? Why are you so biased to John's innocense?
What is this: "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�."
You are accusing Andrew of calling John a thief. What is John then? Or who was he when he was trying to carry the merchandise out from the store without paying for it? Just the fact that John admits shoplifting doesn't make him a less of a shoplifter whatsoever! The fact is the fact! And neither you, nor anybody else can predict the likelihood of John repeating his action - contrary to your statements.
What do you want?? A country full of shoplifters?? Are you saying: just because shoplifting is not a crinimal offence you can go around and shoplift and apologize admitting your guillt - if you're caught doing it? Wrong! It's not just accidentally running over somebody toes with your shopping cart at Wallmart. It more than that.
Diego
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 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.
Originally posted by Andrew Miller
Jan 25th 2004, 8:38 pm
#37
Forum Regular
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 73
Re: What lawyer can do me?
Fist, we are not mates mr. iamnotamerican.com, I try to choose my company carefully. People who have a rude, know-it-all, arrogant attitude to immigrants and unable to admit when they are wrong – like Miller and you - are not my company of interest or mates. Sorry.
There is a huge difference between being direct and - being direct but also arrogant and rude.
You for example called a guy to be a thief. Most likely, everyone – excluding probably saint like you - never have had stolen something, sometime in their life (maybe not knowingly or as kid). So, I can’t label a person to be a thief for this and I am bothered when someone does it right of the bat. It is not a personal characteristics; if a person does that on recurring basis that could be a different case. No mater how you do think about it - it is extremly rude to call a person in first e-mail that he sends that way. However, I would rather that know-it-all-wanna-be’s look first in themselves rather than to label and chastise here immigrants that are patiently and painfully waiting for number of years to come in the country and get the citizenship that deserve. John seems to be one of those people who made a mistake that he is aware but have a good chances going to lawyer and be successful and not to listen arrogant- wanna-be’s like Miller and a bizarre guy like Iamnotamerican.com.
Back to the case at hand....
The point of difference is around the statement of the experts summarized by one: ““"pending criminal charges prohibit him from getting citizenship." That is absolutely incorrect.
His chances look extremely good even with this option and there are number additional ways that John should be exploring with attorney not listening to non-lawyers and / or self-proclaimed experts like iamnotamerican.com and Miller; I am nether advcating that he needs to listens me word-for-word but at least to throw away prvennly wrong negative and arogant advice.
The question that everything boils down to: Is the charge or trail be for indictable offense or not per Article 22 (Miller earlier cited whole article). Next, I cited definition for hybrid offense (summary conviction and indictable substitute) which this situation comes upon as per definition:
“Hybrid offences include impaired driving, assault and theft under $5,000.�
It clearly, states that Crown decides based on the circumstances is it summary or indictable. According to all listed circumstances – I wrote that more elaborately in the previous post – this is clearly would be under the most minor offences – summary. So, John would be in all reasonable likelihood fine in getting citizenship and should avoid negative and wrong advices of prolific self-proclaimed experts.
I advise also to use attorney for this case and to fight it not to accept opinion of self-proclaimed experts to give up. The chances are excellent for success at the end! There are number of possibilities with this case that any knowledgeable attorney would be able to pursue it.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Http://Www.Iamnotamerican.Com
There is a huge difference between being direct and - being direct but also arrogant and rude.
You for example called a guy to be a thief. Most likely, everyone – excluding probably saint like you - never have had stolen something, sometime in their life (maybe not knowingly or as kid). So, I can’t label a person to be a thief for this and I am bothered when someone does it right of the bat. It is not a personal characteristics; if a person does that on recurring basis that could be a different case. No mater how you do think about it - it is extremly rude to call a person in first e-mail that he sends that way. However, I would rather that know-it-all-wanna-be’s look first in themselves rather than to label and chastise here immigrants that are patiently and painfully waiting for number of years to come in the country and get the citizenship that deserve. John seems to be one of those people who made a mistake that he is aware but have a good chances going to lawyer and be successful and not to listen arrogant- wanna-be’s like Miller and a bizarre guy like Iamnotamerican.com.
Back to the case at hand....
The point of difference is around the statement of the experts summarized by one: ““"pending criminal charges prohibit him from getting citizenship." That is absolutely incorrect.
