yanbee2@yahoo.com (Yannis) wrote in message news:<a75bea69.0311260702.17a245a1@posting.google.com>... jsaepuru@solo.ee (Jaak Suurpere) wrote in message news:<e8319284.0311250135.35bafa48@posting.google.com>... He allegedly became a British subject sometime in 1947. What was the applicable Greek law on citizenship as of 1947? Greek law applicable in 1947: This could be summarised as follows: Greek citizenship is acquired through birth. If the father was a Greek citizen (since 1984: the mother also) then the son/daughter is also a Greek citizen, irrespective of place of birth, residence in Greece or,indeed,choice. In other words one may be a Greek citizen without even wishing to or, indeed, without even being aware of his (or her) Greek citizenship. Prince Philip's father (Prince Andrew of Greece, a son of King George I of the Hellenes) was a Greek citizen, therefore Prince Philip had Greek citizenship in 1947. Did Philip Battenberg validly cease to be a Greek citizen according to the applicable Greek laws? No. According to Greek citizenship laws (as of 1947) the mere fact that one acquired foreign citizenship did not lose to loss of Greek citizenship (double citizenship allowed). In fact even renouncing Greek citizenship was (and is) not easy! Very restrictive conditions apply, and in any case there is no indication that Philip ever tried to renounce his Greek citizenship (as oppposed to his rights to the Greek throne). Even if Philip lost his rights to succeed to the Greek throne (in itself this is questionable) that would not affect his citizenship. There is an opinion from no less than the then Attorney General of Greece, dating from 1962, on the occasion of Sofia's marriage to Juan Carlos. Sofia did lose her rights to the Greek throne with that marriage, but the Attorney General very properly pointed out that there ever was nothing in the Greek laws of citizenship and/or the royal household law to indicate that anyone losing rights to the throne also lost citizenship and therefore general principles applied and Sophia retained her Greek citizenship. The same reasoning is applicable to Philip, there having been no significant change in the law from 1947 (or 1941) to 1962. So, at least in theory, Philip, Prince Charles, Princes William and Harry etc. etc. are all Greek citizens. In fact, even Diana was one since at the time of her marriage to Charles (1981) the law was that a woman marrying a Greek citizen automatically aquired Greek citizenship. This was changed in 1984 but not retrospectively. Unless posters specifically want me to I won't go into the imbroglio with the ex-royal's family citizenship and the law of 1994 stripping them of it. This law could or could not (based on interpretation) also affect Philip, Charles and the rest of this happy Greek family !
I'd specifically want to.

Where are the Greek royals citizens now?
Finally, if you will allow me one little remark: The original poster asked a simple question on Greek law of citizenship. Until I came along all the answers he got were nothing to do with the question he asked (hardly surprising since it requires specialised technical knowledge) but instead pointed out that the term he used (Prince Philip of Mountbatten) was not correct. True, but we all know whom he meant and, I don't know about you, but I do find that a little annoying. You read a subject line and you look at the thread and expect to find messages relevant to that subject line and what you find instead is messages pointing out a rather obvious mistake. I don't know about you, but I do find that a little annoying. Do please forgive me, I don't wish to flame anyone or start a fight. Yannis

Let us count the consequences:
Since Philip remained a Greek citizen in 1947 (making no attempt to
renounce the citizenship in the due manner), Elizabeth was a Greek
citizen with all that follows.
Or not?
Greek royal family law allegedly purported to make marriages by royal
family members without due royal consent null and void.
Regardless of whether this may have changed after 1967, if that was
the case in 1947, then Philip has never been married (in Greek law)
and all his children are bastards, with all that follows. (For
example, a second bigamous marriage will not become valid on the death
of the first spouse.)

If Philip married Elizabeth, then Charles, Andrew and Edward were all
Greek citizens at least until 1994. So was Anne.

If Philip was unmarried, his mistress would not have been a Greek.
What was the Greek law on bastardy 1948 to 1964?

I understand that as of 1962, a Greek woman lawfully married to a
foreign man remained a Greek citizen, but her children would not be
Greeks if born before 1984. A foreign woman authomatically became a
Greek on lawful marriage.

What was the status of bastards born of a Greek mother and foreign or
unknown father? What was the status of bastards born of a Greek father
and a foreign mother (like the UK royals)?

If Charles, Andrew and Edward were Greeks, do they owe military
service?
Both children of Anne were born before 1984, so presumably they were
not Greeks.

Diana was a Greek if Charles was one... and that makes William and
Harry equally Greek - and, unless deprived of citizenship in 1994, do
they owe military service?

And something to check:
If the father was a Greek citizen (since 1984: the mother also)

Well, what's the status of Beatrice Elizabeth Mary, Eugenie Victoria
Helena and Louise Alice Elizabeth Mary?

Sarah and Sophie have not been Greeks even if Andrew and Edward was
because they married after 1984.

What's the status of children born to a Greek father and his foreign
wife after 1984?

>Subject: Re: Citizenship of Prince Philip of MountbattenFrom: jsaepuru@solo.ee (Jaak Suurpere)Date: 11/26/2003 10:39 AM Pacific Standard Time
So, at least in theory, Philip, Prince Charles, Princes William and Harry etc. etc. are all Greek citizens. In fact, even Diana was one since at the time of her marriage to Charles (1981) the law was that a woman marrying a Greek citizen automatically aquired Greek citizenship. This was changed in 1984 but not retrospectively. Unless posters specifically want me to I won't go into the imbroglio with the ex-royal's family citizenship and the law of 1994 stripping them of it. This law could or could not (based on interpretation) also affect Philip, Charles and the rest of this happy Greek family !I'd specifically want to.Where are the Greek royals citizens now? Finally, if you will allow me one little remark: The original poster asked a simple question on Greek law of citizenship. Until I came along all the answers he got were nothing to do with the question he asked (hardly surprising since it requires specialised technical knowledge) but instead pointed out that the term he used (Prince Philip of Mountbatten) was not correct. True, but we all know whom he meant and, I don't know about you, but I do find that a little annoying. You read a subject line and you look at the thread and expect to find messages relevant to that subject line and what you find instead is messages pointing out a rather obvious mistake. I don't know about you, but I do find that a little annoying. Do please forgive me, I don't wish to flame anyone or start a fight. YannisLet us count the consequences:Since Philip remained a Greek citizen in 1947 (making no attempt torenounce the citizenship in the due manner), Elizabeth was a Greekcitizen with all that follows.Or not?

Elizabeth became Queen of England on the death of her father. It doesn't
matter whom she married prior to that. Am English sovereign cannot be a
citizen of any country--probably not even of England.
The sovereign has a special status. Citizens, for example, pay taxes. Until
recently, the Queen paid none--until she volunteered to do so.
Greek royal family law allegedly purported to make marriages by royalfamily members without due royal consent null and void.

By the time Philip got married, his father was out of Greece since 1922 and
perhaps even dead. Philip's father was not king of Greece. Philip's mother,
the sister of Lord Louis Mountbatten, was a granddaughter of
Queen Victoria of England. This thread is silly. Philip became a British
citizen in 1947. Greek law applies to him not at all.
Regardless of whether this may have changed after 1967, if that wasthe case in 1947, then Philip has never been married (in Greek law)and all his children are bastards, with all that follows.

Nonsense. As if Greek law applied to them in some way--or even the laws of the
Greek Orthodox Church! The children of Philip are English--pure and simple.
They do not live in Greece. I was not born in the US, either, but, as an
American citizen, I couldn't care less about the laws of the country of my
origin. They apply to me not at all.

(Forexample, a second bigamous marriage will not become valid on the deathof the first spouse.)

What is the point of all this? Even assuming the Greek law was cited correctly
here, how does it apply to Philip unless he went to Greece to live? Which is
doubtful he ever would.
If Philip married Elizabeth, then Charles, Andrew and Edward were allGreek citizens at least until 1994. So was Anne.

Nonsense. They were born in England.
If Philip was unmarried, his mistress would not have been a Greek.What was the Greek law on bastardy 1948 to 1964?

Oh, for Pity's Sake!I understand that as of 1962, a Greek woman lawfully married to aforeign man remained a Greek citizen, but her children would not beGreeks if born before 1984. A foreign woman authomatically became aGreek on lawful marriage.

A queen is not just "a foreign woman". Everyone in the House of Windsor
married foreigners until the sometime in the 20th Century.
What was the status of bastards born of a Greek mother and foreign orunknown father? What was the status of bastards born of a Greek fatherand a foreign mother (like the UK royals)?

Even if they are all considered "bastards" by Greek law--again, such laws apply
to them not at all. They live in England.
If Charles, Andrew and Edward were Greeks, do they owe militaryservice?

No. They owe nothing to Greece in any way whatsoever.
Both children of Anne were born before 1984, so presumably they werenot Greeks.

Presumably? Most certainly not. BTW, I doubt Prince Philip has even a drop of
Greek blood in him.
Diana was a Greek if Charles was one... and that makes William andHarry equally Greek - and, unless deprived of citizenship in 1994, dothey owe military service?

They are not Greeks.

(snip of more nonsense)



"THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the
Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban
You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again!
http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html

jsaepuru@solo.ee (Jaak Suurpere) wrote in message > > Unless posters specifically want me to I won't go into the imbroglio with the ex-royal's family citizenship and the law of 1994 stripping them of it. This law could or could not (based on interpretation) also affect Philip, Charles and the rest of this happy Greek family ! I'd specifically want to.
I shall a post a separate thread on that when I have time.
Where are the Greek royals citizens now?
Most of the time, in London but they've been in and out of Greece
several times this year. Let us count the consequences: Since Philip remained a Greek citizen in 1947 (making no attempt to renounce the citizenship in the due manner), Elizabeth was a Greek citizen with all that follows. Or not?
It all depends on the validity of their marriage. This raises two
issues a) religion, since they were married by Anglican rites. Under
Greek law this is recognised only provided Philip , too was Anglican
at the time. I don't think there would be any difficulty in proving
that, indeed, he had converted by then. b) the Greek royal house law.
It depends on whether Philip's marriage was "approved" by King George
II or not. I have not seen anything approving it, but then again maybe
there was something. One would have to look in the 1947 Greek
Government Gazette but it is not on-line and I don't have access to it
nor the time (alas!) to hunt for little items like that. If Philip married Elizabeth, then Charles, Andrew and Edward were all Greek citizens at least until 1994. So was Anne.
Correct. If Philip was unmarried, his mistress would not have been a Greek. What was the Greek law on bastardy 1948 to 1964?
Exactly what do you mean by "law on bastardy"? The problem is not
bastardy per se, it's the so called presumption of paternity or
whatever. In most countries,Greece being one of them, children born in
wedlock are presumed to have the husband as father. Therefore since
they are his children they get his citizenship. But without any
marriage there is no such presumption. One can of course "recognise"
(I'm not sure that's the correct legal term - legitimise perhaps?
Anyway, I mean a declaration accepting paternity) his child born out
of wedlock,thereby also passing on his citizenship, but Philip
certainly did not do that, at least not in the proper form. Or maybe
he did, maybe under English law the fact that he appears as the
children's father on their birth certificate is enough. Under Greek
law this is not the proper form of "recognising" paternity but perhaps
English law should cover that. This is getting more and more
complicated, now you know why lawyers charge so much!
What was the status of bastards born of a Greek mother and foreign or unknown father? What was the status of bastards born of a Greek father and a foreign mother (like the UK royals)?
The answer to your question is given above. IF you have a Greek father
(i.e. if paternity has been lawfully established) then the fact that
he is not married to the mother is not important. If there is no
father in the eyes of the law,then a Greek mother could, even under
the old rules, pass citizenship. If Charles, Andrew and Edward were Greeks, do they owe military service?
No, they're exempt as long as they don't enter Greece and continuously
reside there for 6 months. This is the reason why none of
Constantine's children has ever had to do military service in the
Greek army, even when their citizenship was not in qustion.
Diana was a Greek if Charles was one... and that makes William and Harry equally Greek - and, unless deprived of citizenship in 1994, do they owe military service?
No, same reason as above. What's the status of children born to a Greek father and his foreign wife after 1984?

They're Greek citizens, and the reverse (Greek wife, foreign father)
also applies.

Yannis

marianneluban@aol.comnospam (MarianneLuban) wrote in message news:<20031126170429.27776.00001057@mb-m06.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Citizenship of Prince Philip of MountbattenFrom: jsaepuru@solo.ee (Jaak Suurpere)Date: 11/26/2003 10:39 AM Pacific Standard Time So, at least in theory, Philip, Prince Charles, Princes William and Harry etc. etc. are all Greek citizens. In fact, even Diana was one since at the time of her marriage to Charles (1981) the law was that a woman marrying a Greek citizen automatically aquired Greek citizenship. This was changed in 1984 but not retrospectively. Unless posters specifically want me to I won't go into the imbroglio with the ex-royal's family citizenship and the law of 1994 stripping them of it. This law could or could not (based on interpretation) also affect Philip, Charles and the rest of this happy Greek family !I'd specifically want to.Where are the Greek royals citizens now? Finally, if you will allow me one little remark: The original poster asked a simple question on Greek law of citizenship. Until I came along all the answers he got were nothing to do with the question he asked (hardly surprising since it requires specialised technical knowledge) but instead pointed out that the term he used (Prince Philip of Mountbatten) was not correct. True, but we all know whom he meant and, I don't know about you, but I do find that a little annoying. You read a subject line and you look at the thread and expect to find messages relevant to that subject line and what you find instead is messages pointing out a rather obvious mistake. I don't know about you, but I do find that a little annoying. Do please forgive me, I don't wish to flame anyone or start a fight. YannisLet us count the consequences:Since Philip remained a Greek citizen in 1947 (making no attempt torenounce the citizenship in the due manner), Elizabeth was a Greekcitizen with all that follows.Or not? Elizabeth became Queen of England on the death of her father. It doesn't matter whom she married prior to that. Am English sovereign cannot be a citizen of any country--probably not even of England.

Does it follow that e. g. a Monegasque or Thai sovereign cannot be a
citizen of any country, including, say, USA - that an US citizen who
becomes a sovereign of any country ceases to be a US citizen without
any action on his or her part?
The sovereign has a special status. Citizens, for example, pay taxes. Until recently, the Queen paid none--until she volunteered to do so.Greek royal family law allegedly purported to make marriages by royalfamily members without due royal consent null and void. By the time Philip got married, his father was out of Greece since 1922 and perhaps even dead. Philip's father was not king of Greece. Philip's mother, the sister of Lord Louis Mountbatten, was a granddaughter of Queen Victoria of England. This thread is silly. Philip became a British citizen in 1947. Greek law applies to him not at all.
Philip did not cease being a Greek citizen.
Regardless of whether this may have changed after 1967, if that wasthe case in 1947, then Philip has never been married (in Greek law)and all his children are bastards, with all that follows. Nonsense. As if Greek law applied to them in some way--or even the laws of the Greek Orthodox Church! The children of Philip are English--pure and simple. They do not live in Greece. I was not born in the US, either, but, as > an American citizen, I couldn't care less about the laws of the country of my origin. They apply to me not at all.
Do American laws apply to people born in US who go to live abroad?
(For example, a second bigamous marriage will not become valid on the deathof the first spouse.) What is the point of all this? Even assuming the Greek law was cited correctly here, how does it apply to Philip unless he went to Greece to live? > Which is doubtful he ever would.If Philip married Elizabeth, then Charles, Andrew and Edward were allGreek citizens at least until 1994. So was Anne. Nonsense. They were born in England.
So what?

Children of US citizens happen to be US citizens even if born in
England.
If Philip was unmarried, his mistress would not have been a Greek.What was the Greek law on bastardy 1948 to 1964? Oh, for Pity's Sake!I understand that as of 1962, a Greek woman lawfully married to aforeign man remained a Greek citizen, but her children would not beGreeks if born before 1984. A foreign woman authomatically became aGreek on lawful marriage. A queen is not just "a foreign woman". Everyone in the House of Windsor married foreigners until the sometime in the 20th Century.
Does Greek law of citizenship make exceptions on foreign queens?
Yes, the Windsors married foreigners. However, most of the foreign
countries concerned agreed with England that a married woman
authomatically lost her maiden citizenship. Philip, by contrast, was a
man.

What does the US law say about the citizenship of Grace Kelly?
What was the status of bastards born of a Greek mother and foreign orunknown father? What was the status of bastards born of a Greek fatherand a foreign mother (like the UK royals)? Even if they are all considered "bastards" by Greek law--again, such laws apply to them not at all. They live in England.If Charles, Andrew and Edward were Greeks, do they owe militaryservice? No. They owe nothing to Greece in any way whatsoever.Both children of Anne were born before 1984, so presumably they werenot Greeks. Presumably? Most certainly not. BTW, I doubt Prince Philip has even a drop of Greek blood in him.Diana was a Greek if Charles was one... and that makes William andHarry equally Greek - and, unless deprived of citizenship in 1994, dothey owe military service? They are not Greeks. (snip of more nonsense) "THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again! http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html

>Subject: Re: Citizenship of Prince Philip of MountbattenFrom: jsaepuru@solo.ee (Jaak Suurpere)Date: 11/27/2003 10:48 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <e8319284.0311271048.24270acb@posting.google.com>marianneluban@aol.comnospam (MarianneLuban) wrote in messagenews:<20031126170429.27776.00001057@mb-m06.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Citizenship of Prince Philip of MountbattenFrom: jsaepuru@solo.ee (Jaak Suurpere)Date: 11/26/2003 10:39 AM Pacific Standard Time> So, at least in theory, Philip, Prince Charles, Princes William and> Harry etc. etc. are all Greek citizens. In fact, even Diana was one> since at the time of her marriage to Charles (1981) the law was that a> woman marrying a Greek citizen automatically aquired Greek> citizenship. This was changed in 1984 but not retrospectively.>> Unless posters specifically want me to I won't go into the imbroglio> with the ex-royal's family citizenship and the law of 1994 stripping> them of it. This law could or could not (based on interpretation) also> affect Philip, Charles and the rest of this happy Greek family !>I'd specifically want to.Where are the Greek royals citizens now?> Finally, if you will allow me one little remark: The original poster> asked a simple question on Greek law of citizenship. Until I came> along all the answers he got were nothing to do with the question he> asked (hardly surprising since it requires specialised technical> knowledge) but instead pointed out that the term he used (Prince> Philip of Mountbatten) was not correct. True, but we all know whom he> meant and, I don't know about you, but I do find that a little> annoying. You read a subject line and you look at the thread and> expect to find messages relevant to that subject line and what you> find instead is messages pointing out a rather obvious mistake. I> don't know about you, but I do find that a little annoying. Do please> forgive me, I don't wish to flame anyone or start a fight.>> YannisLet us count the consequences:Since Philip remained a Greek citizen in 1947 (making no attempt torenounce the citizenship in the due manner), Elizabeth was a Greekcitizen with all that follows.Or not?

I wouldn't say that was correct. Prince Philip *did* become a naturalized
Briton. He renounced all title to the Greek throne. See his biography at

http://www.hellomagazine.com/profiles/princephilip/
Elizabeth became Queen of England on the death of her father. It doesn't matter whom she married prior to that. Am English sovereign cannot be a citizen of any country--probably not even of England.Does it follow that e. g. a Monegasque or Thai sovereign cannot be acitizen of any country, including, say, USA - that an US citizen whobecomes a sovereign of any country ceases to be a US citizen withoutany action on his or her part?

What difference does it make? You can have dual citizenship, but the laws of
where you live are what matters. For a discussion, see

http://www.richw.org/dualcit/
The sovereign has a special status. Citizens, for example, pay taxes.Until recently, the Queen paid none--until she volunteered to do so.Greek royal family law allegedly purported to make marriages by royalfamily members without due royal consent null and void. By the time Philip got married, his father was out of Greece since 1922 and perhaps even dead. Philip's father was not king of Greece. Philip'smother, the sister of Lord Louis Mountbatten, was a granddaughter of Queen Victoria of England. This thread is silly. Philip became a British citizen in 1947. Greek law applies to him not at all.Philip did not cease being a Greek citizen.

That may be the way Greek law looks at it; I cannot say. Regardless, he
doesn't live in Greece. He owes nothing to Greece. If he. for some reason,
went to live in Greece, then that would be another story. While Philip lives
in England, Greece has no authority over him. This is humorous. Let us say
Philip went to visit Greece. You think the people there would look upon him as
a Greek with his non-Greek ancestry and scarcely having ever lived in Greece at
all? He is the husband of the Queen of England--an Englishman who might still
remember how to say a few words in Greek.
about the laws of the countryof my origin. They apply to me not at all.Do American laws apply to people born in US >who go to live abroad?

Yes. Unless they change their citizenship.
Then they would no longer have to pay taxes in the US.
(For example, a second bigamous marriage will not become valid on thedeathof the first spouse.) What is the point of all this? Even assuming the Greek law was cited correctly here, how does it apply to Philip unless he went to Greece tolive? > Which is doubtful he ever would.If Philip married Elizabeth, then Charles, Andrew and Edward were allGreek citizens at least until 1994. So was Anne. Nonsense. They were born in England.So what?

What do you mean "so what"? They consider themselves English. Are you saying
citizenship is not a matter of choice--but depends upon where ones parents
where born? Some countries may have weird laws with regard to this but I can
ask the same question "So what?" It behooves one to stay out of countries with
weird laws or regimes.
Children of US citizens happen to be US citizens even if born inEngland.

What if they renounce US citizenship? You think it can't be done?
If Philip was unmarried, his mistress would not have been a Greek.What was the Greek law on bastardy 1948 to 1964? Oh, for Pity's Sake!I understand that as of 1962, a Greek woman lawfully married to aforeign man remained a Greek citizen, but her children would not beGreeks if born before 1984. A foreign woman authomatically became aGreek on lawful marriage. A queen is not just "a foreign woman". Everyone in the House of Windsor married foreigners until the sometime in the 20th Century.Does Greek law of citizenship make exceptions on foreign queens?

LOL! They kicked out their own "foreign queen". Why would they worry about
queens of other countries?
Yes, the Windsors married foreigners. However, most of the foreigncountries concerned agreed with England that a married womanauthomatically lost her maiden citizenship. Philip, by contrast, was aman.

I see. Then was Prince Albert, the husband of Queen Victoria, still a German
all his life? He may have talked and acted like one, but he lived in England.
After that, he owed nothing more to the German nation from which he hailed.
And--guess what--the Germans didn't give a damn.
What does the US law say about the >citizenship of Grace Kelly?

Who cares? She is dead. Her son can't even be president of the United States.
Because he was born in Monacco, a principality, of which he will become ruler
in due course.




"THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the
Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban
You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again!
http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html

>Let us count the consequences:Since Philip remained a Greek citizen in 1947 (making no attempt torenounce the citizenship in the due manner), Elizabeth was a Greekcitizen with all that follows.Or not?

It depends on three things. #1: Was Phillip Mountbatten a Greek citizen or a
British one at the time? #2: Does marriage to a Greek man automatically make a
British woman a Greek citizen? Especially when she does not claim to be a Greek
citizen and has no connection to Greece? #3: Would Princess Elizabeth's
(alleged) assumption of Greek citizenship automatically nullify her claim to be
the heir to the British throne and ineligible to become the Queen of England
where her father, the King, died in 1947? Especially when she never claimed to
be Greek, never lived in Greece, and neither Greece nor Britain challenged her
claim to be Queen of England in 1952?





*****
Tim Horrigan <horrigan@aol.com>
*****

> Her son can't even be president of the United States. Because he was born in Monacco, a principality, of which he will becomerulerin due course.

Hmm, maybe, maybe not! I believe Albert Grimaldi was officially born with dual
US-Monagasque citizenship, which makes him a natural born US citizen.

I also believe that he has no plans to run for President of the US. And
although there have been less credible and less qualified candidates for this
office, he would not be a leading candidate if he did run.

Oddly, Prince Albert's citizenship does have some relevance to the original
topic of this thread, since there was a prime minister of Greece in the 1980s
who in fact was a dual Greek-American citizen.



*****
Tim Horrigan <horrigan@aol.com>
*****

yanbee2@yahoo.com (Yannis) wrote in message news:<a75bea69.0311270803.5276ef67@posting.google.com>... jsaepuru@solo.ee (Jaak Suurpere) wrote in message > > Unless posters specifically want me to I won't go into the imbroglio with the ex-royal's family citizenship and the law of 1994 stripping them of it. This law could or could not (based on interpretation) also affect Philip, Charles and the rest of this happy Greek family ! I'd specifically want to. I shall a post a separate thread on that when I have time. Where are the Greek royals citizens now? Most of the time, in London but they've been in and out of Greece several times this year. Let us count the consequences: Since Philip remained a Greek citizen in 1947 (making no attempt to renounce the citizenship in the due manner), Elizabeth was a Greek citizen with all that follows. Or not? It all depends on the validity of their marriage. This raises two issues a) religion, since they were married by Anglican rites. Under Greek law this is recognised only provided Philip , too was Anglican at the time. I don't think there would be any difficulty in proving that, indeed, he had converted by then. b) the Greek royal house law. It depends on whether Philip's marriage was "approved" by King George II or not. I have not seen anything approving it, but then again maybe there was something. One would have to look in the 1947 Greek Government Gazette but it is not on-line and I don't have access to it nor the time (alas!) to hunt for little items like that. If Philip married Elizabeth, then Charles, Andrew and Edward were all Greek citizens at least until 1994. So was Anne. Correct. If Philip was unmarried, his mistress would not have been a Greek. What was the Greek law on bastardy 1948 to 1964? Exactly what do you mean by "law on bastardy"? The problem is not bastardy per se, it's the so called presumption of paternity or whatever. In most countries,Greece being one of them, children born in wedlock are presumed to have the husband as father. Therefore since they are his children they get his citizenship. But without any marriage there is no such presumption. One can of course "recognise" (I'm not sure that's the correct legal term - legitimise perhaps? Anyway, I mean a declaration accepting paternity) his child born out of wedlock,thereby also passing on his citizenship, but Philip certainly did not do that, at least not in the proper form. Or maybe he did, maybe under English law the fact that he appears as the children's father on their birth certificate is enough. Under Greek law this is not the proper form of "recognising" paternity but perhaps English law should cover that. This is getting more and more complicated, now you know why lawyers charge so much! What was the status of bastards born of a Greek mother and foreign or unknown father? What was the status of bastards born of a Greek father and a foreign mother (like the UK royals)? The answer to your question is given above. IF you have a Greek father (i.e. if paternity has been lawfully established) then the fact that he is not married to the mother is not important. If there is no father in the eyes of the law,then a Greek mother could, even under the old rules, pass citizenship. If Charles, Andrew and Edward were Greeks, do they owe military service? No, they're exempt as long as they don't enter Greece and continuously reside there for 6 months. This is the reason why none of Constantine's children has ever had to do military service in the Greek army, even when their citizenship was not in qustion. Diana was a Greek if Charles was one... and that makes William and Harry equally Greek - and, unless deprived of citizenship in 1994, do they owe military service? No, same reason as above. What's the status of children born to a Greek father and his foreign wife after 1984? They're Greek citizens, and the reverse (Greek wife, foreign father) also applies.

Surely your interpretation of Greek citizenship excludes any reference
to (superior) international law.

It is inconceivable, for example, that Greek citizenship law would be
applied to an American or Australian diplomat of Greek origin. Surely,
you are not saying that such an individual who was posted to Greece
for six months or more is liable for military service in the Greek
army?

If, as I suspect, Greek Citizenship law does not apply in the case of
a diplomat, it probably also does not apply to a foreign Head of
State, their spouse or issue.

As for recognition of the marriage between HM and Philip, isn't it
strange to argue that there was none when the King and the entire
Greek Royal Family were present, together several Orthodox dignitaries
including the Archbishop in the UK and a prominent Orthodox nun?

Cheers,
Christopher Buyers

On 28 Nov 2003 02:15:58 GMT, marianneluban@aol.comnospam (MarianneLuban)
in misc.legal, wrote the following:

<snip>
Does it follow that e. g. a Monegasque or Thai sovereign cannot be acitizen of any country, including, say, USA - that an US citizen whobecomes a sovereign of any country ceases to be a US citizen withoutany action on his or her part?What difference does it make? You can have dual citizenship, but the laws ofwhere you live are what matters. For a discussion, seehttp://www.richw.org/dualcit/

A dual national must obey the laws of BOTH countries at the same time.
Dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign
country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. For
example, a dual national must register with the U.S. Selective Service
System within three months of his eighteenth birthday, etc. whether he
resides in the US or not.

See:

http://travel.state.gov/americansabroad.html
http://travel.state.gov/dualnationality.html
Do American laws apply to people born in US >who go to live abroad?Yes. Unless they change their citizenship.Then they would no longer have to pay taxes in the US.

Er, dual nationals have to file tax returns whether they owe US taxes or
not. All dual nationals must report all worldwide income by filing an
annual U.S. income tax return, regardless of whether they owe taxes to
the U.S. or pay taxes elsewhere. Even if you renounce citizenship, and
your income is fairly high, you may still be subject to U.S. taxes for
ten years after you have renounced citizenship.

See on taxes after renunciation of citizenship:

http://www.hansenhome.demon.co.uk/USTaxes.html
http://travel.state.gov/renunciation.html
http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00337/005064/title/subject/topic/tax%20law_income%20taxation/filename/taxlaw_1_299

Requirements for what constitutes renunication:

http://travel.state.gov/loss.html


--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.

DISCLAIMER:

Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.

"Jaak Suurpere" <jsaepuru@solo.ee> wrote in message
news:e8319284.0311271048.24270acb@posting.google.c om... marianneluban@aol.comnospam (MarianneLuban) wrote in message
news:<20031126170429.27776.00001057@mb-m06.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Citizenship of Prince Philip of MountbattenFrom: jsaepuru@solo.ee (Jaak Suurpere)Date: 11/26/2003 10:39 AM Pacific Standard Time> So, at least in theory, Philip, Prince Charles, Princes William and> Harry etc. etc. are all Greek citizens. In fact, even Diana was one> since at the time of her marriage to Charles (1981) the law was that
a> woman marrying a Greek citizen automatically aquired Greek> citizenship. This was changed in 1984 but not retrospectively.>> Unless posters specifically want me to I won't go into the imbroglio> with the ex-royal's family citizenship and the law of 1994 stripping> them of it. This law could or could not (based on interpretation)
also> affect Philip, Charles and the rest of this happy Greek family !>I'd specifically want to.Where are the Greek royals citizens now?> Finally, if you will allow me one little remark: The original poster> asked a simple question on Greek law of citizenship. Until I came> along all the answers he got were nothing to do with the question he> asked (hardly surprising since it requires specialised technical> knowledge) but instead pointed out that the term he used (Prince> Philip of Mountbatten) was not correct. True, but we all know whom he> meant and, I don't know about you, but I do find that a little> annoying. You read a subject line and you look at the thread and> expect to find messages relevant to that subject line and what you> find instead is messages pointing out a rather obvious mistake. I> don't know about you, but I do find that a little annoying. Do please> forgive me, I don't wish to flame anyone or start a fight.>> YannisLet us count the consequences:Since Philip remained a Greek citizen in 1947 (making no attempt torenounce the citizenship in the due manner), Elizabeth was a Greekcitizen with all that follows.Or not? Elizabeth became Queen of England on the death of her father. It
doesn't matter whom she married prior to that. Am English sovereign cannot be a citizen of any country--probably not even of England. Does it follow that e. g. a Monegasque or Thai sovereign cannot be a citizen of any country, including, say, USA - that an US citizen who becomes a sovereign of any country ceases to be a US citizen without any action on his or her part? The sovereign has a special status. Citizens, for example, pay taxes.
Until recently, the Queen paid none--until she volunteered to do so.Greek royal family law allegedly purported to make marriages by royalfamily members without due royal consent null and void. By the time Philip got married, his father was out of Greece since 1922
and perhaps even dead. Philip's father was not king of Greece. Philip's
mother, the sister of Lord Louis Mountbatten, was a granddaughter of Queen Victoria of England. This thread is silly. Philip became a
British citizen in 1947. Greek law applies to him not at all. Philip did not cease being a Greek citizen.Regardless of whether this may have changed after 1967, if that wasthe case in 1947, then Philip has never been married (in Greek law)and all his children are bastards, with all that follows. Nonsense. As if Greek law applied to them in some way--or even the laws
of the Greek Orthodox Church! The children of Philip are English--pure and simple. They do not live in Greece. I was not born in the US, either,
but, as > an American citizen, I couldn't care less about the laws of the
country of my origin. They apply to me not at all. Do American laws apply to people born in US who go to live abroad? (For example, a second bigamous marriage will not become valid on the
deathof the first spouse.) What is the point of all this? Even assuming the Greek law was cited correctly here, how does it apply to Philip unless he went to Greece to
live? > Which is doubtful he ever would.If Philip married Elizabeth, then Charles, Andrew and Edward were allGreek citizens at least until 1994. So was Anne. Nonsense. They were born in England. So what? Children of US citizens happen to be US citizens even if born in England.If Philip was unmarried, his mistress would not have been a Greek.What was the Greek law on bastardy 1948 to 1964? Oh, for Pity's Sake!I understand that as of 1962, a Greek woman lawfully married to aforeign man remained a Greek citizen, but her children would not beGreeks if born before 1984. A foreign woman authomatically became aGreek on lawful marriage. A queen is not just "a foreign woman". Everyone in the House of Windsor married foreigners until the sometime in the 20th Century. Does Greek law of citizenship make exceptions on foreign queens? Yes, the Windsors married foreigners. However, most of the foreign countries concerned agreed with England that a married woman authomatically lost her maiden citizenship. Philip, by contrast, was a man. What does the US law say about the citizenship of Grace Kelly?What was the status of bastards born of a Greek mother and foreign orunknown father? What was the status of bastards born of a Greek fatherand a foreign mother (like the UK royals)? Even if they are all considered "bastards" by Greek law--again, such
laws apply to them not at all. They live in England.If Charles, Andrew and Edward were Greeks, do they owe militaryservice? No. They owe nothing to Greece in any way whatsoever.Both children of Anne were born before 1984, so presumably they werenot Greeks. Presumably? Most certainly not. BTW, I doubt Prince Philip has even a
drop of Greek blood in him.Diana was a Greek if Charles was one... and that makes William andHarry equally Greek - and, unless deprived of citizenship in 1994, dothey owe military service? They are not Greeks. (snip of more nonsense) "THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity
Regarding the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way
again! http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html

So the Greek government can order their citizens to get the Elgin marbles
returned to Greece then!

:)


from: Spirit of Truth

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!

yanbee2@yahoo.com (Yannis) wrote in message news:<a75bea69.0311270803.5276ef67@posting.google.com>... jsaepuru@solo.ee (Jaak Suurpere) wrote in message Unless posters specifically want me to I won't go into the imbroglio with > > > the ex-royal's family citizenship and the law of 1994 stripping them of it. This law could or could not (based on interpretation) also affect Philip, Charles and the rest of this happy Greek family ! I'd specifically want to. I shall a post a separate thread on that when I have time. Where are the Greek royals citizens now? Most of the time, in London but they've been in and out of Greece several times this year.

Under which passports? Let us count the consequences: Since Philip remained a Greek citizen in 1947 (making no attempt to renounce the citizenship in the due manner), Elizabeth was a Greek citizen with all that follows. Or not? It all depends on the validity of their marriage. This raises two issues a) religion, since they were married by Anglican rites. Under Greek law this is recognised only provided Philip , too was Anglican at the time. I don't think there would be any difficulty in proving that, indeed, he had converted by then. b) the Greek royal house law. It depends on whether Philip's marriage was "approved" by King George II or not. I have not seen anything approving it, but then again maybe there was something. One would have to look in the 1947 Greek Government Gazette but it is not on-line and I don't have access to it nor the time (alas!) to hunt for little items like that. If Philip married Elizabeth, then Charles, Andrew and Edward were all Greek citizens at least until 1994. So was Anne. Correct. If Philip was unmarried, his mistress would not have been a Greek. What was the Greek law on bastardy 1948 to 1964? Exactly what do you mean by "law on bastardy"? The problem is not bastardy per se, it's the so called presumption of paternity or whatever. In most countries,Greece being one of them, children born in wedlock are presumed to have the husband as father. Therefore since they are his children they get his citizenship. But without any marriage there is no such presumption. One can of course "recognise" (I'm not sure that's the correct legal term - legitimise perhaps? Anyway, I mean a declaration accepting paternity) his child born out of wedlock,thereby also passing on his citizenship, but Philip certainly did not do that, at least not in the proper form. Or maybe he did, maybe under English law the fact that he appears as the children's father on their birth certificate is enough. Under Greek law this is not the proper form of "recognising" paternity but perhaps English law should cover that. This is getting more and more complicated, now you know why lawyers charge so much! What was the status of bastards born of a Greek mother and foreign or unknown father? What was the status of bastards born of a Greek father and a foreign mother (like the UK royals)? The answer to your question is given above. IF you have a Greek father (i.e. if paternity has been lawfully established) then the fact that he is not married to the mother is not important. If there is no father in the eyes of the law,then a Greek mother could, even under the old rules, pass citizenship.

I see.
Does it mean that a bastard born to a Greek mother before 1984, and
his wife, any exwives and children et cetera, can all be deprived of
their Greek citizenship if anyone succeeds in proving his descent from
a specific foreign man?
If Charles, Andrew and Edward were Greeks, do they owe military service? No, they're exempt as long as they don't enter Greece and continuously reside there for 6 months. This is the reason why none of Constantine's children has ever had to do military service in the Greek army, even when their citizenship was not in qustion. Diana was a Greek if Charles was one... and that makes William and Harry equally Greek - and, unless deprived of citizenship in 1994, do they owe military service? No, same reason as above. What's the status of children born to a Greek father and his foreign wife after 1984? They're Greek citizens, and the reverse (Greek wife, foreign father) also applies.
This would apply to Beatrice and Eugenie, and Louise.
Yannis

"Jaak Suurpere" <jsaepuru@solo.ee> skrev i melding
news:e8319284.0311280119.5c15a64b@posting.google.c om... yanbee2@yahoo.com (Yannis) wrote in message
news:<a75bea69.0311270803.5276ef67@posting.google.com>... Where are the Greek royals citizens now? Most of the time, in London but they've been in and out of Greece several times this year. Under which passports?

They all received Danish diplomatic passports several years ago.

horrigan@aol.com (Horrigan) wrote in message news:<20031127223101.12252.00000937@mb-m25.aol.com>... Her son can't even be president of the United States. Because he was born in Monacco, a principality, of which he will becomerulerin due course. Hmm, maybe, maybe not! I believe Albert Grimaldi was officially born with dual US-Monagasque citizenship, which makes him a natural born US citizen. I also believe that he has no plans to run for President of the US. And although there have been less credible and less qualified candidates for this office, he would not be a leading candidate if he did run.

Prince Albert MIGHT run into trouble (if he ran for President of the
US) because of the following clause in the Cosntitution:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or
retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent
of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or
emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or
foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United
States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or
profit under them, or either of them."

Although there are ways around this problem.

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg <egylist@griffis-consulting.com> wrote in
news:k7odsvobmb4env4tlo3kb4mis8qps3ql33@4ax.com:
On 28 Nov 2003 02:15:58 GMT, marianneluban@aol.comnospam (MarianneLuban) in misc.legal, wrote the following: <snip>Does it follow that e. g. a Monegasque or Thai sovereign cannot be acitizen of any country, including, say, USA - that an US citizen whobecomes a sovereign of any country ceases to be a US citizen withoutany action on his or her part?What difference does it make? You can have dual citizenship, but thelaws of where you live are what matters. For a discussion, seehttp://www.richw.org/dualcit/ A dual national must obey the laws of BOTH countries at the same time. Dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. For example, a dual national must register with the U.S. Selective Service System within three months of his eighteenth birthday, etc. whether he resides in the US or not. See: http://travel.state.gov/americansabroad.html http://travel.state.gov/dualnationality.htmlDo American laws apply to people born in US >who go to live abroad?Yes. Unless they change their citizenship.Then they would no longer have to pay taxes in the US. Er, dual nationals have to file tax returns whether they owe US taxes or not. All dual nationals must report all worldwide income by filing an annual U.S. income tax return, regardless of whether they owe taxes to the U.S. or pay taxes elsewhere. Even if you renounce citizenship, and your income is fairly high, you may still be subject to U.S. taxes for ten years after you have renounced citizenship. See on taxes after renunciation of citizenship: http://www.hansenhome.demon.co.uk/USTaxes.html http://travel.state.gov/renunciation.html http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00337/005064/title/subject/t opic/tax%20law_income%20taxation/filename/taxlaw_1_299 Requirements for what constitutes renunication: http://travel.state.gov/loss.html

Well yes, your laws say that, but laws end at the border. You can't
enforce US laws against, for example, US citizens who have never lived in
the US, have no assets in the US, and don't do business in or with the US,
unless they move to the US. There are, for example, US citizens born
abroad who have one parent born in the US. If they never come to the US,
never file a US tax return, and never register for selective service,
there is nothing anyone can do, nor probably anything anyone would care to
do. Unlike the US, most other countries don't have extraterritorial laws
of this kind, recognising that their jurisdiction overseas is in fact null
and void to begin with.

"June R Harton" <JUNEHARTON@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:bjExb.1217$WG2.254@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com ... So the Greek government can order their citizens to get the Elgin marbles returned to Greece then!


No June, you nutty old bag of racist turd

The Elgin marbles were legitimately PURCHASED by Lord Elgin and have been
*preserved* by the British museum for well over a century

The British museum still retains the original receipt relating to this
PURCHASE of said marbles

You sell something, it ceases to become your property

Get over it

"Seanie O'Kilfoyle" <Piss@Easy.SCHPAMM.com> wrote in message
news:lmJxb.132$2b7.68@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net... The Elgin marbles were legitimately PURCHASED by Lord Elgin and have been *preserved* by the British museum for well over a century The British museum still retains the original receipt relating to this PURCHASE of said marbles

I wonder if there were any conditions placed on the gift of the marbles to
the British Museum, such as perhaps that they couldn't be given away.

It would be interesting, if the Museum tried to give them to Greece (highly
unlikely I know), to see if the current Earl of Elgin and Kincardine would
be able to demand they return them to him.

"June R Harton" <JUNEHARTON@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:bjExb.1217$WG2.254@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com ... So the Greek government can order their citizens to get the Elgin marbles returned to Greece then!

Of course it can, just as I can order you to give me a million pounds.

However, I, like the Greek government, have no legal or practical way to
enforce my order.

In article <38e9db65.0311272154.116b56ea@posting.google.com> in
alt.talk.royalty, Christopher Buyers <christopher.buyers@virgin.net>
wrote:It is inconceivable, for example, that Greek citizenship law would beapplied to an American or Australian diplomat of Greek origin.

It is inconceivable that it would _not_ be so applied, for purposes
of determining whether the person is a Greek citizen -- just as only
American law determines whether one is an American citizen.
Surely, you are not saying that such an individual who was postedto Greecec for six months or more is liable for military servicein the Greek army?

Probably not, but not for that reason. An American or Australian
diplomat posted to Greece is not a resident of Greece.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm

In article <bjExb.1217$WG2.254@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com> in
alt.talk.royalty, June R Harton <JUNEHARTON@prodigy.net> wrote:So the Greek government can order their citizens to get the Elgin marblesreturned to Greece then!

You quoted about 175 lines, to add a two-line comment.

Please, EVERYONE, trim your quotes!

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm

In article <YjIxb.2141$Y06.29282@news4.e.nsc.no> in
alt.talk.royalty, Torkel Nybakk Kvaal <tn.kvaal@NOSPAMonline.no>
wrote:
[The Greek royals]all received Danish diplomatic passports several years ago.

Why _diplomatic_ passports, rather than ordinary Danish passports.

Which Danish royals, if any, have diplomatic passports?

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm

horrigan@aol.com (Timothy Horrigan) wrote in message news:<80981f23.0311280605.49fd1fd@posting.google.com>... horrigan@aol.com (Horrigan) wrote in message news:<20031127223101.12252.00000937@mb-m25.aol.com>... Her son can't even be president of the United States. Because he was born in Monacco, a principality, of which he will becomerulerin due course. Hmm, maybe, maybe not! I believe Albert Grimaldi was officially born with dual US-Monagasque citizenship, which makes him a natural born US citizen. I also believe that he has no plans to run for President of the US. And although there have been less credible and less qualified candidates for this office, he would not be a leading candidate if he did run. Prince Albert MIGHT run into trouble (if he ran for President of the US) because of the following clause in the Cosntitution: "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." Although there are ways around this problem.


There never was such a clause in the Constitution of the United
States. It was in a proposed Amendment which has never been ratified.