His chances look extremely good even with this option and there are number additional ways that John should be exploring with attorney not listening to non-lawyers and / or self-proclaimed experts like iamnotamerican.com and Miller; I am nether advcating that he needs to listens me word-for-word but at least to throw away prvennly wrong negative and arogant advice.
The question that everything boils down to: Is the charge or trail be for indictable offense or not per Article 22 (Miller earlier cited whole article). Next, I cited definition for hybrid offense (summary conviction and indictable substitute) which this situation comes upon as per definition:
“Hybrid offences include impaired driving, assault and theft under $5,000.�
It clearly, states that Crown decides based on the circumstances is it summary or indictable. According to all listed circumstances – I wrote that more elaborately in the previous post – this is clearly would be under the most minor offences – summary. So, John would be in all reasonable likelihood fine in getting citizenship and should avoid negative and wrong advices of prolific self-proclaimed experts.
I advise also to use attorney for this case and to fight it not to accept opinion of self-proclaimed experts to give up. The chances are excellent for success at the end! There are number of possibilities with this case that any knowledgeable attorney would be able to pursue it.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Http://Www.Iamnotamerican.Com
Jan 25th 2004, 8:47 pm
#38
Forum Regular
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 73
Re: What lawyer can do me?
You did not understand. I am not looking to abolish anyone's mistake or following the law, and no one can free him for the reasonable punishment. However, he has a right and great chances to protect his immigrant status (but pay for the trasngression that he did) and I am advocating to do that with help of the lawyers and not to give up.
The wait and pain to be at his stage is to great for him just to give up. Can I root for him in his citizenship application despite condoning what he did in the shop? My answer is - Yes!
[QUOTE]Originally posted by diegomargo
The wait and pain to be at his stage is to great for him just to give up. Can I root for him in his citizenship application despite condoning what he did in the shop? My answer is - Yes!
[QUOTE]Originally posted by diegomargo
Jan 25th 2004, 9:33 pm
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: What lawyer can do me?
There is nothing contrary to anything here, I clearly stated that as of now
he is prohibited from taking the oath and getting citizenship - if he is
acquitted of charges or charges are dropped then he may continue with his
citizenship process. If he is convicted then it is a different story and
citizenship judge will have last word. But for now he is prohibited, period.
Nothing to backtrack from - as long as he is charged with or on trial for
indictable offence (and theft is) he is prohibited. What part of
Prohibitions you don't understand? We are not dealing with his guilt or
innocence, it is irrelevant for now as long as charges are still there. What
is relevant is that as of now he is prohibited. Once his charges are dealt
with he may be allowed to continue or may still be prohibited. It is not up
to you or myself to judge his guilt or innocence, it is not the point here.
The point is that he is now prohibited as he is charged.
He already knows all of that and I hope he took my original advice and is
seeking legal assistance. No backtracking from it either.
--
../..
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]...
> No. I argumented earler on that and here are no new arguments from you.
> OK. So now you are leaving possiblity that he would be able to get
> his citizenship? That is contrary to your previous statments and much
> closer to my although does not go far enough and you are trying to
> backtrack again.
> Oh, well...
> Originally posted by 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.
> --
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
he is prohibited from taking the oath and getting citizenship - if he is
acquitted of charges or charges are dropped then he may continue with his
citizenship process. If he is convicted then it is a different story and
citizenship judge will have last word. But for now he is prohibited, period.
Nothing to backtrack from - as long as he is charged with or on trial for
indictable offence (and theft is) he is prohibited. What part of
Prohibitions you don't understand? We are not dealing with his guilt or
innocence, it is irrelevant for now as long as charges are still there. What
is relevant is that as of now he is prohibited. Once his charges are dealt
with he may be allowed to continue or may still be prohibited. It is not up
to you or myself to judge his guilt or innocence, it is not the point here.
The point is that he is now prohibited as he is charged.
He already knows all of that and I hope he took my original advice and is
seeking legal assistance. No backtracking from it either.
--
../..
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]...
> No. I argumented earler on that and here are no new arguments from you.
> OK. So now you are leaving possiblity that he would be able to get
> his citizenship? That is contrary to your previous statments and much
> closer to my although does not go far enough and you are trying to
> backtrack again.
> Oh, well...
> Originally posted by 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.
> --
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Jan 25th 2004, 9:38 pm
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: What lawyer can do me?