On 28 Nov 2003 14:53:36 GMT, Alun <alun@1stcounsel.com> in misc.legal,
wrote the following:
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg <egylist@griffis-consulting.com> wrote innews:k7odsvobmb4env4tlo3kb4mis8qps3ql33@4ax.com:
A dual national must obey the laws of BOTH countries at the same time. Dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. For example, a dual national must register with the U.S. Selective Service System within three months of his eighteenth birthday, etc. whether he resides in the US or not. See: http://travel.state.gov/americansabroad.html http://travel.state.gov/dualnationality.html>Do American laws apply to people born in US >who go to live abroad?Yes. Unless they change their citizenship.Then they would no longer have to pay taxes in the US. Er, dual nationals have to file tax returns whether they owe US taxes or not. All dual nationals must report all worldwide income by filing an annual U.S. income tax return, regardless of whether they owe taxes to the U.S. or pay taxes elsewhere. Even if you renounce citizenship, and your income is fairly high, you may still be subject to U.S. taxes for ten years after you have renounced citizenship. See on taxes after renunciation of citizenship: http://www.hansenhome.demon.co.uk/USTaxes.html http://travel.state.gov/renunciation.html http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00337/005064/title/subject/t opic/tax%20law_income%20taxation/filename/taxlaw_1_299 Requirements for what constitutes renunication: http://travel.state.gov/loss.htmlWell yes, your laws say that, but laws end at the border. You can'tenforce US laws against, for example, US citizens who have never lived inthe US, have no assets in the US, and don't do business in or with the US,unless they move to the US. There are, for example, US citizens bornabroad who have one parent born in the US. If they never come to the US,never file a US tax return, and never register for selective service,there is nothing anyone can do, nor probably anything anyone would care todo. Unlike the US, most other countries don't have extraterritorial lawsof this kind, recognising that their jurisdiction overseas is in fact nulland void to begin with.

I would question most of these assumptions, really. There are laws in
the form of treaties between the US and other countries which
specifically apply to taxation, selective service, etc., so I would
think you need to cite specific instances where this would not apply,
and barring that, better to err on the side of caution and assume US
laws most certainly would apply to the situation of a dual national even
if he/she had never been in the U.S.

I can assure you, for example, there is a dual tax law treaty between
the UK and US, and reporting of all income must occur to IRS, no matter
whether one has US income or an income base located _within_ the US.
Americans can be taxed for their income world-wide, and not just for
their US-based income: it all depends upon the wording of any dual tax
treaty, and/or whether exemptions occur.

However, a foreign-based US citizen or dual national still has to
_report_ total income for all sources, US- or foreign-based, whether one
has to pay IRS tax on the income or not. With other countries, for
example, monies derived from income there is either fully- or
partially-taxable by the US IRS system. This is why many expatriate
families get into trouble with the US IRS, thinking that if they haven't
been in the US over years (or even never) they don't owe IRS taxes for
income they earned overseas. That's simply not true.

For more information, see:

http://www.expatexchange.com/lib.cfm?networkID=159&articleID=1019
Elimination of Dual Taxation During Your Foreign Assignment

According to the selective service system in the US, yes, one _does_
have to register whether one lives in the US or not, if one wishes to
maintain his status as an American citizen. The only exemption to this,
according to Selective Service, is where "...A dual national whose other
country of nationality has an agreement with the U.S. which specifically
provides for an exemption is exempt from induction."

See: http://www.sss.gov/FSaliens.htm

--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.

DISCLAIMER:

Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.

Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a317dc5753cc03698b851@news.odyssey.net>... In article <38e9db65.0311272154.116b56ea@posting.google.com> in alt.talk.royalty, Christopher Buyers <christopher.buyers@virgin.net> wrote:It is inconceivable, for example, that Greek citizenship law would beapplied to an American or Australian diplomat of Greek origin. It is inconceivable that it would _not_ be so applied, for purposes of determining whether the person is a Greek citizen -- just as only American law determines whether one is an American citizen.

No, the two are not the same. Greek citizenship law, being based on
blood, claims extra-territoriality, quite different from US
citizenship law. Thus Greek law determines that irrespective of what
American law may be, Americans of Greek origin are Greeks and claims
certain jurisdiction and duties from them.

It is most probably in conflict with the citizenship laws of other
countries, the Vienna conventions on diplomats and heads of state and
European Human Rights conventions too.
Surely, you are not saying that such an individual who was postedto Greecec for six months or more is liable for military servicein the Greek army? Probably not, but not for that reason. An American or Australian diplomat posted to Greece is not a resident of Greece.

Whatever the reason may be, that reason 'is' most important. It
establishes that Greek law recognizes that Greek citizenship law is
not paramount. It is superceded, overruled or defers to a higher
authority than Greek citizenship law over people of Greek origin.

Cheers,
Christopher Buyers

"Peter Tilman" <pmpt2@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<bq7rep$reh$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>... "Seanie O'Kilfoyle" <Piss@Easy.SCHPAMM.com> wrote in message news:lmJxb.132$2b7.68@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net... The Elgin marbles were legitimately PURCHASED by Lord Elgin and have been *preserved* by the British museum for well over a century The British museum still retains the original receipt relating to this PURCHASE of said marbles I wonder if there were any conditions placed on the gift of the marbles to the British Museum, such as perhaps that they couldn't be given away. It would be interesting, if the Museum tried to give them to Greece (highly unlikely I know), to see if the current Earl of Elgin and Kincardine would be able to demand they return them to him.

Well, if they were purchased and they have a receipt, how could the
question of a gift arrise?

Cheers,
Christopher Buyers

>Subject: Re: Citizenship of Prince Philip of MountbattenFrom: Katherine Griffis-Greenberg egylist@griffis-consulting.comDate: 11/28/2003 5:14 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <dqpfsv8nn7thp0k7ro36ianed96p149i89@4ax.com>On 28 Nov 2003 14:53:36 GMT, Alun <alun@1stcounsel.com> in misc.legal,wrote the following:Katherine Griffis-Greenberg <egylist@griffis-consulting.com> wrote innews:k7odsvobmb4env4tlo3kb4mis8qps3ql33@4ax.com: A dual national must obey the laws of BOTH countries at the same time. Dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. For example, a dual national must register with the U.S. Selective Service System within three months of his eighteenth birthday, etc. whether he resides in the US or not. See: http://travel.state.gov/americansabroad.html http://travel.state.gov/dualnationality.html>>Do American laws apply to people born in US >who go to live abroad?>>Yes. Unless they change their citizenship.>Then they would no longer have to pay taxes in the US. Er, dual nationals have to file tax returns whether they owe US taxes or not. All dual nationals must report all worldwide income by filing an annual U.S. income tax return, regardless of whether they owe taxes to the U.S. or pay taxes elsewhere. Even if you renounce citizenship, and your income is fairly high, you may still be subject to U.S. taxes for ten years after you have renounced citizenship. See on taxes after renunciation of citizenship: http://www.hansenhome.demon.co.uk/USTaxes.html http://travel.state.gov/renunciation.html http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00337/005064/title/subject/t opic/tax%20law_income%20taxation/filename/taxlaw_1_299 Requirements for what constitutes renunication: http://travel.state.gov/loss.htmlWell yes, your laws say that, but laws end at the border. You can'tenforce US laws against, for example, US citizens who have never lived inthe US, have no assets in the US, and don't do business in or with the US,unless they move to the US. There are, for example, US citizens bornabroad who have one parent born in the US. If they never come to the US,never file a US tax return, and never register for selective service,there is nothing anyone can do, nor probably anything anyone would care todo. Unlike the US, most other countries don't have extraterritorial lawsof this kind, recognising that their jurisdiction overseas is in fact nulland void to begin with.
I would question most of these assumptions, really.

Why? Because the poster is applying common sense?
There are laws inthe form of treaties between the US and other countries whichspecifically apply to taxation, selective service, etc., so I wouldthink you need to cite specific instances where this would not apply,and barring that, better to err on the side of caution and assume USlaws most certainly would apply to the situation of a dual national evenif he/she had never been in the U.S.I can assure you, for example, there is a dual tax law treaty betweenthe UK and US, and reporting of all income must occur to IRS, no matterwhether one has US income or an income base located _within_ the US.Americans can be taxed for their income world-wide, and not just fortheir US-based income: it all depends upon the wording of any dual taxtreaty, and/or whether exemptions occur.However, a foreign-based US citizen or dual national still has to_report_ total income for all sources, US- or foreign-based, whether onehas to pay IRS tax on the income or not. With other countries, forexample, monies derived from income there is either fully- orpartially-taxable by the US IRS system. This is why many expatriatefamilies get into trouble with the US IRS, thinking that if they haven'tbeen in the US over years (or even never) they don't owe IRS taxes forincome they earned overseas. That's simply not true.

Oh, I see! If a person, formerly a US citizen, makes a lot of money and
doesn't pay any US taxes, the IRS is going to have him extradited to the good
old US of A so that he can be charged with income tax evasion. And, naturally,
the country with whom the US has a treaty, is going to assist with that just so
the big earner won't have to pay any more taxes in the country in which he
chooses to reside. Yep. Makes a lot of sense. Can you give a "specific
instance" where that occurred? Let us hear from you.
For more information, see:http://www.expatexchange.com/lib.cfm?networkID=159&articleID=1019Elimination of Dual Taxation During Your Foreign Assignment

Foreign Assignment? That is not what is
being discussed. See

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24084

Note where it says: "The high U.S. levies have forced some foreign tax experts
to advise American clients to serious consider abandoning their citizenship.

One international lawyer who asked not to be named told Dow Jones Newswire: "If
you have an estate worth $2 million-$3 million and you are not planning to
return to the U.S., and you don't travel there frequently, then it may not be a
bad idea."

I said--and you quoted me:

"Yes. Unless they change their citizenship. Then they would no longer have to
pay taxes in the US."

Why is that? Because no one can "make" them by any means that I know of. Of
course, if somebody with big bucks who has evaded their US taxes and renounced
their American citizenship status wants to return to the US to live and reap
the consequences, that is up to that individual.
According to the selective service system in the US, yes, one _does_have to register whether one lives in the US or not, if one wishes tomaintain his status as an American citizen.

Aha! But what if he doesn't? Who is going to go and collect him to serve in
the US armed forces if he is living abroad?


"THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the
Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban
You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again!
http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html

"Christopher Buyers" <christopher.buyers@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:38e9db65.0311282330.5e19fe23@posting.google.c om... "Peter Tilman" <pmpt2@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:<bq7rep$reh$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>... "Seanie O'Kilfoyle" <Piss@Easy.SCHPAMM.com> wrote in message news:lmJxb.132$2b7.68@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net... The Elgin marbles were legitimately PURCHASED by Lord Elgin and have
been *preserved* by the British museum for well over a century The British museum still retains the original receipt relating to this PURCHASE of said marbles I wonder if there were any conditions placed on the gift of the marbles
to the British Museum, such as perhaps that they couldn't be given away. It would be interesting, if the Museum tried to give them to Greece
(highly unlikely I know), to see if the current Earl of Elgin and Kincardine
would be able to demand they return them to him. Well, if they were purchased and they have a receipt, how could the question of a gift arrise?

According to Mr O'Kilfoyle, Lord Elgin purchased them, not the British
Museum. If he did, then I have to assume he donated them to the Museum at
some point.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:45:28 -0500, Stan Brown wrote:
In article <bjExb.1217$WG2.254@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com> inalt.talk.royalty, June R Harton <JUNEHARTON@prodigy.net> wrote:
Please, EVERYONE, trim your quotes!

DO that, please.

In article <38e9db65.0311282326.4bca0857@posting.google.com> in
alt.talk.royalty, Christopher Buyers <christopher.buyers@virgin.net>
wrote:Message-ID: <38e9db65.0311282326.4bca0857@posting.google.com>Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a317dc5753cc03698b851@news.odyssey.net>... In article <38e9db65.0311272154.116b56ea@posting.google.com> in alt.talk.royalty, Christopher Buyers <christopher.buyers@virgin.net> wrote:It is inconceivable, for example, that Greek citizenship law would beapplied to an American or Australian diplomat of Greek origin. It is inconceivable that it would _not_ be so applied, for purposes of determining whether the person is a Greek citizen -- just as only American law determines whether one is an American citizen.No, the two are not the same. Greek citizenship law, being based onblood, claims extra-territoriality, quite different from UScitizenship law. Thus Greek law determines that irrespective of whatAmerican law may be, Americans of Greek origin are Greeks and claimscertain jurisdiction and duties from them.

You seem to be under the impression that you're disagreeing with me.
To me it seems you're restating what I said: Greek law determines
who is a Greek citizen, just as American law determines who is an
American citizen.

Obviously this can mean that some people have dual citizenship.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher
Buyers) os suum:Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a317dc5753cc03698b851@news.odyssey.net>... In article <38e9db65.0311272154.116b56ea@posting.google.com> in alt.talk.royalty, Christopher Buyers <christopher.buyers@virgin.net> wrote:It is inconceivable, for example, that Greek citizenship law would beapplied to an American or Australian diplomat of Greek origin. It is inconceivable that it would _not_ be so applied, for purposes of determining whether the person is a Greek citizen -- just as only American law determines whether one is an American citizen.No, the two are not the same. Greek citizenship law, being based onblood, claims extra-territoriality, quite different from UScitizenship law.

What do you mean by extra-territoriality? If you mean applying outside of a
country's borders, US law is extra-territorial too: it confers citizenship (with
related rights and duties) on individuals who might never set foot in the US.
Thus Greek law determines that irrespective of whatAmerican law may be, Americans of Greek origin are Greeks and claimscertain jurisdiction and duties from them.

And conversely for American law, which has similar claims on its citizens born
and raised abroad, who might also hold other citizenships. Other laws do as
well. Some laws provide for ways to resolve such conflicts: e.g., it is
relatively easy to renounce US citizenship. But not all.
It is most probably in conflict with the citizenship laws of othercountries, the Vienna conventions on diplomats and heads of state andEuropean Human Rights conventions too.

The first possibly, depending on the citizenship laws. That is why
traditionally citizenship laws have disliked dual citizens, because of the
conflicts they create. As for the other two, can you show which passage of
those conventions is in conflict?

--
François Velde
velde@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

"Seanie O'Kilfoyle" <Piss@Easy.SCHPAMM.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:lmJxb.132$2b7.68@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net... "June R Harton" <JUNEHARTON@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:bjExb.1217$WG2.254@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com ... So the Greek government can order their citizens to get the Elgin
marbles returned to Greece then!

<...>
The British museum still retains the original receipt relating to this PURCHASE of said marbles You sell something, it ceases to become your property Get over it

But the Greeks didn't sell it.

Pierre

On 29 Nov 2003 12:06:42 GMT, marianneluban@aol.comnospam (MarianneLuban)
in misc.legal, wrote the following:

I said: There are laws inthe form of treaties between the US and other countries whichspecifically apply to taxation, selective service, etc., so I wouldthink you need to cite specific instances where this would not apply,and barring that, better to err on the side of caution and assume USlaws most certainly would apply to the situation of a dual national evenif he/she had never been in the U.S.I can assure you, for example, there is a dual tax law treaty betweenthe UK and US, and reporting of all income must occur to IRS, no matterwhether one has US income or an income base located _within_ the US.Americans can be taxed for their income world-wide, and not just fortheir US-based income: it all depends upon the wording of any dual taxtreaty, and/or whether exemptions occur.However, a foreign-based US citizen or dual national still has to_report_ total income for all sources, US- or foreign-based, whether onehas to pay IRS tax on the income or not. With other countries, forexample, monies derived from income there is either fully- orpartially-taxable by the US IRS system. This is why many expatriatefamilies get into trouble with the US IRS, thinking that if they haven'tbeen in the US over years (or even never) they don't owe IRS taxes forincome they earned overseas. That's simply not true.Oh, I see! If a person, formerly a US citizen, makes a lot of money anddoesn't pay any US taxes, the IRS is going to have him extradited to the goodold US of A so that he can be charged with income tax evasion. And, naturally,the country with whom the US has a treaty, is going to assist with that just sothe big earner won't have to pay any more taxes in the country in which hechooses to reside. Yep. Makes a lot of sense. Can you give a "specificinstance" where that occurred? Let us hear from you.

As I suggested, read the law which was passed in 1996.

http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00337/005064/title/subject/topic/tax%20law_income%20taxation/filename/taxlaw_1_299

In short, when you renounce citizenship, you must file certain forms
concerning tax:

"The HRA of 1996 requires individuals who expatriate to file an
information statement that includes the individual's:

1. Taxpayer identification number;

2. Mailing address at his or her principal foreign residence;

3. New foreign country of residence;

4. New foreign country of citizenship;

5. Information detailing his or her assets and liabilities if the
individual's net worth is at least $500,000; and

6. Any other information requested by the IRS.

A U.S. citizen must file the statement with the State Department or
other U.S. government agency involved in the relinquishment on or before
the date that the citizenship is treated as relinquished. A special
transition rule applies to any U.S. citizen who committed an
expatriation act before February 6, 1995 and who did not submit such a
statement.

Failure to submit the statement will result in the imposition of a
penalty for each year of the 10-year period that begins on the date of
expatriation that is equal to the greater of 5 percent of the
individual's section 877 tax liability or $1,000. The penalty can be
waived if the failure is due to reasonable cause and not to willful
neglect.

The State Department and federal agencies involved in the act of
expatriation are required to provide the IRS with copies of the
statements, or the names and other information on individuals refusing
to submit such statements, and other government documents evidencing the
loss of U.S. citizenship or U.S. lawful permanent resident status."

Similar wording is at the IRS site at

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=97245,00.html

So, yes, they CAN extradite you for non-payment of taxes if you fail to
do so. The so-called "tax havens" such as the Caribbean islands,
Singapore, etc are of, course, available, but then, if you renounce your
citizenship merely to avoid paying taxes, that is in itself an illegal
act under the 1996 law. In short, the renunciation is void and the
taxes are still owed.

Example of this? Why on the very URL YOU submitted:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24084Note where it says: "The high U.S. levies have forced some foreign tax expertsto advise American clients to serious consider abandoning their citizenship.One international lawyer who asked not to be named told Dow Jones Newswire: "Ifyou have an estate worth $2 million-$3 million and you are not planning toreturn to the U.S., and you don't travel there frequently, then it may not be abad idea."

It also said:

"In one case, the news service reported, a U.S. resident of Dutch
citizenship 'took great pains to return his green card to the U.S.
government,' to avoid paying much of his annual $1 million income to the
Treasury Department.

The Dutchman renounced his U.S. residency in order to avoid having to
pay the IRS, Dow Jones said, which was actually illegal because U.S. law
prohibits people from renouncing citizenship or residency strictly for
the purpose of evading taxes.

'In fact,' the financial newswire reported, 'the U.S. is so serious
about taxing non-resident, high-income earners that it passed a law two
years ago saying any individual worth more than $500,000 and trying to
renounce U.S. citizenship will be deemed to be doing so for tax evasion
purposes and will be taxed anyway.'"
I said--and you quoted me:"Yes. Unless they change their citizenship. Then they would no longer have topay taxes in the US."Why is that? Because no one can "make" them by any means that I know of. Ofcourse, if somebody with big bucks who has evaded their US taxes and renouncedtheir American citizenship status wants to return to the US to live and reapthe consequences, that is up to that individual.

Depends upon the situation: if they set up their renunciation to avoid
taxes, and the amount of tax owed is substantial enough, yes, I can see
the IRS would go after them for tax evasion, which is a crime. The
renunciation is void, in IRS eyes, and therefore, one is still a US
citizen avoiding taxes.

The IRS hasn't missed anything when it comes the various ways people
attempt to use overseas trusts and residencies as "tax havens" as a
means to avoid tax. See

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106562,00.html

and that it can use extradition powers to get to people who use
fraudulent tax evasion schemes, including renunciation of citizenship:

http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/02_tax_701.htm
http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/temexico.pdf

RE: dual national registration for selective service:According to the selective service system in the US, yes, one _does_have to register whether one lives in the US or not, if one wishes tomaintain his status as an American citizen.Aha! But what if he doesn't? Who is going to go and collect him to serve inthe US armed forces if he is living abroad?

Unless he has formally renounced his citizenship, as defined under rules
of

http://travel.state.gov/loss.html

which were brought about due to the case of Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S.
252 (1980), then he's a US citizen, and the US presence where he is
located (such as an Embassy, consular office, etc) is going to have on
file that he is in violation of selective service registration, as a US
citizen/dual national. Will the arm come and get him? Doubtful.
However, if he wishes to go to the US, exercise his citizenship rights
OR benefit from *any* US citizenship benefit (such as entitlements {SSA
benefits, Medicare, school loans, etc.), he will have to clear up his
non-registration issue first. He also has the choice of formally
renouncing his citizenship, of course, which is an irrevocable act, and
renounces also all his access to the benefits as well.

In short, one cannot obtain the benefits of US citizenship without also
exercising the responsibility for such benefits.

--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.

DISCLAIMER:

Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.

marianneluban@aol.comnospam (MarianneLuban) wrote in
news:20031129070642.29045.00001119@mb-m12.aol.com:
Subject: Re: Citizenship of Prince Philip of MountbattenFrom: Katherine Griffis-Greenberg egylist@griffis-consulting.comDate: 11/28/2003 5:14 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <dqpfsv8nn7thp0k7ro36ianed96p149i89@4ax.com>On 28 Nov 2003 14:53:36 GMT, Alun <alun@1stcounsel.com> in misc.legal,wrote the following:Katherine Griffis-Greenberg <egylist@griffis-consulting.com> wrote innews:k7odsvobmb4env4tlo3kb4mis8qps3ql33@4ax.com:> A dual national must obey the laws of BOTH countries at the same> time. Dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and> the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both> countries. For example, a dual national must register with the U.S.> Selective Service System within three months of his eighteenth> birthday, etc. whether he resides in the US or not.>> See:>> http://travel.state.gov/americansabroad.html> http://travel.state.gov/dualnationality.html>>>>Do American laws apply to people born in US >who go to live abroad?>>>>Yes. Unless they change their citizenship.>>Then they would no longer have to pay taxes in the US.>> Er, dual nationals have to file tax returns whether they owe US> taxes or not. All dual nationals must report all worldwide income> by filing an annual U.S. income tax return, regardless of whether> they owe taxes to the U.S. or pay taxes elsewhere. Even if you> renounce citizenship, and your income is fairly high, you may still> be subject to U.S. taxes for ten years after you have renounced> citizenship.>> See on taxes after renunciation of citizenship:>> http://www.hansenhome.demon.co.uk/USTaxes.html> http://travel.state.gov/renunciation.html> http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00337/005064/title/subjec> t/t opic/tax%20law_income%20taxation/filename/taxlaw_1_299>> Requirements for what constitutes renunication:>> http://travel.state.gov/loss.html>>Well yes, your laws say that, but laws end at the border. You can'tenforce US laws against, for example, US citizens who have never livedin the US, have no assets in the US, and don't do business in or withthe US, unless they move to the US. There are, for example, UScitizens born abroad who have one parent born in the US. If they nevercome to the US, never file a US tax return, and never register forselective service, there is nothing anyone can do, nor probablyanything anyone would care to do. Unlike the US, most other countriesdon't have extraterritorial laws of this kind, recognising that theirjurisdiction overseas is in fact null and void to begin with.I would question most of these assumptions, really. Why? Because the poster is applying common sense? There are laws inthe form of treaties between the US and other countries whichspecifically apply to taxation, selective service, etc., so I wouldthink you need to cite specific instances where this would not apply,and barring that, better to err on the side of caution and assume USlaws most certainly would apply to the situation of a dual nationaleven if he/she had never been in the U.S.I can assure you, for example, there is a dual tax law treaty betweenthe UK and US, and reporting of all income must occur to IRS, nomatter whether one has US income or an income base located _within_ theUS. Americans can be taxed for their income world-wide, and not justfor their US-based income: it all depends upon the wording of any dualtax treaty, and/or whether exemptions occur.However, a foreign-based US citizen or dual national still has to_report_ total income for all sources, US- or foreign-based, whetherone has to pay IRS tax on the income or not. With other countries, forexample, monies derived from income there is either fully- orpartially-taxable by the US IRS system. This is why many expatriatefamilies get into trouble with the US IRS, thinking that if theyhaven't been in the US over years (or even never) they don't owe IRStaxes for income they earned overseas. That's simply not true. Oh, I see! If a person, formerly a US citizen, makes a lot of money and doesn't pay any US taxes, the IRS is going to have him extradited to the good old US of A so that he can be charged with income tax evasion. And, naturally, the country with whom the US has a treaty, is going to assist with that just so the big earner won't have to pay any more taxes in the country in which he chooses to reside. Yep. Makes a lot of sense. Can you give a "specific instance" where that occurred? Let us hear from you.For more information, see:http://www.expatexchange.com/lib.cfm?networkID=159&articleID=1019Elimination of Dual Taxation During Your Foreign Assignment Foreign Assignment? That is not what is being discussed. See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24084 Note where it says: "The high U.S. levies have forced some foreign tax experts to advise American clients to serious consider abandoning their citizenship. One international lawyer who asked not to be named told Dow Jones Newswire: "If you have an estate worth $2 million-$3 million and you are not planning to return to the U.S., and you don't travel there frequently, then it may not be a bad idea." I said--and you quoted me: "Yes. Unless they change their citizenship. Then they would no longer have to pay taxes in the US." Why is that? Because no one can "make" them by any means that I know of. Of course, if somebody with big bucks who has evaded their US taxes and renounced their American citizenship status wants to return to the US to live and reap the consequences, that is up to that individual.According to the selective service system in the US, yes, one _does_have to register whether one lives in the US or not, if one wishes tomaintain his status as an American citizen. Aha! But what if he doesn't? Who is going to go and collect him to serve in the US armed forces if he is living abroad? "THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again! http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html

My point is not so much that US law can't be enforced overseas, more that
it doesn't apply to begin with, but can be enforced, even when not
applicable due to extraterritoriality, against US assets and US-based
persons. That is how I see it, as a foreigner.

>Subject: Re: Citizenship of Prince Philip of MountbattenFrom: Katherine Griffis-Greenberg egylist@griffis-consulting.comDate: 11/29/2003 9:08 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <ltfhsvkt11smadlu3k1mrnrlc7bgod7dvm@4ax.com>On 29 Nov 2003 12:06:42 GMT, marianneluban@aol.comnospam (MarianneLuban)in misc.legal, wrote the following:I said: There are laws inthe form of treaties between the US and other countries whichspecifically apply to taxation, selective service, etc., so I wouldthink you need to cite specific instances where this would not apply,and barring that, better to err on the side of caution and assume USlaws most certainly would apply to the situation of a dual national evenif he/she had never been in the U.S.I can assure you, for example, there is a dual tax law treaty betweenthe UK and US, and reporting of all income must occur to IRS, no matterwhether one has US income or an income base located _within_ the US.Americans can be taxed for their income world-wide, and not just fortheir US-based income: it all depends upon the wording of any dual taxtreaty, and/or whether exemptions occur.However, a foreign-based US citizen or dual national still has to_report_ total income for all sources, US- or foreign-based, whether onehas to pay IRS tax on the income or not. With other countries, forexample, monies derived from income there is either fully- orpartially-taxable by the US IRS system. This is why many expatriatefamilies get into trouble with the US IRS, thinking that if they haven'tbeen in the US over years (or even never) they don't owe IRS taxes forincome they earned overseas. That's simply not true.Oh, I see! If a person, formerly a US citizen, makes a lot of money anddoesn't pay any US taxes, the IRS is going to have him extradited to thegoodold US of A so that he can be charged with income tax evasion. And,naturally,the country with whom the US has a treaty, is going to assist with that justsothe big earner won't have to pay any more taxes in the country in which hechooses to reside. Yep. Makes a lot of sense. Can you give a "specificinstance" where that occurred? Let us hear from you.As I suggested, read the law which was passed in 1996.http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00337/005064/title/subject/to
pic/tax%20law_income%20taxation/filename/taxlaw_1_299In short, when you renounce citizenship, you must file certain formsconcerning tax:"The HRA of 1996 requires individuals who expatriate to file aninformation statement that includes the individual's:1. Taxpayer identification number;2. Mailing address at his or her principal foreign residence;3. New foreign country of residence;4. New foreign country of citizenship;5. Information detailing his or her assets and liabilities if theindividual's net worth is at least $500,000; and6. Any other information requested by the IRS.A U.S. citizen must file the statement with the State Department orother U.S. government agency involved in the relinquishment on or beforethe date that the citizenship is treated as relinquished. A specialtransition rule applies to any U.S. citizen who committed anexpatriation act before February 6, 1995 and who did not submit such astatement.Failure to submit the statement will result in the imposition of apenalty for each year of the 10-year period that begins on the date ofexpatriation that is equal to the greater of 5 percent of theindividual's section 877 tax liability or $1,000. The penalty can bewaived if the failure is due to reasonable cause and not to willfulneglect.

And how is the US going to enforce all these regulations if the expatriate
doesn't come back to the States?
The State Department and federal agencies involved in the act ofexpatriation are required to provide the IRS with copies of thestatements, or the names and other information on individuals refusingto submit such statements, and other government documents evidencing theloss of U.S. citizenship or U.S. lawful permanent resident status."Similar wording is at the IRS site athttp://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=97245,00.htmlSo, yes, they CAN extradite you for non-payment of taxes if you fail todo so.

To whom did it happen?

The so-called "tax havens" such as the Caribbean islands,Singapore, etc are of, course, available, but then, if you renounce yourcitizenship merely to avoid paying taxes, that is in itself an illegalact under the 1996 law. In short, the renunciation is void and thetaxes are still owed.

Where does the above URL you supplied say that one will be "extradited" by the
IRS? Nobody is arguing that the taxes aren't owed. You were asked to give an
example of a person who left the US and was extradited back to the States so he
could be charged with income tax evasion.
But you haven't done this.
Example of this? Why on the very URL YOU submitted:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24084Note where it says: "The high U.S. levies have forced some foreign taxexpertsto advise American clients to serious consider abandoning their citizenship.One international lawyer who asked not to be named told Dow Jones Newswire:"Ifyou have an estate worth $2 million-$3 million and you are not planning toreturn to the U.S., and you don't travel there frequently, then it may notbe abad idea."

So obviously no one is worried about anyone being extradited for income tax
evasion.
It also said:"In one case, the news service reported, a U.S. resident of Dutchcitizenship 'took great pains to return his green card to the U.S.government,' to avoid paying much of his annual $1 million income to theTreasury Department.The Dutchman renounced his U.S. residency in order to avoid having topay the IRS, Dow Jones said, which was actually illegal because U.S. lawprohibits people from renouncing citizenship or residency strictly forthe purpose of evading taxes.'In fact,' the financial newswire reported, 'the U.S. is so seriousabout taxing non-resident, high-income earners that it passed a law twoyears ago saying any individual worth more than $500,000 and trying torenounce U.S. citizenship will be deemed to be doing so for tax evasionpurposes and will be taxed anyway.'"I said--and you quoted me:"Yes. Unless they change their citizenship. Then they would no longer havetopay taxes in the US."Why is that? Because no one can "make" them by any means that I know of.Ofcourse, if somebody with big bucks who has evaded their US taxes andrenouncedtheir American citizenship status wants to return to the US to live and reapthe consequences, that is up to that individual.Depends upon the situation: if they set up their renunciation to avoidtaxes, and the amount of tax owed is substantial enough, yes, I can seethe IRS would go after them for tax evasion, which is a crime. Therenunciation is void, in IRS eyes, and therefore, one is still a UScitizen avoiding taxes.

Well, then, you describe the process of extradition for this crime. And please
give an example of someone to whom it happened besides the crook whose story is
outlined below.
The IRS hasn't missed anything when it comes the various ways peopleattempt to use overseas trusts and residencies as "tax havens" as ameans to avoid tax. Seehttp://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106562,00.htmland that it can use extradition powers to get to people who usefraudulent tax evasion schemes, including renunciation of citizenship:

People who were arrested for fraud and money laundering schemes don't add up to
people who have renounced US citizenship and are living abroad permanently.
The URL you gave had to do with one Keith Anderson. I think his case is
substantially different from the subject at hand:

"The complaint pending in the Western District of Washington alleges that
Anderson's Ark & Associates, under Keith Anderson's direction, obtained
approximately $28 million in illegal tax refunds for more than 1,500 clients
from 1998 to 2001. The complaint also alleges that Anderson's Ark & Associates
handled more than $50 million of clients' money. The complaint further alleges
that the organization prepared tax returns that claimed large tax deductions
for fraudulent "net operating losses" and "consulting expenses." The complaint
alleges that the funds were not spent as claimed, but instead were wired to
Costa Rica so that clients could later withdraw them with a debit card.

The indictment pending in the Eastern District of California alleges that Keith
Anderson conspired with other leaders of Anderson's Ark & Associates to launder
approximately $370,000 through a network of foreign and domestic accounts
controlled by the organization. Evidence introduced at the trial of two
co-defendants in U.S. District Court in Sacramento in May 2002 established that
the defendants moved funds through bank accounts in the name of shell companies
located in the United States, Costa Rica, and several European and Carribean
countries. In order to conceal the nature of the money transfers, some of the
transactions were characterized as "donations," while others were characterized
as payments for "consulting" services."

Aha! But what if he doesn't? Who is going to go and collect him to serveinthe US armed forces if he is living abroad?Unless he has formally renounced his citizenship, as defined under rulesofhttp://travel.state.gov/loss.htmlwhich were brought about due to the case of Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S.252 (1980), then he's a US citizen, and the US presence where he islocated (such as an Embassy, consular office, etc) is going to have onfile that he is in violation of selective service registration, as a UScitizen/dual national. Will the arm come and get him? Doubtful.However, if he wishes to go to the US, exercise his citizenship rightsOR benefit from *any* US citizenship benefit (such as entitlements {SSAbenefits, Medicare, school loans, etc.), he will have to clear up hisnon-registration issue first. He also has the choice of formallyrenouncing his citizenship, of course, which is an irrevocable act, andrenounces also all his access to the benefits as well.In short, one cannot obtain the benefits of US citizenship without alsoexercising the responsibility for such benefits.

Yes, well, evidently some people who live abroad and renounce their US
citizenship don't
have any need of Medicare and school loans.
Why? Because they are wealthy!



"THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the
Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban
You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again!
http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html

Francois R. Velde <velde@heraldicanospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<r5fhsvkqmlj4k3kbachqjodci2a376us7q@4ax.com>... In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher Buyers) os suum:Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a317dc5753cc03698b851@news.odyssey.net>... In article <38e9db65.0311272154.116b56ea@posting.google.com> in alt.talk.royalty, Christopher Buyers <christopher.buyers@virgin.net> wrote: >It is inconceivable, for example, that Greek citizenship law would be >applied to an American or Australian diplomat of Greek origin. It is inconceivable that it would _not_ be so applied, for purposes of determining whether the person is a Greek citizen -- just as only American law determines whether one is an American citizen.No, the two are not the same. Greek citizenship law, being based onblood, claims extra-territoriality, quite different from UScitizenship law. What do you mean by extra-territoriality? If you mean applying outside of a country's borders, US law is extra-territorial too: it confers citizenship (with related rights and duties) on individuals who might never set foot in the US.

Gosh, never knew that!
Thus Greek law determines that irrespective of whatAmerican law may be, Americans of Greek origin are Greeks and claimscertain jurisdiction and duties from them. And conversely for American law, which has similar claims on its citizens born and raised abroad, who might also hold other citizenships. Other laws do as well. Some laws provide for ways to resolve such conflicts: e.g., it is relatively easy to renounce US citizenship. But not all.It is most probably in conflict with the citizenship laws of othercountries, the Vienna conventions on diplomats and heads of state andEuropean Human Rights conventions too. The first possibly, depending on the citizenship laws. That is why traditionally citizenship laws have disliked dual citizens, because of the conflicts they create. As for the other two, can you show which passage of those conventions is in conflict?

You have not so why should I.

If you are unfamiliar with the Vienna conventions on diplomatic
immunity and immunity of Heads of State there is an pbvious solution -
an educational visit to your local library.

Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a3287932788e34098b859@news.odyssey.net>... In article <38e9db65.0311282326.4bca0857@posting.google.com> in alt.talk.royalty, Christopher Buyers <christopher.buyers@virgin.net> wrote:Message-ID: <38e9db65.0311282326.4bca0857@posting.google.com>Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a317dc5753cc03698b851@news.odyssey.net>... In article <38e9db65.0311272154.116b56ea@posting.google.com> in alt.talk.royalty, Christopher Buyers <christopher.buyers@virgin.net> wrote: >It is inconceivable, for example, that Greek citizenship law would be >applied to an American or Australian diplomat of Greek origin. It is inconceivable that it would _not_ be so applied, for purposes of determining whether the person is a Greek citizen -- just as only American law determines whether one is an American citizen.No, the two are not the same. Greek citizenship law, being based onblood, claims extra-territoriality, quite different from UScitizenship law. Thus Greek law determines that irrespective of whatAmerican law may be, Americans of Greek origin are Greeks and claimscertain jurisdiction and duties from them. You seem to be under the impression that you're disagreeing with me. To me it seems you're restating what I said: Greek law determines who is a Greek citizen, just as American law determines who is an American citizen. Obviously this can mean that some people have dual citizenship.

I do not think we are dissagreeing a great deal, but we some.

Greek citizenship law does not seem to recognise dual citizenship. If
it did, there would be no question of American citizens, even those of
partly Greek origin, being liable to serve in the Greek army.

Cheers,
Christopher Buyers

"Pierre Aronax" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3fc8d1f1$0$26716$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>... "Seanie O'Kilfoyle" <Piss@Easy.SCHPAMM.com> a écrit dans le message de news:lmJxb.132$2b7.68@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net... "June R Harton" <JUNEHARTON@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:bjExb.1217$WG2.254@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com ... So the Greek government can order their citizens to get the Elgin marbles returned to Greece then! <...> The British museum still retains the original receipt relating to this PURCHASE of said marbles You sell something, it ceases to become your property Get over it But the Greeks didn't sell it.

True, but the authorities legally in control of what is now Greece did
sell them legally.

One may as well argue that all sales of land and property during the
Turkish regime, all sales of any kind by the Turks within what is now
the modern territory of Greece, were somehow "illegal" because they
were not by Greeks.

What is your definition of Greek anyway? There are large numbers of
citizens of modern day Greece who are of Albanian origin, not to
mention those of pretty obvious Turkish or Muslim origin.

Cheers,
Christopher Buyers

"Peter Tilman" <pmpt2@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<bqad53$f6$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>... "Christopher Buyers" <christopher.buyers@virgin.net> wrote in message news:38e9db65.0311282330.5e19fe23@posting.google.c om... "Peter Tilman" <pmpt2@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<bq7rep$reh$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>... "Seanie O'Kilfoyle" <Piss@Easy.SCHPAMM.com> wrote in message news:lmJxb.132$2b7.68@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net... > The Elgin marbles were legitimately PURCHASED by Lord Elgin and have been > *preserved* by the British museum for well over a century > > The British museum still retains the original receipt relating to this > PURCHASE of said marbles I wonder if there were any conditions placed on the gift of the marbles to the British Museum, such as perhaps that they couldn't be given away. It would be interesting, if the Museum tried to give them to Greece (highly unlikely I know), to see if the current Earl of Elgin and Kincardine would be able to demand they return them to him. Well, if they were purchased and they have a receipt, how could the question of a gift arrise? According to Mr O'Kilfoyle, Lord Elgin purchased them, not the British Museum. If he did, then I have to assume he donated them to the Museum at some point.

My understanding is that the Parthenon Sculptures ('Elgin Marbles')
were purchased by Parliament from Lord Elgin and vested 'in perpetuity
in the Trustees of the British Museum'. So it is difficult to see how
the present Lord Elgin could have any call whatever.

Cheers,
Christopher Buyers

"Christopher Buyers" <christopher.buyers@virgin.net> a écrit dans le message
de news:38e9db65.0311292348.3f730213@posting.google.c om... "Pierre Aronax" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3fc8d1f1$0$26716$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>... "Seanie O'Kilfoyle" <Piss@Easy.SCHPAMM.com> a écrit dans le message de news:lmJxb.132$2b7.68@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...

<...>
But the Greeks didn't sell it. True, but the authorities legally in control of what is now Greece did sell them legally.

I don't discuss that, and, for what is of the Elgin marbles, for me they are
perfectly well where they are. I was only pointing that they were not sell
by a Greek authority, as was implicitely suggested by the post to which I
answered, but by Ottoman power, whatever can be the legallity of its control
of Greece.
One may as well argue that all sales of land and property during the Turkish regime, all sales of any kind by the Turks within what is now the modern territory of Greece, were somehow "illegal" because they were not by Greeks.

I don't suggest they were illegal, but one can understood that the present
Greek authorities don't fill themselves bounded by an obviously imbalanced
sell made by the Ottoman government. Anyway, I think they put the debate
rather on a moral than on a legal level.
What is your definition of Greek anyway?

Somebody who has Greek citizenship. Or, in other context, somebody whose
mothertongue is Greek.
There are large numbers of citizens of modern day Greece who are of Albanian origin,

What is your definition of "Albanian origin" anyway? Of patrilineal Albanian
origin? With a name of Albanian origin? With all ancestors in the beginning
of the 19th century speaking Albanian?


not to mention those of pretty obvious Turkish or Muslim origin.

And so what? There is a probably a larger number of citizens of modern day
Britain who are of Indian or Pakistanis origin. Does that make the gift of
the marble to the British Museum by lord Elgin less valid?

Pierre

>> christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher Buyers) os suum:It is most probably in conflict with the citizenship laws of othercountries, the Vienna conventions on diplomats and heads of state andEuropean Human Rights conventions too.Francois R. Velde <velde@heraldicanospam.invalid> wrote can you show which passage of those conventions is in conflict?

In article <38e9db65.0311292337.77f5cb22@posting.google.com> in
alt.talk.royalty, Christopher Buyers <christopher.buyers@virgin.net>
wrote:You have not so why should I.If you are unfamiliar with the Vienna conventions on diplomaticimmunity and immunity of Heads of State there is an pbvious solution -an educational visit to your local library.

Translation: You were talking through your hat, he's called you on
it, but for some reason you feel you can't admit it.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm

"Christopher Buyers" <christopher.buyers@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:38e9db65.0311300014.5ed51987@posting.google.c om... My understanding is that the Parthenon Sculptures ('Elgin Marbles') were purchased by Parliament from Lord Elgin and vested 'in perpetuity in the Trustees of the British Museum'. So it is difficult to see how the present Lord Elgin could have any call whatever.

Does that wording allow the Trustees to sell them or give them away?

"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> skrev i melding
news:MPG.1a317e745709547e98b853@news.odyssey.net.. . In article <YjIxb.2141$Y06.29282@news4.e.nsc.no> in alt.talk.royalty, Torkel Nybakk Kvaal <tn.kvaal@NOSPAMonline.no> wrote: [The Greek royals]all received Danish diplomatic passports several years ago. Why _diplomatic_ passports, rather than ordinary Danish passports. Which Danish royals, if any, have diplomatic passports?

All Royal Highnesses in Denmark have diplomatic passports, the same in
Norway, Sweden and I believe the UK. Queen Anne-Marie is a sister of the
Danish Queen and thus entitled to the privileges of a Danish Princess. The
privilege of a Danish diplomatic passport has been extended to her family
also.

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher
Buyers) os suum:
Francois R. Velde <velde@heraldicanospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<r5fhsvkqmlj4k3kbachqjodci2a376us7q@4ax.com>... In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher Buyers) os suum:Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a317dc5753cc03698b851@news.odyssey.net>...> In article <38e9db65.0311272154.116b56ea@posting.google.com> in> alt.talk.royalty, Christopher Buyers <christopher.buyers@virgin.net>It is most probably in conflict with the citizenship laws of othercountries, the Vienna conventions on diplomats and heads of state andEuropean Human Rights conventions too. The first possibly, depending on the citizenship laws. That is why traditionally citizenship laws have disliked dual citizens, because of the conflicts they create. As for the other two, can you show which passage of those conventions is in conflict?You have not so why should I.

Because you made the claim. I didn't.
If you are unfamiliar with the Vienna conventions on diplomaticimmunity and immunity of Heads of State there is an pbvious solution -an educational visit to your local library.

There's an even more obvious solution. It's online. Now, what's your point?

--
François Velde
velde@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher
Buyers) os suum:Greek citizenship law does not seem to recognise dual citizenship. Ifit did, there would be no question of American citizens, even those ofpartly Greek origin, being liable to serve in the Greek army.

Why? Dual citizens are not exempted from serving in either country of
citizenship.