And look who is being rude here - someone who is rude himself and
calls Andrew using his last name only. You call him Andrew or Mr.
Miller - calling him Miller is very rude, regardless that it may be
normal in your country.
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:38:25 +0000, Cicero
<member18614@british_expats.com> wrote:
>Fist, we are not mates mr. iamnotamerican.com, I try to choose my
>company carefully. People who have a rude, know-it-all, arrogant
>attitude to immigrants and unable to admit when they are wrong – like
>Miller and you - are not my company of interest or mates. Sorry.
>There is a huge difference between being direct and - being direct but
>also arrogant and rude.
>You for example called a guy to be a thief.
>Most likely, everyone – excluding probably saint like you - never have
>had stolen something, sometime in their life (maybe not knowingly or as
>kid). So, I can’t label a person to be a thief for this and I am
>bothered when someone does it right of the bat. It is not a personal
>characteristics; if a person does that on recurring basis that could be
>a different case. No mater how you do think about it - it is extremly
>rude to call a person in first e-mail that he sends that way. However, I
>would rather that know-it-all-wanna-be’s look first in themselves rather
>than to label and chastise here immigrants that are patiently and
>painfully waiting for number of years to come in the country and get the
>citizenship that deserve. John seems to be one of those people who made
>a mistake that he is aware but have a good chances going to lawyer and
>be successful and not to listen arrogant- wanna-be’s like Miller and a
>bizarre guy like Iamnotamerican.com.
>Back to the case at hand....
>The
>point of difference is around the statement of the experts summarized by
>one: ““"pending criminal charges prohibit him from getting citizenship."
>That is absolutely incorrect.
>His chances look extremely good even
>with this option and there are number additional ways that John should
>be exploring with attorney not listening to non-lawyers and / or self-
>proclaimed experts like iamnotamerican.com and Miller; I am nether
>advcating that he needs to listens me word-for-word but at least to
>throw away prvennly wrong negative and arogant advice.
>The question
>that everything boils down to: Is the charge or trail be for indictable
>offense or not per Article 22 (Miller earlier cited whole article).
>Next, I cited definition for hybrid offense (summary conviction and
>indictable substitute) which this situation comes upon as per
>definition:
>“Hybrid offences include impaired driving, assault and
>theft under $5,000.�
>
>It clearly, states that Crown decides based on
>the circumstances is it summary or indictable. According to all listed
>circumstances – I wrote that more elaborately in the previous post –
>this is clearly would be under the most minor offences – summary. So,
>John would be in all reasonable likelihood fine in getting citizenship
>and should avoid negative and wrong advices of prolific self-proclaimed
>experts.
>I advise also to use attorney for this case and to fight it
>not to accept opinion of self-proclaimed experts to give up. The
>chances are excellent for success at the end! There are number of
>possibilities with this case that any knowledgeable attorney would be
>able to pursue it.
>Originally posted by
>Http://Www.Iamnotamerican.Com
calls Andrew using his last name only. You call him Andrew or Mr.
Miller - calling him Miller is very rude, regardless that it may be
normal in your country.
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:38:25 +0000, Cicero
<member18614@british_expats.com> wrote:
>Fist, we are not mates mr. iamnotamerican.com, I try to choose my
>company carefully. People who have a rude, know-it-all, arrogant
>attitude to immigrants and unable to admit when they are wrong – like
>Miller and you - are not my company of interest or mates. Sorry.
>There is a huge difference between being direct and - being direct but
>also arrogant and rude.
>You for example called a guy to be a thief.
>Most likely, everyone – excluding probably saint like you - never have
>had stolen something, sometime in their life (maybe not knowingly or as
>kid). So, I can’t label a person to be a thief for this and I am
>bothered when someone does it right of the bat. It is not a personal
>characteristics; if a person does that on recurring basis that could be
>a different case. No mater how you do think about it - it is extremly
>rude to call a person in first e-mail that he sends that way. However, I
>would rather that know-it-all-wanna-be’s look first in themselves rather
>than to label and chastise here immigrants that are patiently and
>painfully waiting for number of years to come in the country and get the
>citizenship that deserve. John seems to be one of those people who made
>a mistake that he is aware but have a good chances going to lawyer and
>be successful and not to listen arrogant- wanna-be’s like Miller and a
>bizarre guy like Iamnotamerican.com.
>Back to the case at hand....