--
François Velde
velde@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

"Pierre Aronax" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3fc9d165$0$6138$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>... "Christopher Buyers" <christopher.buyers@virgin.net> a écrit dans le message de news:38e9db65.0311292348.3f730213@posting.google.c om... "Pierre Aronax" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3fc8d1f1$0$26716$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>... "Seanie O'Kilfoyle" <Piss@Easy.SCHPAMM.com> a écrit dans le message de news:lmJxb.132$2b7.68@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net... > <...> But the Greeks didn't sell it. True, but the authorities legally in control of what is now Greece did sell them legally. I don't discuss that, and, for what is of the Elgin marbles, for me they are perfectly well where they are. I was only pointing that they were not sell by a Greek authority, as was implicitely suggested by the post to which I answered, but by Ottoman power, whatever can be the legallity of its control of Greece. One may as well argue that all sales of land and property during the Turkish regime, all sales of any kind by the Turks within what is now the modern territory of Greece, were somehow "illegal" because they were not by Greeks. I don't suggest they were illegal, but one can understood that the present Greek authorities don't fill themselves bounded by an obviously imbalanced sell made by the Ottoman government. Anyway, I think they put the debate rather on a moral than on a legal level. What is your definition of Greek anyway? Somebody who has Greek citizenship. Or, in other context, somebody whose mothertongue is Greek. There are large numbers of citizens of modern day Greece who are of Albanian origin, What is your definition of "Albanian origin" anyway? Of patrilineal Albanian origin? With a name of Albanian origin? With all ancestors in the beginning of the 19th century speaking Albanian?

No, people who recognise themselves to be Albanian either in terms of
language, culture, religion or any other definition of their own
choosing. not to mention those of pretty obvious Turkish or Muslim origin. And so what? There is a probably a larger number of citizens of modern day Britain who are of Indian or Pakistanis origin. Does that make the gift of the marble to the British Museum by lord Elgin less valid?
Ugh? Lord Elgin did not gift the marbles to the British Museum. He
sold them to the British government and Parliament assigned their
perpetual preservation to the British Museum.

My point was that if the sale of the marbles by the Turks of the time
was somehow immoral or illegal, then surely the ownership of land by
people of non reek origin is invalid for the same reason. They would
have acquired their lands by virtue of Turkish law, or sale of state
or confiscated lands by the same Turkish authority that sold the
marbles.

I presume that at some point in time the government of Greece may have
retrospectively recognised such sales by the Turkish authorities as
being valid, probably with some law of indemnity after independence.
Unless such laws specifically excluded the Elgin Marbles, then the
Greek government probably recognised that sale also.

Simple logic that does not need to involve modern day Indians or
Pakistanis in any way whatever.

Cheers,
Christopher Buyers

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 10:38:59 -0600, Francois R. Velde
<velde@heraldicanospam.invalid> wrote:
In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit christopher.buyers@virgin.net (ChristopherBuyers) os suum:Greek citizenship law does not seem to recognise dual citizenship. Ifit did, there would be no question of American citizens, even those ofpartly Greek origin, being liable to serve in the Greek army.Why? Dual citizens are not exempted from serving in either country ofcitizenship.

Indeed. French dual citizens used to have (and may still have, though
I'm not sure) the alternatives of doing compulsory service in the
French army or being deprived of their French citizenship - Hilaire
Belloc is a well-known example.

--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:19:10 -0000, "Peter Tilman" <pmpt2@cam.ac.uk>
wrote:
"Christopher Buyers" <christopher.buyers@virgin.net> wrote in messagenews:38e9db65.0311300014.5ed51987@posting.g oogle.com... My understanding is that the Parthenon Sculptures ('Elgin Marbles') were purchased by Parliament from Lord Elgin and vested 'in perpetuity in the Trustees of the British Museum'. So it is difficult to see how the present Lord Elgin could have any call whatever.Does that wording allow the Trustees to sell them or give them away?
No. I think it would take an Act of Parliament to do that.

--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Don Aitken <don-aitken@freeuk.com> os suum:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 10:38:59 -0600, Francois R. Velde<velde@heraldicanospam.invalid> wrote:In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit christopher.buyers@virgin.net (ChristopherBuyers) os suum:Greek citizenship law does not seem to recognise dual citizenship. Ifit did, there would be no question of American citizens, even those ofpartly Greek origin, being liable to serve in the Greek army.Why? Dual citizens are not exempted from serving in either country ofcitizenship.Indeed. French dual citizens used to have (and may still have, thoughI'm not sure) the alternatives of doing compulsory service in theFrench army or being deprived of their French citizenship - HilaireBelloc is a well-known example.

I don't recall quite that option, but something related: at the age of 18, I
briefly had the possibility of renouncing French citizenship. In French law
(as, I take it, in Greek law), it is quite difficult to renounce citizenship,
and having the option to do so is actually meaningful. For example, the
procedures for renouncing French citizenship are not open to males under 35 who
acquire another citizenship but have not met their obligations for military
service. If a Frenchman settles abroad and takes up citizenship without having
fulfilled his obligations, he cannot renounce citizenship, and remains liable.

However, I don't believe that under current law a born-citizen can be deprived
of citizenship for failing his military obligations. Having declined that
option, I was liable for military service in France, whether or not I was liable
for the same elsewhere. And conversely, when I registered for the American
Selective Service System, there was no arguing that I was exempt from doing so
for having already served once. (And, of course, having performed military
service in another army was in no way prejudicial to my US citizenship.)

Such arguments for exemption can be made, but when bilateral treaties exist,
just as with taxation. To push this back on-topic, one royal whose engagement
has just been announced happens to have dual citizenship. Luis Alfonso de
Borbon y Martinez-Bordiu (a.k.a. Louis Alphonse de Bourbon) is both French
(through his paternal grandmother) and Spanish. Both countries until very
recently required military service of their males citizens. He served in Spain
rather than France, by virtue of a convention of April 9, 1969 which specifies
that dual nationals serve in the country in which they resided most of the 12
months preceding their 18th birthday or, if they lived in a third country, in
the country of their choice; and that, having done so, they are considered to
have fulfilled their duties in the other country. The text is in French at
http://www.doc.diplomatie.gouv.fr/BASIS/pacte/webext/bilat/DDD/19690061.pdf

France also has such conventions with Argentina, Israel, Italy, Switzerland, and
Tunisia.

--
François Velde
velde@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

On 29 Nov 2003 21:50:03 GMT, marianneluban@aol.comnospam (MarianneLuban)
in misc.legal, wrote the following:
Subject: Re: Citizenship of Prince Philip of MountbattenFrom: Katherine Griffis-Greenberg egylist@griffis-consulting.comDate: 11/29/2003 9:08 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <ltfhsvkt11smadlu3k1mrnrlc7bgod7dvm@4ax.com>On 29 Nov 2003 12:06:42 GMT, marianneluban@aol.comnospam (MarianneLuban)in misc.legal, wrote the following:I said:> There are laws in>the form of treaties between the US and other countries which>specifically apply to taxation, selective service, etc., so I would>think you need to cite specific instances where this would not apply,>and barring that, better to err on the side of caution and assume US>laws most certainly would apply to the situation of a dual national even>if he/she had never been in the U.S.>>I can assure you, for example, there is a dual tax law treaty between>the UK and US, and reporting of all income must occur to IRS, no matter>whether one has US income or an income base located _within_ the US.>Americans can be taxed for their income world-wide, and not just for>their US-based income: it all depends upon the wording of any dual tax>treaty, and/or whether exemptions occur.>>However, a foreign-based US citizen or dual national still has to>_report_ total income for all sources, US- or foreign-based, whether one>has to pay IRS tax on the income or not. With other countries, for>example, monies derived from income there is either fully- or>partially-taxable by the US IRS system. This is why many expatriate>families get into trouble with the US IRS, thinking that if they haven't>been in the US over years (or even never) they don't owe IRS taxes for>income they earned overseas. That's simply not true.Oh, I see! If a person, formerly a US citizen, makes a lot of money anddoesn't pay any US taxes, the IRS is going to have him extradited to thegood old US of A so that he can be charged with income tax evasion. And,naturally, the country with whom the US has a treaty, is going to assist with that justso the big earner won't have to pay any more taxes in the country in which hechooses to reside. Yep. Makes a lot of sense. Can you give a "specificinstance" where that occurred? Let us hear from you.As I suggested, read the law which was passed in 1996.http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00337/005064/title/subject/topic/tax%20law_income%20taxation/filename/taxlaw_1_299In short, when you renounce citizenship, you must file certain formsconcerning tax:"The HRA of 1996 requires individuals who expatriate to file aninformation statement that includes the individual's:1. Taxpayer identification number;2. Mailing address at his or her principal foreign residence;3. New foreign country of residence;4. New foreign country of citizenship;5. Information detailing his or her assets and liabilities if theindividual's net worth is at least $500,000; and6. Any other information requested by the IRS.A U.S. citizen must file the statement with the State Department orother U.S. government agency involved in the relinquishment on or beforethe date that the citizenship is treated as relinquished. A specialtransition rule applies to any U.S. citizen who committed anexpatriation act before February 6, 1995 and who did not submit such astatement.Failure to submit the statement will result in the imposition of apenalty for each year of the 10-year period that begins on the date ofexpatriation that is equal to the greater of 5 percent of theindividual's section 877 tax liability or $1,000. The penalty can bewaived if the failure is due to reasonable cause and not to willfulneglect.And how is the US going to enforce all these regulations if the expatriatedoesn't come back to the States?

Consider the fact we have treaties with countries for the extradition of
people who commit crimes against the U.S. Tax evasion [willful and
conscious misrepresentation or concealment of one’s tax obligations, or
the flight of a taxpayer to another country] IS a crime, and as I
pointed out before (although you found it simpler to exclude the Mexican
treaty URL as if it doesn't exist), treaties between such nations (as
Mexico) allow the US to pursue tax evaders within their own country.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
denies the ability of expatriates who renounce citizenship from ever
re-entering the US under their new citizenship. Further, it authorizes,
under the Federal Register, the IRS to publish a quarterly list (in the
Federal Register) of names of all Americans (with incomes above $100,000
and assets of more than $500 million) who renounced citizenship, which
means they are to be watched government-wide.

As the Federal Register is the primary government document for
publication to _all government agencies_, publication of these names
puts the US embassies, consular offices, and those working within
revenue issues with foreign governments on notice of potential tax
evaders and authorises to keep a continual watch on tax-evading
expatriates. A continued watch for such individuals is carried out
worldwide.

Further, the IRS has international offices around the world with
criminal investigation divisions who will pursue those who
expatriate/renounce for the sole reason of avoiding taxes. As mentioned
in the last post, the HRA of 1996 law assumes that not complying with
its provisions makes a prima facie case that renunciation was for the
purpose of avoiding tax, which voids the renunciation _in toto_ and
allows the IRS to pursue the expatriate US citizen for tax evasion. The
IRS outlined part of its 2001 strategy for its international criminal
investigation of tax evaders at

http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=107502,00.html

The stated purpose of the International Division of IRS is for the
"Criminal Investigation's (CI) International Strategy is integrated into
the overall United States strategy to combat terrorism, money
laundering, tax evasion, and international crime."

Please note that part of the purposes of these international offices is
the "... location and extradition of fugitives."
The State Department and federal agencies involved in the act ofexpatriation are required to provide the IRS with copies of thestatements, or the names and other information on individuals refusingto submit such statements, and other government documents evidencing theloss of U.S. citizenship or U.S. lawful permanent resident status."Similar wording is at the IRS site athttp://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=97245,00.htmlSo, yes, they CAN extradite you for non-payment of taxes if you fail todo so.To whom did it happen?

See below.
The so-called "tax havens" such as the Caribbean islands,Singapore, etc are of, course, available, but then, if you renounce yourcitizenship merely to avoid paying taxes, that is in itself an illegalact under the 1996 law. In short, the renunciation is void and thetaxes are still owed.Where does the above URL you supplied say that one will be "extradited" by theIRS? Nobody is arguing that the taxes aren't owed. You were asked to give anexample of a person who left the US and was extradited back to the States so hecould be charged with income tax evasion.But you haven't done this.

The Costa Rica example was, in fact, also a case of tax evasion, so yes,
I think I have shown that one can be extradited for this. Another
example would be William Cooper. Martin Frankel was also charged for
tax evasion, as well as insurance fraud. He pled guilty to the tax
evasion in Germany in an attempt to avoid prosecution in the US, which
failed to prevent his extradition. On the latter, see

<http://www.courttv.com/archive/world/2000/0616/frankel_ap.html>
<http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/west/2001/03/12/newsbriefs>
<http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/newswire/national/2001/03/05/13820.htm>

There's also Arkady Shuster of Brooklyn, NY:

<http://www.dot.gov/affairs/1998/oig1798.htm>

Las Vegas lawyers Daniel Chapman and Sean Flanagan, disbarred Las Vegas
lawyer Shawn Hackman, former New York lawyer Herbert Jacobi and stock
transfer agent James Farrell of Salt Lake City:

<http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Aug-08-Fri-2003/news/21902968.html>

[Swiss authorities arrested Berney in Zurich in February 2000, and he
has been returned to the US pending charges which include fraud and tax
evasion.]

and of course, Mark Jiminez:

<http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/sep2002/gr_148571_2002.html>

There are other examples, though not all make the national front pages.
I can recall a situation from Birmingham, Alabama from about 10 years
ago where a businessman who owned a local food establishment fled to
Israel to avoid paying taxes, counting upon his dual citizenship to
protect him form the IRS (he also attempted to renounce his US
citizenship in the process of this act). Israel duly returned him to
the US for prosecution for tax evasion, under a US extradition treaty.
Well, then, you describe the process of extradition for this crime. And pleasegive an example of someone to whom it happened besides the crook whose story isoutlined below.

See above.
The IRS hasn't missed anything when it comes the various ways peopleattempt to use overseas trusts and residencies as "tax havens" as ameans to avoid tax. Seehttp://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106562,00.htmland that it can use extradition powers to get to people who usefraudulent tax evasion schemes, including renunciation of citizenship:People who were arrested for fraud and money laundering schemes don't add up topeople who have renounced US citizenship and are living abroad permanently.The URL you gave had to do with one Keith Anderson. I think his case issubstantially different from the subject at hand:"The complaint pending in the Western District of Washington alleges thatAnderson's Ark & Associates, under Keith Anderson's direction, obtainedapproximately $28 million in illegal tax refunds for more than 1,500 clientsfrom 1998 to 2001. The complaint also alleges that Anderson's Ark & Associateshandled more than $50 million of clients' money. The complaint further allegesthat the organization prepared tax returns that claimed large tax deductionsfor fraudulent "net operating losses" and "consulting expenses." The complaintalleges that the funds were not spent as claimed, but instead were wired toCosta Rica so that clients could later withdraw them with a debit card.The indictment pending in the Eastern District of California alleges that KeithAnderson conspired with other leaders of Anderson's Ark & Associates to launderapproximately $370,000 through a network of foreign and domestic accountscontrolled by the organization. Evidence introduced at the trial of twoco-defendants in U.S. District Court in Sacramento in May 2002 established thatthe defendants moved funds through bank accounts in the name of shell companieslocated in the United States, Costa Rica, and several European and Carribeancountries. In order to conceal the nature of the money transfers, some of thetransactions were characterized as "donations," while others were characterizedas payments for "consulting" services."

It also states the charges were for tax evasion, to wit:

"...Anderson is the founder and leader of Anderson's Ark & Associates, a
multi-national, membership-based organization that has allegedly
assisted hundreds of its members in evading income taxes and laundering
money. In Costa Rica, Anderson's Ark & Associates maintains a business
center, a conference center, and several villas and guest facilities.
Keith Anderson had been in custody in Costa Rica since Feb. 9, 2002,
when he was arrested by Costa Rican authorities with the assistance of
the IRS."

To assure extradition in countries with zero tax and/or no income tax,
the US government often will transform a tax evasion charge into a
charge of fraud, since fraud is a crime in almost every jurisdiction.
The government can then seek extradition of a tax evader by arguing that
the filing of a false return constitutes mail fraud. In other cases, it
merely must show that the person involved has evaded taxes, which is
also a crime. Tax evasion is now specifically listed as extraditable in
about 20 treaties between the US and other countries.

you also said:Aha! But what if he doesn't? Who is going to go and collect him to serveinthe US armed forces if he is living abroad?Unless he has formally renounced his citizenship, as defined under rulesofhttp://travel.state.gov/loss.htmlwhich were brought about due to the case of Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S.252 (1980), then he's a US citizen, and the US presence where he islocated (such as an Embassy, consular office, etc) is going to have onfile that he is in violation of selective service registration, as a UScitizen/dual national. Will the arm come and get him? Doubtful.However, if he wishes to go to the US, exercise his citizenship rightsOR benefit from *any* US citizenship benefit (such as entitlements {SSAbenefits, Medicare, school loans, etc.), he will have to clear up hisnon-registration issue first. He also has the choice of formallyrenouncing his citizenship, of course, which is an irrevocable act, andrenounces also all his access to the benefits as well.In short, one cannot obtain the benefits of US citizenship without alsoexercising the responsibility for such benefits.Yes, well, evidently some people who live abroad and renounce their UScitizenship don't have any need of Medicare and school loans.Why? Because they are wealthy!

Those who are wealthy and who renounce citizenship still have to pay
taxes to the US government for a specified period of time under the HRA
1996, and if it can be shown the renunciation was an attempt to avoid
taxes, for up to 10 years after they renounce. Obviously if they
renounce their citizenship, they also renounce its benefits, as I stated
above your comment. In that, we are not in disagreement.

But you were asking about the selective service system where one _did
not_ renounce their status as a US citizen. Can they be prosecuted or
otherwise held accountable if they don't register for the draft? Yes,
they can, if they exercise their status as US citizens in achieving
citizenship benefits or entitlements. Merely requesting US citizen
services at a consular office or embassy means that before services can
be provided, the erstwhile US citizen must also submit that he is not in
arrears as to _his_ obligations to the US. Try and request services
from an embassy and see if this is not the case, as they do surely
check.

--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.

DISCLAIMER:

Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Christopher Buyers <christopher.buyers@virgin.net> os suum: My point was that if the sale of the marbles by the Turks of the time was somehow immoral or illegal, then surely the ownership of land by people of non reek origin is invalid for the same reason. They would have acquired their lands by virtue of Turkish law, or sale of state or confiscated lands by the same Turkish authority that sold the marbles.
I presume that at some point in time the government of Greece may have retrospectively recognised such sales by the Turkish authorities as being valid, probably with some law of indemnity after independence. Unless such laws specifically excluded the Elgin Marbles, then the Greek government probably recognised that sale also.

However the premise, supplied by another poster, that Lord Elgin purchased
the marbles from someone, is incorrect. Elgin produced a document which
appeared to be an authorization to access the Parthenon for the purposes
of studying it, which also allowed him to remove "some pieces of stone"
(qualche pezzi di pietra in the Italian translation from the Turkish,
"any pieces of stone" in the English translation from the Italian
translation shown to the British Parliament in 1816) with inscriptions
or figures.

I don't think it changes the argument very much that what was done,
was done with the approval of the then-legal authorities, even if
the literal approval was stretched quite a bit.



--
François R. Velde
velde@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

"Francois R. Velde" <velde@heraldicaNOTSPAM.invalid> a écrit dans le message
de news:bqfvqc$539$1@e250.ripco.com...

<...>>
However the premise, supplied by another poster, that Lord Elgin purchased the marbles from someone, is incorrect. Elgin produced a document which appeared to be an authorization to access the Parthenon for the purposes of studying it, which also allowed him to remove "some pieces of stone" (qualche pezzi di pietra in the Italian translation from the Turkish, "any pieces of stone" in the English translation from the Italian translation shown to the British Parliament in 1816) with inscriptions or figures.

This words are always quoted by those who favour the marbles' restitution. I
would be curious to see the whole Italian text nevertheless, and the
quotation in context.



Pierre

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Pierre Aronax <pierre_aronax@hotmail.com> os suum:
"Francois R. Velde" <velde@heraldicaNOTSPAM.invalid> a écrit dans le message de news:bqfvqc$539$1@e250.ripco.com...
<...>>
However the premise, supplied by another poster, that Lord Elgin purchased the marbles from someone, is incorrect. Elgin produced a document which appeared to be an authorization to access the Parthenon for the purposes of studying it, which also allowed him to remove "some pieces of stone" (qualche pezzi di pietra in the Italian translation from the Turkish, "any pieces of stone" in the English translation from the Italian translation shown to the British Parliament in 1816) with inscriptions or figures.
This words are always quoted by those who favour the marbles' restitution. I would be curious to see the whole Italian text nevertheless, and the quotation in context.


So would I, but at least the whole context in English (presumably taken from the
Select committee's documents) can be found in a variety of places, e.g.:
http://www.uk.digiserve.com/mentor/marbles/firman.htm
(which I found by googling for the Italian phrase which I remembered.) If the
text is accurate, the importance of the "removal of stones" within the stated
purpose of Lord Elgin's access to the Parthenon is pretty clear.

--
François R. Velde
velde@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

>Subject: Re: Citizenship of Prince Philip of MountbattenFrom: Katherine Griffis-Greenberg egylist@griffis-consulting.comDate: 12/1/2003 12:23 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <3polsvs5qkrkbgk3vd3ts987p2nfppl1a5@4ax.com>On 29 Nov 2003 21:50:03 GMT, marianneluban@aol.comnospam (MarianneLuban)in misc.legal, wrote the following:Subject: Re: Citizenship of Prince Philip of MountbattenFrom: Katherine Griffis-Greenberg egylist@griffis-consulting.comDate: 11/29/2003 9:08 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <ltfhsvkt11smadlu3k1mrnrlc7bgod7dvm@4ax.com>On 29 Nov 2003 12:06:42 GMT, marianneluban@aol.comnospam (MarianneLuban)in misc.legal, wrote the following:
>Oh, I see! If a person, formerly a US citizen, makes a lot of money and>doesn't pay any US taxes, the IRS is going to have him extradited to thegood old US of A so that he can be charged with income tax evasion. And,naturally, the country with whom the US has a treaty, is going to assistwith that justso the big earner won't have to pay any more taxes in the country in whichhe>chooses to reside. Yep. Makes a lot of sense. Can you give a "specific>instance" where that occurred? Let us hear from you.
Consider the fact we have treaties with countries for the extradition ofpeople who commit crimes against the U.S. Tax evasion [willful andconscious misrepresentation or concealment of one’s tax obligations, orthe flight of a taxpayer to another country] IS a crime, and as Ipointed out before (although you found it simpler to exclude the Mexicantreaty URL as if it doesn't exist), treaties between such nations (asMexico) allow the US to pursue tax evaders within their own country.The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996denies the ability of expatriates who renounce citizenship from everre-entering the US under their new citizenship. Further, it authorizes,under the Federal Register, the IRS to publish a quarterly list (in theFederal Register) of names of all Americans (with incomes above $100,000and assets of more than $500 million) who renounced citizenship, whichmeans they are to be watched government-wide.

Watching is not the same as extraditing.

Further, the IRS has international offices around the world withcriminal investigation divisions who will pursue those whoexpatriate/renounce for the sole reason of avoiding taxes. As mentionedin the last post, the HRA of 1996 law assumes that not complying withits provisions makes a prima facie case that renunciation was for thepurpose of avoiding tax, which voids the renunciation _in toto_ andallows the IRS to pursue the expatriate US citizen for tax evasion. TheIRS outlined part of its 2001 strategy for its international criminalinvestigation of tax evaders athttp://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=107502,00.htmlThe stated purpose of the International Division of IRS is for the"Criminal Investigation's (CI) International Strategy is integrated intothe overall United States strategy to combat terrorism, moneylaundering, tax evasion, and international crime."Please note that part of the purposes of these international offices isthe "... location and extradition of fugitives."

They mean "criminals".
So, yes, they CAN extradite you for non-payment of taxes if you fail todo so.To whom did it happen?See below.
IRS? Nobody is arguing that the taxes aren't owed. You were asked to giveanexample of a person who left the US and was extradited back to the States sohecould be charged with income tax evasion.But you haven't done this.The Costa Rica example was, in fact, also a case of tax evasion, so yes,I think I have shown that one can be extradited for this.

The guy who worked out of Costa Rica was a crook. He was "not" extradited for
income tax evasion.

Anotherexample would be William Cooper.

Who's he??

Martin Frankel was also charged fortax evasion, as well as insurance fraud. He pled guilty to the taxevasion in Germany in an attempt to avoid prosecution in the US, whichfailed to prevent his extradition. On the latter, see<http://www.courttv.com/archive/world/2000/0616/frankel_ap.html>

Frankel was a diamond smuggler!

"Martin Frankel, the rogue financier who led the world on a massive manhunt in
1999, was returned to the United States after being extradited from Germany. He
appeared March 4 in federal court in New Haven, Conn., to face charges of
securities fraud, wire fraud, racketeering and racketeering conspiracy. Frankel
has been in Germany since September 1999, where he was sentenced to three years
in prison for tax evasion and possession of nine passports. According to an
Associated Press report, Frankel tried to escape from his German prison cell by
sawing through the bars, but was caught in the attempt and moved to another
facility. U.S. regulators from five different states are seeking damages in
excess of $600 million on charges that he defrauded several insurance companies
of at least $200 million."

This is what you are trying to pass off as being extradited for "income tax
evasion"!!!

There's also Arkady Shuster of Brooklyn, NY:<http://www.dot.gov/affairs/1998/oig1798.htm>

When you provide these URLs, do you even bother to read them well?

Shuster was *not* extradited.

"Shuster, indicted in November 1992, fled the country and was a fugitive until
he re-entered the United States in February 1997. On March 17, 1997, in U.S.
District Court in Hauppauge, Long Island, he pleaded guilty to two counts of
conspiracy, two counts of tax evasion and one count of false use of an Internal
Revenue Service form used to register tax-free transactions."

Did you happen to see that Shuster "re-entered" the United States? How does
that add up to "extradited"?
Las Vegas lawyers Daniel Chapman and Sean Flanagan, disbarred Las Vegaslawyer Shawn Hackman, former New York lawyer Herbert Jacobi and stocktransfer agent James Farrell of Salt Lake City:<http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Aug-08-Fri-2003/news/2190296
8.html>[Swiss authorities arrested Berney in Zurich in February 2000, and hehas been returned to the US pending charges which include fraud and taxevasion.]

LOL! All crooks:

"Five people, including two attorneys and two former attorneys, were indicted
Thursday in Las Vegas in connection with a $14 million securities fraud scheme.


The 64-count indictment was filed against Las Vegas lawyers Daniel Chapman and
Sean Flanagan, disbarred Las Vegas lawyer Shawn Hackman, former New York lawyer
Herbert Jacobi and stock transfer agent James Farrell of Salt Lake City.

"In June of 1999, Peter Berney fled the United States to avoid criminal
charges, leaving behind stocks of several shell corporations that he had
fraudulently formed and had merged with private companies, and also leaving
behind several shell corporations that had not yet been merged," the indictment
alleges.

Berney, 57, and Potter, 55, later were indicted by federal grand juries in Las
Vegas and New York.

After Berney fled the country, according to the indictment returned Thursday,
Potter and the five other men, "decided to take up where Berney left off,
merging the shell corporations and selling the stock that was in nominee names,
keeping the proceeds for themselves."

Swiss authorities arrested Berney in Zurich in February 2000. His criminal
cases are pending.

Potter found himself in more trouble in June 2001, when he and Jacobi were
charged in New York with conspiring to receive stolen FBI records from Las
Vegas private investigator Michael Levin, a former FBI agent.

All three men entered guilty pleas in the case. As part of his plea agreement,
Jacobi agreed to resign from the New York bar and stop practicing law.

In June 1999, according to the indictment returned Thursday, Berney had Potter
deliver several shell corporations to the law offices of Chapman & Flanagan for
safekeeping while he was out of the country.

These corporations included Professional Mining Consultants, Dream Team
International and K-9 Protection.

"The defendants sold these shell corporations and kept the proceeds for their
benefit," the indictment alleges. "The defendants also sold, for their own
benefit, other stocks held in the names of Peter Berney's nominees."

Those included stocks of Aimrite Holdings and Progress Watch, formerly known as
Travelmasters.

According to the indictment, the defendants used some of the proceeds of the
fraudulent stock sales "to further fraudulent sales to the public."

The document claims Berney, concerned with potential exposure to criminal
prosecution or civil liability arising from his illegal stock trading
activities, sought Jacobi's advice around the end of 1994.

"Jacobi advised Peter Berney that he had possible exposure for securities
violations and income tax evasion and subsequently advised Peter Berney that he
had to start structuring his companies differently to avoid liability," the
indictment alleges.

As part of his scheme, according to the document, Berney used stock transfer
agents, including Farrell's Alpha Tech Stock Transfer, to transfer stocks he
controlled.

"It was further part of his scheme to defraud that Peter Berney hired
attorneys, including defendants Shawn Hackman, Sean Flanagan and Daniel
Chapman, to issue false and misleading legal opinions that the stocks of shell
corporations were 'freely tradable' pursuant to federal securities laws, when
in fact, they were not," the indictment alleges.

Around March 1999, according to the document, Berney and Potter funded the
establishment of Chapman & Flanagan, a professional legal corporation, to
assist them in their illegal stock trading activities.

The indictment also accuses Chapman and his firm of filing false and misleading
registration statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Nevada Supreme Court disbarred Hackman in April 2002 after he was accused
of misappropriating client funds. Hackman, 34, had been licensed in Nevada
since October 1996.

Federal officials either declined comment or were not available for comment.
None of the defendants could be reached."


I'm not reading any more of your strange examples of ordinary, high-earning,
citizens "who were extradited for going to live abroad, renouncing their
American citizenship and no longer paying US taxes"--because none of the
examples you cited were anything even close to that. All you produced were a
bunch of crooks. You have spent an extraordinary amount of time searching for
examples of what I asked for--and failed.
So why don't you just give up--stop posting this irrelevant BS and do
something more productive with your time?






"THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the
Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban
You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again!
http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html

Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a33bd965ccb936998b878@news.odyssey.net>... christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher Buyers) os suum: >It is most probably in conflict with the citizenship laws of other >countries, the Vienna conventions on diplomats and heads of state and >European Human Rights conventions too. Francois R. Velde <velde@heraldicanospam.invalid> wrote can you show which passage of those conventions is in conflict? In article <38e9db65.0311292337.77f5cb22@posting.google.com> in alt.talk.royalty, Christopher Buyers <christopher.buyers@virgin.net> wrote:You have not so why should I.If you are unfamiliar with the Vienna conventions on diplomaticimmunity and immunity of Heads of State there is an pbvious solution -an educational visit to your local library. Translation: You were talking through your hat, he's called you on it, but for some reason you feel you can't admit it.

Don't wear hats!

Francois R. Velde <velde@heraldicanospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<p17ksvsm1e62utfvn0lvdjiob8lm58gvp6@4ax.com>... In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher Buyers) os suum:Francois R. Velde <velde@heraldicanospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<r5fhsvkqmlj4k3kbachqjodci2a376us7q@4ax.com>... In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher Buyers) os suum: >Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a317dc5753cc03698b851@news.odyssey.net>... >> In article <38e9db65.0311272154.116b56ea@posting.google.com> in >> alt.talk.royalty, Christopher Buyers <christopher.buyers@virgin.net> >It is most probably in conflict with the citizenship laws of other >countries, the Vienna conventions on diplomats and heads of state and >European Human Rights conventions too. The first possibly, depending on the citizenship laws. That is why traditionally citizenship laws have disliked dual citizens, because of the conflicts they create. As for the other two, can you show which passage of those conventions is in conflict?You have not so why should I. Because you made the claim. I didn't.If you are unfamiliar with the Vienna conventions on diplomaticimmunity and immunity of Heads of State there is an pbvious solution -an educational visit to your local library. There's an even more obvious solution. It's online. Now, what's your point?

If it is so obvious, get reading. As for my point, it is made in the
original post, but again we have a little difficulty with that reading
thing.

The relevant articles of the Vienna convention that you should
concentrate on, so as not to tax your reading skills too much, are as
follows:
29 - diplomats are inviolable, exempt from arrest and detention,
exempt from jurisdiction, etc.
31 - diplomats are exempt from civil jurisdiction, except perhaps real
estate, wills, professional and business transactions outside of their
official work.
37 - immunity applies to the diplomats family, household and certain
technical staff and other employees.
9 - the host state can merely declare a diplomat "persona non grata",
the only power it has whether it deems that diplomat a citizen of its
own or not.

On 2 Dec 2003 00:28:50 -0800, christopher.buyers@virgin.net
(Christopher Buyers) wrote:
Francois R. Velde <velde@heraldicanospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<p17ksvsm1e62utfvn0lvdjiob8lm58gvp6@4ax.com>... In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher Buyers) os suum:Francois R. Velde <velde@heraldicanospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<r5fhsvkqmlj4k3kbachqjodci2a376us7q@4ax.com>...> In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher> Buyers) os suum:> >Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a317dc5753cc03698b851@news.odyssey.net>...> >> In article <38e9db65.0311272154.116b56ea@posting.google.com> in> >> alt.talk.royalty, Christopher Buyers <christopher.buyers@virgin.net>> >It is most probably in conflict with the citizenship laws of other> >countries, the Vienna conventions on diplomats and heads of state and> >European Human Rights conventions too.>> The first possibly, depending on the citizenship laws. That is why> traditionally citizenship laws have disliked dual citizens, because of the> conflicts they create. As for the other two, can you show which passage of> those conventions is in conflict?You have not so why should I. Because you made the claim. I didn't.If you are unfamiliar with the Vienna conventions on diplomaticimmunity and immunity of Heads of State there is an pbvious solution -an educational visit to your local library. There's an even more obvious solution. It's online. Now, what's your point?If it is so obvious, get reading. As for my point, it is made in theoriginal post, but again we have a little difficulty with that readingthing.The relevant articles of the Vienna convention that you shouldconcentrate on, so as not to tax your reading skills too much, are asfollows:29 - diplomats are inviolable, exempt from arrest and detention,exempt from jurisdiction, etc.31 - diplomats are exempt from civil jurisdiction, except perhaps realestate, wills, professional and business transactions outside of theirofficial work.37 - immunity applies to the diplomats family, household and certaintechnical staff and other employees.9 - the host state can merely declare a diplomat "persona non grata",the only power it has whether it deems that diplomat a citizen of itsown or not.

But (9) "Members of the diplomatic staff may not be appointed from
persons having the nationality of the receiving state, except with
the consent of that state, which may be withdrawn at any time".

--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

"Francois R. Velde" <velde@heraldicaNOTSPAM.invalid> wrote in message news:<bqfvqc$539$1@e250.ripco.com>... In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Christopher Buyers <christopher.buyers@virgin.net> os suum: My point was that if the sale of the marbles by the Turks of the time was somehow immoral or illegal, then surely the ownership of land by people of non reek origin is invalid for the same reason. They would have acquired their lands by virtue of Turkish law, or sale of state or confiscated lands by the same Turkish authority that sold the marbles. I presume that at some point in time the government of Greece may have retrospectively recognised such sales by the Turkish authorities as being valid, probably with some law of indemnity after independence. Unless such laws specifically excluded the Elgin Marbles, then the Greek government probably recognised that sale also. However the premise, supplied by another poster, that Lord Elgin purchased the marbles from someone, is incorrect. Elgin produced a document which appeared to be an authorization to access the Parthenon for the purposes of studying it, which also allowed him to remove "some pieces of stone" (qualche pezzi di pietra in the Italian translation from the Turkish, "any pieces of stone" in the English translation from the Italian translation shown to the British Parliament in 1816) with inscriptions or figures. I don't think it changes the argument very much that what was done, was done with the approval of the then-legal authorities, even if the literal approval was stretched quite a bit.

Not surprisingly this debate has been held before - in the UK
Parliamentary Committee on Culture, Media and Sport in 2000.

A most fascinating critical analysis by Professor V Demetriades of the
1801 document is at:
<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/ukparl_hl?DB=ukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=elgin+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmcumeds/371/371ap15.htm#muscat_highlighter_first_match>
This concludes that it is not in fact a firman. Unfortunately it also
appears that the Turkish original and Italian translation may not have
survived.

The evidence to the Select Committee at:
<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/ukparl_hl?DB=ukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=elgin+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmcumeds/371/0060806.htm#muscat_highlighter_first_match>
states that "It is sometimes asserted that Elgin exceeded the terms of
this firman, but whatever truth there is in such claims, the further
firman secured by Sir Robert Adair in February 1810, from the same
authority as the first, instructed the authorities in Athens to allow
the embarkation of all the remaining antiquities collected by Lord
Elgin."

Do we have the text of the 1810 firman readily available? Has this
authority been challenged?

The then Minister for the Arts, Alan Howarth MP, concluded for the
Government "We believe the legal position is that the Marbles were
legitimately acquired by Lord Elgin and brought here by permission of
the legitimate authorities at the time and we also believe that the
acquisition of them by the British Museum was legitimate, based upon
the recommendation of a Select Committee, and purchased by funds voted
by Parliament". <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmcumeds/371/0060818.htm>

However, he went on more hopefully ".... but the Government does not
believe that a convincing case, morally or culturally, has been made
for the return of the Marbles, although we will certainly continue to
listen both to what this Select Committee advises us and what our
friends and colleagues in Greece have to say to us. .... I would
certainly not say that the door is closed to discussion; of course
not. We have said before and I say again that we are happy to continue
to discuss this issue with the Greeks under the auspices of UNESCO as
has occurred in the past. Certainly we would not wish to block our
ears to any arguments that they might wish to put to us but there are
principles which, in my view, we cannot lightly set aside which we
would be articulating to them in that dialogue. ..... I think there
needs to be a closer meeting of minds, a closer mutual understanding
of each other's point of view".

Derek Howard

dhoward@skynet.be (Derek Howard) nattered on
thusnews:ea734afc.0312020438.473cfc6c@posting.goog le.com:
would be articulating to them in that dialogue. ..... I think there needs to be a closer meeting of minds, a closer mutual understanding of each other's point of view".

Generally, when said by those who have the plunder, it means "Yowl all you
want, we're keeping it and you can't make us give it up. But we'll
pretend that your piddly little claims might be worth listening to, just
for PR purposes."

On 02 Dec 2003 04:20:13 GMT, marianneluban@aol.comnospam (MarianneLuban)
in misc.legal, wrote the following:
I'm not reading any more of your strange examples of ordinary, high-earning,citizens "who were extradited for going to live abroad, renouncing theirAmerican citizenship and no longer paying US taxes"--because none of theexamples you cited were anything even close to that. All you produced were abunch of crooks. You have spent an extraordinary amount of time searching forexamples of what I asked for--and failed.So why don't you just give up--stop posting this irrelevant BS and dosomething more productive with your time?

Fine by me: while you have a strange idea that tax evasion is not a
"crime," know that people who are involved in fraudulent or criminal
activities also evade taxes within the body of their crimes and are
rightfully charged with them as well. In short, people who evade taxes
by fleeing the country ARE a "bunch of crooks," and are usually
involved in a number of illegal schemes to avoid taxes and accumulate
money.

Normal citizens who leave the country, renounce citizenship, and PAY
their personal share of taxes as required under HRA 1996 are obviously
NOT crooks, but those who do leave, renounce and refuse to pay taxes
will meet the definition of _criminal_ under IRS and US government
regulations.

This is why the IRS does also pursue such people under a number of
different charges, such as fraud (which, as I noted earlier, is
something every jurisdiction internationally considers a crime). As tax
evasion and/or avoidance of full tax payment is also a misrepresentation
of one's true monetary worth (and thus, _fraud_), this is why the IRS
often couches the charges in this fashion, when they also include tax
evasion.

Say what you will, but the IRS International Division does watch for
criminal tax evasion under non-compliance with HRA 1996, and despite
your best efforts to circumlocute the issue, agents in the International
Criminal Investigation arena ARE involved in the "...the overall United
States strategy to combat terrorism, money laundering, _tax evasion_,
and international crime." (from IRS URL on strategy, given earlier). As
part of their powers in this arena is the "... location and extradition
of fugitives." This includes _tax fugitives_ as well.

Perhaps being willfully blind to such activities as criminal is merely a
choice on your part; as such, you are welcome to it.

Done.
--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.

DISCLAIMER:

Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.

Does anyone know how vigorously -- if at all -- the Turkish government is
pursuing its case for the recovery of the Altar of Zeus removed from
Pergamon (Bergama) by Carl Humann and now reconstructed in the Museum of
Pergamum in Berlin?

--
Frank in Seattle

___________

Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney

"I leave you now in radiant contentment"
-- "Whistling in the Dark"

"Frank R.A.J. Maloney" <frajm@blarg.net> wrote in message
news:vspkochthgjrcb@corp.supernews.com... Does anyone know how vigorously -- if at all -- the Turkish government is pursuing its case for the recovery of the Altar of Zeus removed from Pergamon (Bergama) by Carl Humann and now reconstructed in the Museum of Pergamum in Berlin?

Not on Turkey's agenda.

WolfWolf
The European

>Subject: Re: Citizenship of Prince Philip of MountbattenFrom: Katherine Griffis-Greenberg egylist@griffis-consulting.comDate: 12/2/2003 9:51 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <j7jpsv48aod5pfk4ne12oaqfktgd1mp4ci@4ax.com>On 02 Dec 2003 04:20:13 GMT, marianneluban@aol.comnospam (MarianneLuban)in misc.legal, wrote the following:I'm not reading any more of your strange examples of ordinary,high-earning,citizens "who were extradited for going to live abroad, renouncing theirAmerican citizenship and no longer paying US taxes"--because none of theexamples you cited were anything even close to that. All you produced wereabunch of crooks. You have spent an extraordinary amount of time searchingforexamples of what I asked for--and failed.So why don't you just give up--stop posting this irrelevant BS and dosomething more productive with your time?Fine by me: while you have a strange idea that tax evasion is not a"crime," know that people who are involved in fraudulent or criminalactivities also evade taxes within the body of their crimes and arerightfully charged with them as well. In short, people who evade taxesby fleeing the country ARE a "bunch of crooks," and are usuallyinvolved in a number of illegal schemes to avoid taxes and accumulatemoney.

That may be the case in many instances--but you have still failed to provide
any examples of persons who were not wanted for any other fraudulent activity
being extradited *only* because they chose to live in another country, renounce
their US citizenship, and *not* pay taxes. What you presented were examples
of people who were involved in illegal money-making schemes that were
defrauding other people--not simply depriving the US treasury of the tax on
their legally-obtained earnings. Once these people were extradited or had
voluntarily returned to the US, they were charged with income tax evasion AMONG
OTHER THINGS but not one was extradited from anywhere simply for income tax
evasion.

That this wasn't happening was indicated by something I posted a couple of days
ago--and this would have tipped off anyone but you:

"http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24084

Note where it says: "The high U.S. levies have forced some foreign tax experts
to advise American clients to serious consider abandoning their citizenship.

One international lawyer who asked not to be named told Dow Jones Newswire: "If
you have an estate worth $2 million-$3 million and you are not planning to
return to the U.S., and you don't travel there frequently, then it may not be a
bad idea." "

I think, in this case, logic requires the conclusion that these lawyers would
not be advising their clients to do the above--if they thought the client was
due to be extradited back to the states for evading the taxes, anyway.

Income tax evasion is against the law and considered a crime. You claim that I
dispute this, but I never have. That is just some "red herring" you have
thrown in to throw the readers off the track--to distract them from the fact
that you have not been able to show a case of an individual who was extradited
from another land *only* because of income tax evasion. As for my own opinion,
it is this--and I will state it quite clearly: All people should be free in
this world to live where they like. I consider it a privilege to be a US
citizen. To me, my country is still the greatest in the world. Right now, I
cannot conceive of myself saying like "The man Without a Country", that story
we all learned when we were kids, "I hope I shall never again see my native
land". However, if there are certain individuals who, out of sheer greed, are
willing to forego "seeing their native land", then so be it. But should they
be considered "criminals"? I think not. Someday, these people might be in a
position to regret this decision, too, like that man in the story. On the
other hand, for the US government to say "You are not free to renounce your US
citizenship and still owe the US taxes on your earnings abroad"--that comes
from greed, as well. That amounts to denying the right of an individual to be
free to exist on earth as anything *but* as a citizen of the US, once he was
born into or acquired this status. In other words, the US goverment is playing
the role of God. I don't think our Founding Fathers, who drew up the
Constitution, had this in mind. Perhaps, Griffis, you have forgotten the
"Boston Tea Party", which occurred because the people living in the colonies no
longer wanted to pay taxes on British goods. The message to England was "We
want to live here now. We no longer wish to be subjects of the Crown. We are
free men by the law of God." At that time, the British believed they could
still exert rule over these people--that they were British citizens living on
land that belonged to England. At least they had that excuse. But the
colonists wanted their "own land"
and so war was the result. And that is how America began. Now the US is
saying, effectively, "No matter where you choose to live, you still belong to
us. We will exert jurisdiction over you." Now, if the US citizen living
abroad, no matter if his citizenship is renounced, is defrauding other US
citizens or helping these parties to defraud the US government while the other
parties are still in the US--then there is justification for this, I think.
But, if a person merely says "US taxes are too high. I want to go to live
somewhere else and make money there."--then that person should have a right to
do so. However, if that person living abroad is STILL making money in the US,
then he should be taxed according to the law of where the revenue is being
produced.
Normal citizens who leave the country, renounce citizenship, and PAYtheir personal share of taxes as required under HRA 1996 are obviouslyNOT crooks, but those who do leave, renounce and refuse to pay taxeswill meet the definition of _criminal_ under IRS and US governmentregulations.