>The
>point of difference is around the statement of the experts summarized by
>one: ““"pending criminal charges prohibit him from getting citizenship."
>That is absolutely incorrect.
>His chances look extremely good even
>with this option and there are number additional ways that John should
>be exploring with attorney not listening to non-lawyers and / or self-
>proclaimed experts like iamnotamerican.com and Miller; I am nether
>advcating that he needs to listens me word-for-word but at least to
>throw away prvennly wrong negative and arogant advice.
>The question
>that everything boils down to: Is the charge or trail be for indictable
>offense or not per Article 22 (Miller earlier cited whole article).
>Next, I cited definition for hybrid offense (summary conviction and
>indictable substitute) which this situation comes upon as per
>definition:
>“Hybrid offences include impaired driving, assault and
>theft under $5,000.�
>
>It clearly, states that Crown decides based on
>the circumstances is it summary or indictable. According to all listed
>circumstances – I wrote that more elaborately in the previous post –
>this is clearly would be under the most minor offences – summary. So,
>John would be in all reasonable likelihood fine in getting citizenship
>and should avoid negative and wrong advices of prolific self-proclaimed
>experts.
>I advise also to use attorney for this case and to fight it
>not to accept opinion of self-proclaimed experts to give up. The
>chances are excellent for success at the end! There are number of
>possibilities with this case that any knowledgeable attorney would be
>able to pursue it.
>Originally posted by
>Http://Www.Iamnotamerican.Com
Jan 25th 2004, 9:46 pm
#41
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: What lawyer can do me?
in a recent article, Cicero (member18614@british_expats.com) said:
> There is a huge difference between being direct and - being direct but
> also arrogant and rude.
Yes, I've noticed that you are often arrogant and rude, but I don't take
any notice of that flaw in your personality.
> You for example called a guy to be a thief.
He admitted attempting to steal a product from a store. If that is not
thievery, then what is it?
> John seems to be one of those people who made a mistake that he is aware
Considering his age, and how recently this offence took place, I think
the only mistake he is admitting to is getting caught. He obviously had no
hesitation about trying to steal it. His only regret is that he was not
successful.
> point of difference is around the statement of the experts summarized by
> one: ““"pending criminal charges prohibit him from getting citizenship."
> That is absolutely incorrect.
You have not proven this. Indeed, pending criminal charges may well
prevent him from getting citizenship, especially after the offence occurred
after his application for citizenship.
> It clearly, states that Crown decides based on
> the circumstances is it summary or indictable.
You will notice that it says 'CROWN'. Not 'Cicero'. Shoplifting is
theft. Theft is an indictable offence. There is no such thing as a
'hybrid' charge. It is either indictable or it is not. It MAY be reduced to
a lesser form of charge (which is what 'hybrid' means), but is unlikely.
> circumstances – I wrote that more elaborately in the previous post –
> this is clearly would be under the most minor offences – summary. So,
> John would be in all reasonable likelihood fine in getting citizenship
> and should avoid negative and wrong advices of prolific self-proclaimed
> experts.
I personally think he should avoid listening to a "everything's roses"
response like yours, lest he will be disappointed if his application gets
canned.
His original question (which, I notice, you have a tendency to avoid in
a lot of threads) was whether a shoplifting charge or conviction will affect
his Citizenship application.
My response...and that of Mr. Miller and a few others was "it may affect
the application in a negative manner". You'll notice that noone has said
that it would result in citizenship being denied, only that it was a
possibility.
Of course, if you think shoplifting is perfectly harmless, then why
don't you give him your address and let him steal something for his wife
from you?
--
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.
> There is a huge difference between being direct and - being direct but
> also arrogant and rude.
Yes, I've noticed that you are often arrogant and rude, but I don't take
any notice of that flaw in your personality.
> You for example called a guy to be a thief.
He admitted attempting to steal a product from a store. If that is not
thievery, then what is it?
> John seems to be one of those people who made a mistake that he is aware
Considering his age, and how recently this offence took place, I think
the only mistake he is admitting to is getting caught. He obviously had no
hesitation about trying to steal it. His only regret is that he was not
successful.
> point of difference is around the statement of the experts summarized by
> one: ““"pending criminal charges prohibit him from getting citizenship."
> That is absolutely incorrect.
You have not proven this. Indeed, pending criminal charges may well
prevent him from getting citizenship, especially after the offence occurred
after his application for citizenship.