See the above.
This is why the IRS does also pursue such people under a number ofdifferent charges, such as fraud (which, as I noted earlier, issomething every jurisdiction internationally considers a crime). As taxevasion and/or avoidance of full tax payment is also a misrepresentationof one's true monetary worth (and thus, _fraud_), this is why the IRSoften couches the charges in this fashion, when they also include taxevasion.

That is your interpretation. You seem to be indicating that the US government
cares nothing about the fraudulent activity that injures other people and is
only concerned with the tax evasion, thereby "couching the charges" in some way
to include fraudulent activity so that the evaders can be extradited and
brought to account on the tax evasion. But your own examples prove you wrong.
Say what you will, but the IRS International Division does watch forcriminal tax evasion under non-compliance with HRA 1996, and despiteyour best efforts to circumlocute the issue, agents in the InternationalCriminal Investigation arena ARE involved in the "...the overall UnitedStates strategy to combat terrorism, money laundering, _tax evasion_,and international crime." (from IRS URL on strategy, given earlier). Aspart of their powers in this arena is the "... location and extraditionof fugitives." This includes _tax fugitives_ as well.

And this is written by you for the sole purpse of "evading" the issue. I
asked you for an example of someone having been extradited for solely being "a
tax fugitive" (your language) and you have come up dry.
Perhaps being willfully blind to such activities as criminal is merely achoice on your part;

Perhaps it is your choice to accuse me of not knowing the law. It seems so.
However, I do know the law. Whether I can agree to its fairness--well, perhaps
I do not. That is my choice--yes. Do I still have freedom of choice? I
think so. Ever since I first encountered you years ago, it seems to me that
you have put yourself in the position of telling me what I am free to say and I
have gone to great lengths to show you that I do not regard you as the arbiter
of that. In this matter, the US government is on my side, at least.
as such, you are welcome to it.

What? A position falsely stated by you?
No, thank you. I have never accepted your characterization of my position on
anything. No, I am not "willfully blind" to anything.













"THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the
Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban
You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again!
http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html

"Bryan J. Maloney" <cavaggione@sbcglobal.nmungemungt> wrote in message news:<Xns944552357DB62dogfaceinsightbbcom@206.141.193.32>... dhoward@skynet.be (Derek Howard) nattered on thusnews:ea734afc.0312020438.473cfc6c@posting.goog le.com: would be articulating to them in that dialogue. ..... I think there needs to be a closer meeting of minds, a closer mutual understanding of each other's point of view". Generally, when said by those who have the plunder, it means "Yowl all you want, we're keeping it and you can't make us give it up. But we'll pretend that your piddly little claims might be worth listening to, just for PR purposes."

What about plunder of Persian gold, jewels and artifacts, ditto
Mesopotamia, Egyptian, etc., etc.

Oh well, so sorry, we didn't bother to preserve it all, because our
cultural ideals were primitive at the time!

marianneluban@aol.comnospam (MarianneLuban) wrote in
news:20031202191525.15365.00000039@mb-m03.aol.com:
Subject: Re: Citizenship of Prince Philip of MountbattenFrom: Katherine Griffis-Greenberg egylist@griffis-consulting.comDate: 12/2/2003 9:51 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <j7jpsv48aod5pfk4ne12oaqfktgd1mp4ci@4ax.com>On 02 Dec 2003 04:20:13 GMT, marianneluban@aol.comnospam(MarianneLuban) in misc.legal, wrote the following:I'm not reading any more of your strange examples of ordinary,high-earning, citizens "who were extradited for going to live abroad,renouncing their American citizenship and no longer paying UStaxes"--because none of the examples you cited were anything evenclose to that. All you produced were a bunch of crooks. You havespent an extraordinary amount of time searching for examples of what Iasked for--and failed. So why don't you just give up--stop postingthis irrelevant BS and do something more productive with your time?Fine by me: while you have a strange idea that tax evasion is not a"crime," know that people who are involved in fraudulent or criminalactivities also evade taxes within the body of their crimes and arerightfully charged with them as well. In short, people who evade taxesby fleeing the country ARE a "bunch of crooks," and are usuallyinvolved in a number of illegal schemes to avoid taxes and accumulatemoney. That may be the case in many instances--but you have still failed to provide any examples of persons who were not wanted for any other fraudulent activity being extradited *only* because they chose to live in another country, renounce their US citizenship, and *not* pay taxes. What you presented were examples of people who were involved in illegal money-making schemes that were defrauding other people--not simply depriving the US treasury of the tax on their legally-obtained earnings. Once these people were extradited or had voluntarily returned to the US, they were charged with income tax evasion AMONG OTHER THINGS but not one was extradited from anywhere simply for income tax evasion. That this wasn't happening was indicated by something I posted a couple of days ago--and this would have tipped off anyone but you: "http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24084 Note where it says: "The high U.S. levies have forced some foreign tax experts to advise American clients to serious consider abandoning their citizenship. One international lawyer who asked not to be named told Dow Jones Newswire: "If you have an estate worth $2 million-$3 million and you are not planning to return to the U.S., and you don't travel there frequently, then it may not be a bad idea." " I think, in this case, logic requires the conclusion that these lawyers would not be advising their clients to do the above--if they thought the client was due to be extradited back to the states for evading the taxes, anyway. Income tax evasion is against the law and considered a crime. You claim that I dispute this, but I never have. That is just some "red herring" you have thrown in to throw the readers off the track--to distract them from the fact that you have not been able to show a case of an individual who was extradited from another land *only* because of income tax evasion. As for my own opinion, it is this--and I will state it quite clearly: All people should be free in this world to live where they like. I consider it a privilege to be a US citizen. To me, my country is still the greatest in the world. Right now, I cannot conceive of myself saying like "The man Without a Country", that story we all learned when we were kids, "I hope I shall never again see my native land". However, if there are certain individuals who, out of sheer greed, are willing to forego "seeing their native land", then so be it. But should they be considered "criminals"? I think not. Someday, these people might be in a position to regret this decision, too, like that man in the story. On the other hand, for the US government to say "You are not free to renounce your US citizenship and still owe the US taxes on your earnings abroad"--that comes from greed, as well. That amounts to denying the right of an individual to be free to exist on earth as anything *but* as a citizen of the US, once he was born into or acquired this status. In other words, the US goverment is playing the role of God. I don't think our Founding Fathers, who drew up the Constitution, had this in mind. Perhaps, Griffis, you have forgotten the "Boston Tea Party", which occurred because the people living in the colonies no longer wanted to pay taxes on British goods. The message to England was "We want to live here now. We no longer wish to be subjects of the Crown. We are free men by the law of God." At that time, the British believed they could still exert rule over these people--that they were British citizens living on land that belonged to England. At least they had that excuse. But the colonists wanted their "own land" and so war was the result. And that is how America began. Now the US is saying, effectively, "No matter where you choose to live, you still belong to us. We will exert jurisdiction over you." Now, if the US citizen living abroad, no matter if his citizenship is renounced, is defrauding other US citizens or helping these parties to defraud the US government while the other parties are still in the US--then there is justification for this, I think. But, if a person merely says "US taxes are too high. I want to go to live somewhere else and make money there."--then that person should have a right to do so. However, if that person living abroad is STILL making money in the US, then he should be taxed according to the law of where the revenue is being produced.Normal citizens who leave the country, renounce citizenship, and PAYtheir personal share of taxes as required under HRA 1996 are obviouslyNOT crooks, but those who do leave, renounce and refuse to pay taxeswill meet the definition of _criminal_ under IRS and US governmentregulations. See the above.This is why the IRS does also pursue such people under a number ofdifferent charges, such as fraud (which, as I noted earlier, issomething every jurisdiction internationally considers a crime). Astax evasion and/or avoidance of full tax payment is also amisrepresentation of one's true monetary worth (and thus, _fraud_),this is why the IRS often couches the charges in this fashion, whenthey also include tax evasion. That is your interpretation. You seem to be indicating that the US government cares nothing about the fraudulent activity that injures other people and is only concerned with the tax evasion, thereby "couching the charges" in some way to include fraudulent activity so that the evaders can be extradited and brought to account on the tax evasion. But your own examples prove you wrong.Say what you will, but the IRS International Division does watch forcriminal tax evasion under non-compliance with HRA 1996, and despiteyour best efforts to circumlocute the issue, agents in theInternational Criminal Investigation arena ARE involved in the "...theoverall United States strategy to combat terrorism, money laundering,_tax evasion_, and international crime." (from IRS URL on strategy,given earlier). As part of their powers in this arena is the "...location and extradition of fugitives." This includes _tax fugitives_as well. And this is written by you for the sole purpse of "evading" the issue. I asked you for an example of someone having been extradited for solely being "a tax fugitive" (your language) and you have come up dry.Perhaps being willfully blind to such activities as criminal is merelya choice on your part; Perhaps it is your choice to accuse me of not knowing the law. It seems so. However, I do know the law. Whether I can agree to its fairness--well, perhaps I do not. That is my choice--yes. Do I still have freedom of choice? I think so. Ever since I first encountered you years ago, it seems to me that you have put yourself in the position of telling me what I am free to say and I have gone to great lengths to show you that I do not regard you as the arbiter of that. In this matter, the US government is on my side, at least. as such, you are welcome to it. What? A position falsely stated by you? No, thank you. I have never accepted your characterization of my position on anything. No, I am not "willfully blind" to anything. "THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again! http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html

Well said, Marianne.

FWIW, I live in the US, pay taxes here, and couldn't renounce US
citizenship because I'm not one to begin with, so the examples I gave
earlier don't remotely apply to my own situation.

However, I don't support laws that try to extend the jurisdiction of any
country beyond it's own borders. I don't think that Congress, or the
government of any other country for that matter, has any business passing
such travesties. And yet they still do it. They know full well that their
jurisdiction crosses no borders, but they hope the voters won't understand
that little point, and will think that they have done something
worthwhile.

To be sure, extraterritorial laws are enforceable in the country where
they are passed, albeit nowhere else, even though they relate to acts done
outside it.

Then, of course, there are also treaties governing extradition. I am not
an expert (or a lawyer either), but I do know that the other country has
to approve the extradition. Taxes, by themselves, are not a compelling
reason to do so, given that they would be giving up revenue. There are
many other things for which extradition is likely to fail. It's called
sovereignty!

Don Aitken <don-aitken@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:<8fmosv0gjs59h3bq89qb0s8mcc7ca7io4a@4ax.com>...
But (9) "Members of the diplomatic staff may not be appointed from persons having the nationality of the receiving state, except with the consent of that state, which may be withdrawn at any time".

I suppose you are actually referring to section 38, not 9. However,
please note that we are not talking about citizens of the receiving
state. We are talking about citizens of the sending state, who may
also be "claimed" as citizens by the receiving state, i.e. dual
citizens.

As far as the US goes, it does not maintain diplomatic missions in
states which make such claims over diplomats, as the case of Vietnam
has shown.

Cheers,
Christopher Buyers

On 03 Dec 2003 00:15:25 GMT, marianneluban@aol.comnospam (MarianneLuban)
in misc.legal, wrote the following:
Subject: Re: Citizenship of Prince Philip of MountbattenFrom: Katherine Griffis-Greenberg egylist@griffis-consulting.comDate: 12/2/2003 9:51 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <j7jpsv48aod5pfk4ne12oaqfktgd1mp4ci@4ax.com>On 02 Dec 2003 04:20:13 GMT, marianneluban@aol.comnospam (MarianneLuban)in misc.legal, wrote the following:I'm not reading any more of your strange examples of ordinary,high-earning,citizens "who were extradited for going to live abroad, renouncing theirAmerican citizenship and no longer paying US taxes"--because none of theexamples you cited were anything even close to that. All you produced wereabunch of crooks. You have spent an extraordinary amount of time searchingforexamples of what I asked for--and failed.So why don't you just give up--stop posting this irrelevant BS and dosomething more productive with your time?Fine by me: while you have a strange idea that tax evasion is not a"crime," know that people who are involved in fraudulent or criminalactivities also evade taxes within the body of their crimes and arerightfully charged with them as well. In short, people who evade taxesby fleeing the country ARE a "bunch of crooks," and are usuallyinvolved in a number of illegal schemes to avoid taxes and accumulatemoney.That may be the case in many instances--but you have still failed to provideany examples of persons who were not wanted for any other fraudulent activitybeing extradited *only* because they chose to live in another country, renouncetheir US citizenship, and *not* pay taxes. What you presented were examplesof people who were involved in illegal money-making schemes that weredefrauding other people--not simply depriving the US treasury of the tax ontheir legally-obtained earnings. Once these people were extradited or hadvoluntarily returned to the US, they were charged with income tax evasion AMONGOTHER THINGS but not one was extradited from anywhere simply for income taxevasion.That this wasn't happening was indicated by something I posted a couple of daysago--and this would have tipped off anyone but you:"http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24084Note where it says: "The high U.S. levies have forced some foreign tax expertsto advise American clients to serious consider abandoning their citizenship.One international lawyer who asked not to be named told Dow Jones Newswire: "Ifyou have an estate worth $2 million-$3 million and you are not planning toreturn to the U.S., and you don't travel there frequently, then it may not be abad idea." "

Consider, Marianne, that nonetheless, hiding taxes from the IRS, by
renunciation (which is voided if one does so for the purpose of tax
evasion), and the international watch and pursuit of persons who avoid
payment of taxes for the very reasons you cite IS because to do so is a
crime.
I think, in this case, logic requires the conclusion that these lawyers wouldnot be advising their clients to do the above--if they thought the client wasdue to be extradited back to the states for evading the taxes, anyway.

Most attorneys do not advise it: note also the article to which you
refer is, after all, over 2 years old, and new regulations and rules
have been put in place by the IRS to specifically counter evasion of
taxes by those who renounce citizenship so not to pay their fair share
of taxes. I made specific reference to the IRS International strategies
of 2001, and the laws have been strengthened along this line since.
Income tax evasion is against the law and considered a crime. You claim that Idispute this, but I never have. That is just some "red herring" you havethrown in to throw the readers off the track--to distract them from the factthat you have not been able to show a case of an individual who was extraditedfrom another land *only* because of income tax evasion. As for my own opinion,it is this--and I will state it quite clearly: All people should be free inthis world to live where they like. I consider it a privilege to be a UScitizen. To me, my country is still the greatest in the world. Right now, Icannot conceive of myself saying like "The man Without a Country", that storywe all learned when we were kids, "I hope I shall never again see my nativeland". However, if there are certain individuals who, out of sheer greed, arewilling to forego "seeing their native land", then so be it. But should theybe considered "criminals"?

Renunciation of citizenship is not a crime, nor have I ever said it was.
What IS a crime is to do so with the intent/purpose of avoiding US
tax,and if you do not file tax returns and the HRA 1996 forms as
required, it will be presumed the renunciation was done for tax evading
purposes. It was a loophole in the past, but is not one today. The IRS
does pursue those who attempt to avoid tax by renunciation of
citizenship. Period.
I think not. Someday, these people might be in aposition to regret this decision, too, like that man in the story. On theother hand, for the US government to say "You are not free to renounce your UScitizenship and still owe the US taxes on your earnings abroad"--that comesfrom greed, as well. That amounts to denying the right of an individual to befree to exist on earth as anything *but* as a citizen of the US, once he wasborn into or acquired this status. In other words, the US goverment is playingthe role of God.

To avoid taxes, the US government has stated that IF one renounces
citizenship SOLELY for purposes of avoiding its taxation system, you
will surely come into its view as a person committing a crime. The HRA
of 1996 is clear about that, and the fact the IRS has even bothered to
set up its international Criminal Investigation system and strategy
indicates it is most serious about pursuing tax evaders, as I noted in

http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=107502,00.html

The stated purpose of the International Division of IRS is for the
"Criminal Investigation's (CI) International Strategy is integrated into
the overall United States strategy to combat terrorism, money
laundering, tax evasion, and international crime."

Please note that part of the purposes of these international offices is
the "... location and extradition of fugitives." This includes those
who evade taxes by leaving the US and renouncing citizenship for that
purpose.
I don't think our Founding Fathers, who drew up theConstitution, had this in mind. Perhaps, Griffis, you have forgotten the"Boston Tea Party", which occurred because the people living in the colonies nolonger wanted to pay taxes on British goods. The message to England was "Wewant to live here now. We no longer wish to be subjects of the Crown. We arefree men by the law of God."

They also fought a war to emphasize that: have you forgotten that? The
British did not simply roll over and say,"Well, OK, you don't have to
pay the tax if you don't want to," either. The issue in the
Revolutionary War was the colonists in America were taxed but without
having representation in English governmental affairs. Specifically,
the passage of the Sugar Act [which increased duties on non-British
goods shipped to the colonies] and the Currency Act [which forbade the
local issuance of currency] in 1764 was the start of it, followed by
various other acts (including the Townsend and Tea Acts, which gave
lowered import tax benefits to British tea, which was objected to by the
colonist - thus, the "Boston Tea Party"). _THAT_ was the point of the
American Revolution, as any decent book on American history would tell
you.
At that time, the British believed they couldstill exert rule over these people--that they were British citizens living onland that belonged to England. At least they had that excuse. But thecolonists wanted their "own land" and so war was the result. And that is how America began.

At the time of the various acts of tax, the colonist WERE British
citizens,and most wished to remain so. It was only when the British
government would not also give them equal share of input into government
affairs as other British citizens, which effectively made them less than
full citizens under British law. Ironically, at the start of the
revolution Americans only desired to be governed by traditional English
law. However, once Britain refused to grant them these rights, rebellion
ensued.
Now the US issaying, effectively, "No matter where you choose to live, you still belong tous. We will exert jurisdiction over you." Now, if the US citizen livingabroad, no matter if his citizenship is renounced, is defrauding other UScitizens or helping these parties to defraud the US government while the otherparties are still in the US--then there is justification for this, I think.But, if a person merely says "US taxes are too high. I want to go to livesomewhere else and make money there."--then that person should have a right todo so. However, if that person living abroad is STILL making money in the US,then he should be taxed according to the law of where the revenue is beingproduced.

Again, I refer you to the HRA of 1996: if you leave specifically FOR
avoiding tax, whether you make moneys in the US or not, you will be
subject to US tax law for up to 10 year AFTER you renounce.

http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00337/005064/title/subject/topic/tax%20law_income%20taxation/filename/taxlaw_1_299

"The HRA of 1996 requires individuals who expatriate to file an
information statement that includes the individual's:

1. Taxpayer identification number;

2. Mailing address at his or her principal foreign residence;

3. New foreign country of residence;

4. New foreign country of citizenship;

5. Information detailing his or her assets and liabilities if the
individual's net worth is at least $500,000; and

6. Any other information requested by the IRS.

A U.S. citizen must file the statement with the State Department or
other U.S. government agency involved in the relinquishment on or before
the date that the citizenship is treated as relinquished. A special
transition rule applies to any U.S. citizen who committed an
expatriation act before February 6, 1995 and who did not submit such a
statement.

Failure to submit the statement will result in the imposition of a
penalty for each year of the 10-year period that begins on the date of
expatriation that is equal to the greater of 5 percent of the
individual's section 877 tax liability or $1,000. The penalty can be
waived if the failure is due to reasonable cause and not to willful
neglect.

The State Department and federal agencies involved in the act of
expatriation are required to provide the IRS with copies of the
statements, or the names and other information on individuals refusing
to submit such statements, and other government documents evidencing the
loss of U.S. citizenship or U.S. lawful permanent resident status."

Nothing forbids a US citizen, who renounces citizenship, from moving
abroad and making moneys overseas. However, if it can be shown that he
does not comply with the HRA 1996, it can be presumed by the US
government the renunciation was done with the intent to avoid taxation,
which thereby voids the renunciation as valid, unless he can show
otherwise. As such, the person in non-compliance is then seen as a US
citizen avoiding taxation on his income and other assets from wherever
they exist in the world, which is specifically granted to the IRS by US
law. Unless the US has a limiting clause treaty with the country of
residence (usually in the form of dual taxation treaties, which specify
which incomes the US will not tax, such as local income or property),
then the US may (and CAN) tax any overseas assets and income in full. To
avoid taxes IS a crime, and one which the IRS will surely come after
you.

For the specific wording, see the Internal Revenue Code, Section 877 [26
USCS § 877]:

http://www.fordham.edu/law/faculty/colon/INTLTAX/s877.htm

On the ability of the US to tax income and property internationally, see

COOK v. TAIT, 265 U.S. 47 (1924) right to tax worldwide income and
assets
BENITEZ REXACH v. UNITED STATES, 390 F.2d 631 (1968) where a citizen
renounced citizenship, acquired Dominican citizenship, and later claimed
US citizenship loss was under duress. When reapplication for
citizenship was approved, IRS then assessed taxes for the period
defendant was accruing income in another country. Defendant claimed
taxes were not due as he was not a "de facto" citizen during his time on
the Dominican Republic, claiming that since the United States "owed"
him, or apparently owed him, no citizen's protection, he, in turn, owed
no tax. Court held

"While there is language in Cook v. Tait, supra, indicative that these
are reciprocal obligations, the Court also observed that 'government by
its very nature benefits the citizen * * *.' 265 U.S. at 56, 44 S. Ct.
at 445. We cannot agree that the reciprocal obligations are mutual, at
least in the sense that taxpayer contends. It is sufficient that the
government's stem from its de jure relationship without regard to the
subjective quid pro quo in any particular case. We will not hold that
assessment of benefits is a prerequisite to assessment of taxes."
Normal citizens who leave the country, renounce citizenship, and PAYtheir personal share of taxes as required under HRA 1996 are obviouslyNOT crooks, but those who do leave, renounce and refuse to pay taxeswill meet the definition of _criminal_ under IRS and US governmentregulations.See the above.

You as well, see above.
This is why the IRS does also pursue such people under a number ofdifferent charges, such as fraud (which, as I noted earlier, issomething every jurisdiction internationally considers a crime). As taxevasion and/or avoidance of full tax payment is also a misrepresentationof one's true monetary worth (and thus, _fraud_), this is why the IRSoften couches the charges in this fashion, when they also include taxevasion.That is your interpretation. You seem to be indicating that the US governmentcares nothing about the fraudulent activity that injures other people and isonly concerned with the tax evasion, thereby "couching the charges" in some wayto include fraudulent activity so that the evaders can be extradited andbrought to account on the tax evasion. But your own examples prove you wrong.

Not at all: had you bothered to read my comments earlier, you will note
that while not all jurisdictions internationally have tax evasion laws,
almost ALL international jurisdictions have prohibitions against fraud
being used to avoid legitimate financial obligations. The most common
method of bringing a fugitive back to the US is through extradition
under formal bilateral and multilateral treaties.These treaties exist
between the US and most countries and contain either a list of
specifically extraditable offenses or a formula for the classification
of an offense as extraditable. Treaties with a formula typically require
that the offense be punishable by at least one year of imprisonment and
possess dual criminality (where both the foreign country and the US
would consider an act a crime).