> It clearly, states that Crown decides based on
> the circumstances is it summary or indictable.
You will notice that it says 'CROWN'. Not 'Cicero'. Shoplifting is
theft. Theft is an indictable offence. There is no such thing as a
'hybrid' charge. It is either indictable or it is not. It MAY be reduced to
a lesser form of charge (which is what 'hybrid' means), but is unlikely.
> circumstances – I wrote that more elaborately in the previous post –
> this is clearly would be under the most minor offences – summary. So,
> John would be in all reasonable likelihood fine in getting citizenship
> and should avoid negative and wrong advices of prolific self-proclaimed
> experts.
I personally think he should avoid listening to a "everything's roses"
response like yours, lest he will be disappointed if his application gets
canned.
His original question (which, I notice, you have a tendency to avoid in
a lot of threads) was whether a shoplifting charge or conviction will affect
his Citizenship application.
My response...and that of Mr. Miller and a few others was "it may affect
the application in a negative manner". You'll notice that noone has said
that it would result in citizenship being denied, only that it was a
possibility.
Of course, if you think shoplifting is perfectly harmless, then why
don't you give him your address and let him steal something for his wife
from you?
--
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.
Jan 25th 2004, 9:46 pm
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: What lawyer can do me?
in a recent article, Cicero (member18614@british_expats.com) said:
> Can I root for him in his citizenship application despite condoning what
> he did in the shop? My answer is - Yes!
So, you think admitted shoplifters are quality Canadian citizens, do
you? Remember, this is not some teenage prank. This is not a little kid
stealing something from a candy store. This is not peer pressure. This is
someone stealing a device worth several hundred dollars as a 'gift' for his
wife, because he didn't want to pay for it.
Not having money is not an excuse. I want a big screen TV. I can't
justify paying for one. Does it mean I should steal it? No. Would I be
justified in stealing one? No.
He is a grown man who was caught trying to steal someone else's property
because he wanted it. No other reason. Now he should pay the consequences,
and if this includes having his application for citizenship denied (an
unfortunate result, I must add), then so be it.
--
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.
> Can I root for him in his citizenship application despite condoning what
> he did in the shop? My answer is - Yes!
So, you think admitted shoplifters are quality Canadian citizens, do
you? Remember, this is not some teenage prank. This is not a little kid
stealing something from a candy store. This is not peer pressure. This is
someone stealing a device worth several hundred dollars as a 'gift' for his
wife, because he didn't want to pay for it.
Not having money is not an excuse. I want a big screen TV. I can't
justify paying for one. Does it mean I should steal it? No. Would I be
justified in stealing one? No.
He is a grown man who was caught trying to steal someone else's property
because he wanted it. No other reason. Now he should pay the consequences,
and if this includes having his application for citizenship denied (an
unfortunate result, I must add), then so be it.
--
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.
Jan 26th 2004, 12:22 am
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: What lawyer can do me?
You are still missing the point - John doesn't have any problem with his
immigration (PR) status. He has applied for citizenship.
The worst what may happen with his citizenship application is that he will
have to re-apply when he is not prohibited, that's all. Nobody is trying to
take away his PR status.
--
../..
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 did not understand. I am not looking to abolish anyone's mistake or
> following the law, and no one can free him for the reasonable
> punishment. However, he has a right and great chances to protect his
> immigrant status (but pay for the trasngression that he did) and I am
> advocating to do that with help of the lawyers and not to give up.
> The
> wait and pain to be at his stage is to great for him just to give up.
> Can I root for him in his citizenship application despite condoning what
> he did in the shop? My answer is - Yes!
> Originally posted by
> diegomargo
> --
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
immigration (PR) status. He has applied for citizenship.
The worst what may happen with his citizenship application is that he will
have to re-apply when he is not prohibited, that's all. Nobody is trying to
take away his PR status.
--
../..
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 did not understand. I am not looking to abolish anyone's mistake or
> following the law, and no one can free him for the reasonable
> punishment. However, he has a right and great chances to protect his
> immigrant status (but pay for the trasngression that he did) and I am
> advocating to do that with help of the lawyers and not to give up.
> The
> wait and pain to be at his stage is to great for him just to give up.
> Can I root for him in his citizenship application despite condoning what
> he did in the shop? My answer is - Yes!
> Originally posted by
> diegomargo
> --
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Jan 26th 2004, 1:30 am
#44
Forum Regular
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 73
Re: What lawyer can do me?
If you read my messages you can see that at least 5 times I mentioned Citizenship application - that is all I talked about - and this proces and I NEVER ever said anything about his PR being in problem as you are again misconstructing and reading wrongly. John applied 3 moths ago. Did you read that? So he is at this stage of immigration process where he applied for citizenship. If you took out try to take out the words out of any context and previous numerous posts you certainly prove another time how low you can get. It is clear that I was not implying anything about his PR but that his canadian status that he is working for several years is saved.
All my writings and concerns are related that he gets his citizenship and that his application for it succesfull. Why is that diffcult for you to understnd that? It is sad that you try to twist the words around and try to take it out of context.
All my writings and concerns are related that he gets his citizenship and that his application for it succesfull. Why is that diffcult for you to understnd that? It is sad that you try to twist the words around and try to take it out of context.
Originally posted by Andrew Miller
You are still missing the point - John doesn't have any problem with his
immigration (PR) status. He has applied for citizenship.
The worst what may happen with his citizenship application is that he willIf you read my messages you can see that at least 5 times I mentioned Citizenship application - that is all I talked about - and this proces and I NEVER ever said anything about his PR being in problem as you are again misconstructing and reading wrongly. John applied 3 moths ago. Did you read that? So he is at this stage of immigration process where he applied for citizenship. If you took out try to take out the words out of any context and previous numerous posts you certainly prove another time how low you can get. It is clear that I was not implying anything about his PR but that his canadian status that he is working for several years is saved.
All my writings and concerns are related that he gets his citizenship and that his application for it succesfull. Why is that diffcult for you to understnd that? Why do you try to twist the words around and try to take it out of context?
Maybe because when you loose on all points than you need to twist the words.
You should be ashame of yourself!
have to re-apply when he is not prohibited, that's all. Nobody is trying to
take away his PR status.
--
../..
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 did not understand. I am not looking to abolish anyone's mistake or
> following the law, and no one can free him for the reasonable
> punishment. However, he has a right and great chances to protect his
> immigrant status (but pay for the trasngression that he did) and I am
> advocating to do that with help of the lawyers and not to give up.
> The
> wait and pain to be at his stage is to great for him just to give up.
> Can I root for him in his citizenship application despite condoning what
> he did in the shop? My answer is - Yes!
> Originally posted by
> diegomargo
> --
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
You are still missing the point - John doesn't have any problem with his
immigration (PR) status. He has applied for citizenship.
The worst what may happen with his citizenship application is that he willIf you read my messages you can see that at least 5 times I mentioned Citizenship application - that is all I talked about - and this proces and I NEVER ever said anything about his PR being in problem as you are again misconstructing and reading wrongly. John applied 3 moths ago. Did you read that? So he is at this stage of immigration process where he applied for citizenship. If you took out try to take out the words out of any context and previous numerous posts you certainly prove another time how low you can get. It is clear that I was not implying anything about his PR but that his canadian status that he is working for several years is saved.
All my writings and concerns are related that he gets his citizenship and that his application for it succesfull. Why is that diffcult for you to understnd that? Why do you try to twist the words around and try to take it out of context?
Maybe because when you loose on all points than you need to twist the words.
You should be ashame of yourself!
have to re-apply when he is not prohibited, that's all. Nobody is trying to
take away his PR status.
--
../..
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 did not understand. I am not looking to abolish anyone's mistake or
> following the law, and no one can free him for the reasonable
> punishment. However, he has a right and great chances to protect his
> immigrant status (but pay for the trasngression that he did) and I am
> advocating to do that with help of the lawyers and not to give up.
> The
> wait and pain to be at his stage is to great for him just to give up.
> Can I root for him in his citizenship application despite condoning what
> he did in the shop? My answer is - Yes!
> Originally posted by
> diegomargo
> --
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Jan 26th 2004, 1:47 am
#45
Forum Regular
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 73
Re: What lawyer can do me?
Sorry, don't have time to respond on ridiculous post of low-level Miller "wanna-be" or "so-called-experts" wanna be. All my responses are in the previous posts, nothing new form you.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Http://Www.Iamnotamerican.Com
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Http://Www.Iamnotamerican.Com