This would appear to present an obstacle in cases where the tax evader
has taken refuge in a zero-tax jurisdiction, since countries without
income tax have no crime of tax evasion. Tax evasion is now specifically
listed as extraditable in about 20 treaties

However, the government may transform a tax evasion charge into a charge
of fraud, since fraud is a crime in almost every jurisdiction. The
government can then seek extradition of a tax evader by arguing that the
filing of a false return constitutes mail fraud.

<snip remainder of argumentum ad hominem>

Done and discussion ended.
--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.

DISCLAIMER:

Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.

>Subject: Re: Citizenship of Prince Philip of MountbattenFrom: Alun alun@1stcounsel.comDate: 12/2/2003 10:04 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <Xns9446AFC9C56Eelektrosmdonet@130.133.1.4>
Then, of course, there are also treaties governing extradition. I am notan expert (or a lawyer either), but I do know that the other country hasto approve the extradition. Taxes, by themselves, are not a compellingreason to do so, given that they would be giving up revenue. There aremany other things for which extradition is likely to fail. It's calledsovereignty!

Another poster here made it seem like extradition was an easy matter, but here
is one URL she seems to have missed:

http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/1999/07/28/p2s2.htm

This points out the pitfalls of treaties. Lest anyone get it into their head
to come back and say I advocate that criminals should be able to escape
justice--I don't advocate this at all. But there may be problems involved. As
for the business of taxing expatriate Americans, that is pretty complex and
full of legalese, as anyone who reads

http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00337/005064/title/subject/top
ic/tax%20law_income%20taxation/filename/taxlaw_1_299

can see. It is the part about the expatriate whose net worth exceeds $500,000
being held liable for taxation and/or penalties for the next ten years or more
that bothers me. Oh, well. $500,000 seems like a fortune to some of us--but
the fact remains that where I live it only buys an ordinary-looking house.
Everything is relative.






"THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the
Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban
You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again!
http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Don Aitken <don-aitken@freeuk.com> os suum: On 2 Dec 2003 00:28:50 -0800, christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher Buyers) wrote:
Francois R. Velde <velde@heraldicanospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<p17ksvsm1e62utfvn0lvdjiob8lm58gvp6@4ax.com>... In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher Buyers) os suum: >Francois R. Velde <velde@heraldicanospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<r5fhsvkqmlj4k3kbachqjodci2a376us7q@4ax.com>... >> In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher >> Buyers) os suum: >> >Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a317dc5753cc03698b851@news.odyssey.net>... >> >> In article <38e9db65.0311272154.116b56ea@posting.google.com> in >> >> alt.talk.royalty, Christopher Buyers <christopher.buyers@virgin.net> >> >It is most probably in conflict with the citizenship laws of other >> >countries, the Vienna conventions on diplomats and heads of state and >> >European Human Rights conventions too. >> >> The first possibly, depending on the citizenship laws. That is why >> traditionally citizenship laws have disliked dual citizens, because of the >> conflicts they create. As for the other two, can you show which passage of >> those conventions is in conflict? > >You have not so why should I. Because you made the claim. I didn't. >If you are unfamiliar with the Vienna conventions on diplomatic >immunity and immunity of Heads of State there is an pbvious solution - >an educational visit to your local library. There's an even more obvious solution. It's online. Now, what's your point?If it is so obvious, get reading. As for my point, it is made in theoriginal post, but again we have a little difficulty with that readingthing.

I know from experience that (1) you can't refrain yourself from being insulting
and (2) you have a habit of denying having made claims once they are proven wrong,
so I'll ignore your provocations and try to make sure that we are clear what that
point was.

Your original post, in response to Yannis's presentation of Greek citizenship law
that concluded with the British royal family being Greek, said this:Surely your interpretation of Greek citizenship excludes any referenceto (superior) international law.It is inconceivable, for example, that Greek citizenship law would beapplied to an American or Australian diplomat of Greek origin. Surely,you are not saying that such an individual who was posted to Greecefor six months or more is liable for military service in the Greekarmy?If, as I suspect, Greek Citizenship law does not apply in the case ofa diplomat, it probably also does not apply to a foreign Head ofState, their spouse or issue.

So the logic is: (a) Greek citizenship law as explained by Yannis would
violate international law because, e.g., it would contradict the Vienna
convention on diplomats, therefore (b) he is wrong and it is impossible
that the children of the duke of Edinburgh be Greek.

Never mind that there seems to be a logical leap from (a) to (b) (since
spouses and issue of heads of state are not addressed in the Vienna convention
on diplomats). Let's see if (a) is established by your quotations.
The relevant articles of the Vienna convention that you shouldconcentrate on, so as not to tax your reading skills too much, are asfollows:29 - diplomats are inviolable, exempt from arrest and detention,exempt from jurisdiction, etc.31 - diplomats are exempt from civil jurisdiction, except perhaps realestate, wills, professional and business transactions outside of theirofficial work.37 - immunity applies to the diplomats family, household and certaintechnical staff and other employees.9 - the host state can merely declare a diplomat "persona non grata",the only power it has whether it deems that diplomat a citizen of itsown or not.
But (9) "Members of the diplomatic staff may not be appointed from persons having the nationality of the receiving state, except with the consent of that state, which may be withdrawn at any time".

So, does Greek citizenship law violate international law?
Suppose an American of Greek descent is appointed to a diplomatic
post in Athens, does Greece violate international law by deeming him
to be a Greek citizen?

(1) Either the US asked for Greece's consent and obtained it. This
presumably means that Greece accepts to refrain from making any claim
on the diplomat that would be incompatible with the convention. There
is no conflict, unless Greece does not so refrain: *that* would be a
violation of international law, but nothing compels Greece to commit
such a violation.

(2) The US asked and did not obtain, or the US didn't ask for consent.
If the diplomat is posted anyway, Greece is justified in making any
demands on its citizen. There is no conflict.

Either way, there is nothing about Greece deeming the American of
Greek descent one of its citizens that violates international law.
Greece can perfectly well deem him a citizen while refraining from
making all demands from him that it would normally make.

The same way, France and Spain have bound themselves in international
law not to make certain demands of their citizens under certain
conditions. France is bound not to call for military service Luis
Alfonso de Borbon, because he already served in the Spanish army.
This is a constraint on France placed by international law, just as
the Vienna convention is a constraint on Greece in the above example.
It does not follow that Greece cannot deem the diplomat one of its
citizens, even as it refrains from calling him from military service,
just as France can and still does deem Luis Alfonso de Borbon to be
French but exempts him from military service.

So proposition (a) above does not hold. We don't even have to inquire
whether (b) follows from (a).

Perhaps there is something in the European Convention on Human Rights
that Mr. Buyers can show to establish (a), but I very much doubt it.
If he were right, it would follow that citizenship laws based on jus
sanguinis violate international law, which can't be true: many
citizenship laws are based, in part or in whole, on jus sanguinis,
even US citizenship laws.

--
François R. Velde
velde@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

>Subject: Re: Citizenship of Prince Philip of MountbattenFrom: Katherine Griffis-Greenberg egylist@griffis-consulting.comDate: 12/2/2003 10:30 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <0rpqsvok7a0vhf550jj56qvab257fp8gqm@4ax.com>
Done and discussion ended.

And we know why. Because, despite your repeating yourself and the law over and
over--you have STILL not provided a single example of a former US citizen who
committed no crime other than not paying taxes the IRS feels he still
owes--being extradited from another country for same.



"THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the
Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban
You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again!
http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html

"Francois R. Velde" <velde@heraldicaNOTSPAM.invalid> wrote in message news:<bqnm6k$ch7$1@e250.ripco.com>... In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Don Aitken <don-aitken@freeuk.com> os suum: On 2 Dec 2003 00:28:50 -0800, christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher Buyers) wrote:Francois R. Velde <velde@heraldicanospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<p17ksvsm1e62utfvn0lvdjiob8lm58gvp6@4ax.com>...> In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher> Buyers) os suum:>> >Francois R. Velde <velde@heraldicanospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<r5fhsvkqmlj4k3kbachqjodci2a376us7q@4ax.com>...> >> In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher> >> Buyers) os suum:> >> >Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a317dc5753cc03698b851@news.odyssey.net>...> >> >> In article <38e9db65.0311272154.116b56ea@posting.google.com> in> >> >> alt.talk.royalty, Christopher Buyers <christopher.buyers@virgin.net>> >> >It is most probably in conflict with the citizenship laws of other> >> >countries, the Vienna conventions on diplomats and heads of state and> >> >European Human Rights conventions too.> >>> >> The first possibly, depending on the citizenship laws. That is why> >> traditionally citizenship laws have disliked dual citizens, because of the> >> conflicts they create. As for the other two, can you show which passage of> >> those conventions is in conflict?> >> >You have not so why should I.>> Because you made the claim. I didn't.>> >If you are unfamiliar with the Vienna conventions on diplomatic> >immunity and immunity of Heads of State there is an pbvious solution -> >an educational visit to your local library.>> There's an even more obvious solution. It's online. Now, what's your point?If it is so obvious, get reading. As for my point, it is made in theoriginal post, but again we have a little difficulty with that readingthing. I know from experience that (1) you can't refrain yourself from being insulting and (2) you have a habit of denying having made claims once they are proven wrong, so I'll ignore your provocations and try to make sure that we are clear what that point was. Your original post, in response to Yannis's presentation of Greek citizenship law that concluded with the British royal family being Greek, said this:Surely your interpretation of Greek citizenship excludes any referenceto (superior) international law.It is inconceivable, for example, that Greek citizenship law would beapplied to an American or Australian diplomat of Greek origin. Surely,you are not saying that such an individual who was posted to Greecefor six months or more is liable for military service in the Greekarmy?If, as I suspect, Greek Citizenship law does not apply in the case ofa diplomat, it probably also does not apply to a foreign Head ofState, their spouse or issue. So the logic is: (a) Greek citizenship law as explained by Yannis would violate international law because, e.g., it would contradict the Vienna convention on diplomats, therefore (b) he is wrong and it is impossible that the children of the duke of Edinburgh be Greek. Never mind that there seems to be a logical leap from (a) to (b) (since spouses and issue of heads of state are not addressed in the Vienna convention on diplomats). Let's see if (a) is established by your quotations.

Hmm really?

Heads of State travel on diplomatic passports and enjoy diplomatic
protection, do they not?

The Vienna convention indeed deals with diplomats, but it ALSO deals
with diplomatic immunity.

To enjoy diplomatic immunity, one does not actually have to be someone
entirely engaged in diplomatic duties, does one?
,The relevant articles of the Vienna convention that you shouldconcentrate on, so as not to tax your reading skills too much, are asfollows:29 - diplomats are inviolable, exempt from arrest and detention,exempt from jurisdiction, etc.31 - diplomats are exempt from civil jurisdiction, except perhaps realestate, wills, professional and business transactions outside of theirofficial work.37 - immunity applies to the diplomats family, household and certaintechnical staff and other employees.9 - the host state can merely declare a diplomat "persona non grata",the only power it has whether it deems that diplomat a citizen of itsown or not. But (9) "Members of the diplomatic staff may not be appointed from persons having the nationality of the receiving state, except with the consent of that state, which may be withdrawn at any time". So, does Greek citizenship law violate international law? Suppose an American of Greek descent is appointed to a diplomatic post in Athens, does Greece violate international law by deeming him to be a Greek citizen?

But we are not talking merely of an American of Greek descent. We are
talking about an American citizen, thus someone perfectly qualified
under the convention to be posted as a diplomat by the US.

What's more, he may well be one who has no connection with Greece,
other than perhaps having one grandparent, or more remote ancestor who
may be of Greek descent, who may not even have originated in the
territory of Greece itself.

At best, you could argue your point better if you could find a clause
or section of the convention which deals with dual citizens, or says
that dual citizens may not be posted without the consent of the
receiving country. But I fear you cannot.

Cheers,
Christopher Buyers

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher
Buyers) os suum:
"Francois R. Velde" <velde@heraldicaNOTSPAM.invalid> wrote in message news:<bqnm6k$ch7$1@e250.ripco.com>... In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Don Aitken <don-aitken@freeuk.com> os suum: On 2 Dec 2003 00:28:50 -0800, christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher Buyers) wrote:>Francois R. Velde <velde@heraldicanospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<p17ksvsm1e62utfvn0lvdjiob8lm58gvp6@4ax.com>...>> In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher>> Buyers) os suum:>>>> >Francois R. Velde <velde@heraldicanospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<r5fhsvkqmlj4k3kbachqjodci2a376us7q@4ax.com>...>> >> In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher>> >> Buyers) os suum: [...] Your original post, in response to Yannis's presentation of Greek citizenship law that concluded with the British royal family being Greek, said this:Surely your interpretation of Greek citizenship excludes any referenceto (superior) international law.It is inconceivable, for example, that Greek citizenship law would beapplied to an American or Australian diplomat of Greek origin. Surely,you are not saying that such an individual who was posted to Greecefor six months or more is liable for military service in the Greekarmy?If, as I suspect, Greek Citizenship law does not apply in the case ofa diplomat, it probably also does not apply to a foreign Head ofState, their spouse or issue. So the logic is: (a) Greek citizenship law as explained by Yannis would violate international law because, e.g., it would contradict the Vienna convention on diplomats, therefore (b) he is wrong and it is impossible that the children of the duke of Edinburgh be Greek. Never mind that there seems to be a logical leap from (a) to (b) (since spouses and issue of heads of state are not addressed in the Vienna convention on diplomats). Let's see if (a) is established by your quotations.Hmm really?Heads of State travel on diplomatic passports and enjoy diplomaticprotection, do they not?The Vienna convention indeed deals with diplomats, but it ALSO dealswith diplomatic immunity.To enjoy diplomatic immunity, one does not actually have to be someoneentirely engaged in diplomatic duties, does one?

I hedged by saying "there seems to be a logical leap." You might well argue
that the Vienna convention indirectly and implicitly addresses the case of
visiting heads of state. But this is moot anyway, since there is no
contradiction between citizenship laws and the Convention, so no implication can
be derived with respect to heads of state, much less their families (see below).
>The relevant articles of the Vienna convention that you should>concentrate on, so as not to tax your reading skills too much, are as>follows:>29 - diplomats are inviolable, exempt from arrest and detention,>exempt from jurisdiction, etc.>31 - diplomats are exempt from civil jurisdiction, except perhaps real>estate, wills, professional and business transactions outside of their>official work.>37 - immunity applies to the diplomats family, household and certain>technical staff and other employees.

Except if they are nationals of the receiving country!
>9 - the host state can merely declare a diplomat "persona non grata",>the only power it has whether it deems that diplomat a citizen of its>own or not. But (9) "Members of the diplomatic staff may not be appointed from persons having the nationality of the receiving state, except with the consent of that state, which may be withdrawn at any time". So, does Greek citizenship law violate international law? Suppose an American of Greek descent is appointed to a diplomatic post in Athens, does Greece violate international law by deeming him to be a Greek citizen?But we are not talking merely of an American of Greek descent. We aretalking about an American citizen, thus someone perfectly qualifiedunder the convention to be posted as a diplomat by the US.What's more, he may well be one who has no connection with Greece,other than perhaps having one grandparent, or more remote ancestor whomay be of Greek descent, who may not even have originated in theterritory of Greece itself.

So what? It makes the case seem extreme, or counter-intuitive, but it doesn't
make Greek citizenship law invalid.
At best, you could argue your point better if you could find a clauseor section of the convention which deals with dual citizens, or saysthat dual citizens may not be posted without the consent of thereceiving country. But I fear you cannot.

I don't need to find an explicit reference to dual citizenship (anymore than you
need an explicit reference to heads of state, cf. supra). That dual
citizenship is not mentioned in the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations
doesn't mean that the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations negates dual
citizenship!

The point is that the Convention places limits on a receiving country's exercise
of its prerogatives with respect to its own citizens who happen to be diplomats
of another country. But in the same way, the 1969 convention between France and
Spain limits France's prerogatives with respect to Luis Alfonso de Borbón,
without in any way invalidating France's claim that he is a French citizen. The
convention doesn't limit, abrogate, or contradict the receiving country's
citizenship laws, or make dual citizenship an impossibility in international
law. I still see Yannis's exposition is perfectly plausible.

--
François Velde
velde@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

"Francois R. Velde" <velde@heraldicanospam.invalid> a écrit dans le message
de news:r2b5tvg47tpu1qpcc7thb9roqa89be411c@4ax.com...
The convention doesn't limit, abrogate, or contradict the receiving country's citizenship laws, or make dual citizenship an impossibility in
international law. I still see Yannis's exposition is perfectly plausible.

And much more interesting than many previous contributions on the same
subject.

Pierre

Francois R. Velde <velde@heraldicanospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<r2b5tvg47tpu1qpcc7thb9roqa89be411c@4ax.com>... In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher Buyers) os suum:"Francois R. Velde" <velde@heraldicaNOTSPAM.invalid> wrote in message news:<bqnm6k$ch7$1@e250.ripco.com>... In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Don Aitken <don-aitken@freeuk.com> os suum: > On 2 Dec 2003 00:28:50 -0800, christopher.buyers@virgin.net > (Christopher Buyers) wrote: >>Francois R. Velde <velde@heraldicanospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<p17ksvsm1e62utfvn0lvdjiob8lm58gvp6@4ax.com>... >>> In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher >>> Buyers) os suum: >>> >>> >Francois R. Velde <velde@heraldicanospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<r5fhsvkqmlj4k3kbachqjodci2a376us7q@4ax.com>... >>> >> In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher >>> >> Buyers) os suum: [...] Your original post, in response to Yannis's presentation of Greek citizenship law that concluded with the British royal family being Greek, said this: >Surely your interpretation of Greek citizenship excludes any reference >to (superior) international law. > >It is inconceivable, for example, that Greek citizenship law would be >applied to an American or Australian diplomat of Greek origin. Surely, >you are not saying that such an individual who was posted to Greece >for six months or more is liable for military service in the Greek >army? > >If, as I suspect, Greek Citizenship law does not apply in the case of >a diplomat, it probably also does not apply to a foreign Head of >State, their spouse or issue. So the logic is: (a) Greek citizenship law as explained by Yannis would violate international law because, e.g., it would contradict the Vienna convention on diplomats, therefore (b) he is wrong and it is impossible that the children of the duke of Edinburgh be Greek. Never mind that there seems to be a logical leap from (a) to (b) (since spouses and issue of heads of state are not addressed in the Vienna convention on diplomats). Let's see if (a) is established by your quotations.Hmm really?Heads of State travel on diplomatic passports and enjoy diplomaticprotection, do they not?The Vienna convention indeed deals with diplomats, but it ALSO dealswith diplomatic immunity.To enjoy diplomatic immunity, one does not actually have to be someoneentirely engaged in diplomatic duties, does one? I hedged by saying "there seems to be a logical leap."

I haven't a clue what you are trying to imply here at all.
You might well argue that the Vienna convention indirectly and implicitly addresses the case of visiting heads of state.

I did not say that the Vienna convention of the 1960's directly
addresses the case of Heads of State, visiting or otherwise. But to
imagine that they do not enjoy diplomatic immuunity is to
missunderstand the whole history and purpose of diplomatic immunity
itself, indeed the whole concept of diplomatic representation.

Diplomatic representatives, gain their rights on the basis that they
are the representatives of a foreign Head of State. The "logic" of
your proposal now is that diplomats enjoy something that the person
they represent does not!
But this is moot anyway, since there is no contradiction between citizenship laws and the Convention,

How so, when Greece is unable to implement its citizenship law in
anyway upon a diplomat, a foreign Head of State or their families
anymore than it can lay claim to the moon? >>The relevant articles of the Vienna convention that you should >>concentrate on, so as not to tax your reading skills too much, are as >>follows: >>29 - diplomats are inviolable, exempt from arrest and detention, >>exempt from jurisdiction, etc. >>31 - diplomats are exempt from civil jurisdiction, except perhaps real >>estate, wills, professional and business transactions outside of their >>official work. >>37 - immunity applies to the diplomats family, household and certain >>technical staff and other employees. Except if they are nationals of the receiving country! >>9 - the host state can merely declare a diplomat "persona non grata", >>the only power it has whether it deems that diplomat a citizen of its >>own or not. > But (9) "Members of the diplomatic staff may not be appointed from > persons having the nationality of the receiving state, except with > the consent of that state, which may be withdrawn at any time". So, does Greek citizenship law violate international law? Suppose an American of Greek descent is appointed to a diplomatic post in Athens, does Greece violate international law by deeming him to be a Greek citizen?But we are not talking merely of an American of Greek descent. We aretalking about an American citizen, thus someone perfectly qualifiedunder the convention to be posted as a diplomat by the US.What's more, he may well be one who has no connection with Greece,other than perhaps having one grandparent, or more remote ancestor whomay be of Greek descent, who may not even have originated in theterritory of Greece itself. So what? It makes the case seem extreme, or counter-intuitive, but it doesn't make Greek citizenship law invalid.

But it does not turn an American citizen into a Greek under the
purposes of the Vienna Convention as you were trying to imply.
At best, you could argue your point better if you could find a clauseor section of the convention which deals with dual citizens, or saysthat dual citizens may not be posted without the consent of thereceiving country. But I fear you cannot. I don't need to find an explicit reference to dual citizenship (anymore than you need an explicit reference to heads of state, cf. supra). That dual citizenship is not mentioned in the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations doesn't mean that the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations negates dual citizenship!

True, but that does not mean that the section on citizens of the
receiving country apply, since the people in question are citizens of
the sending country.

In fact the whole issue of refusing a diplomat on citizenship grounds
is a red herring, since there is nothing to force a receiving country
to accept anyone as a diplomat. Even if the sending country refuses to
back down all they have to do is simply not make an appointment to
receive the credentials. They could leave the hapless fellow
languising for years as a recent British Ambassador designate to Iran
discovered.
The point is that the Convention places limits on a receiving country's exercise of its prerogatives with respect to its own citizens who happen to be diplomats of another country. But in the same way, the 1969 convention between France and Spain limits France's prerogatives with respect to Luis Alfonso de Borbón, without in any way invalidating France's claim that he is a French citizen.

What has the convention between France and Spain have to do with this?
The convention doesn't limit, abrogate, or contradict the receiving country's citizenship laws, or make dual citizenship an impossibility in international law. I still see Yannis's exposition is perfectly plausible.

Having signed and accepted international conventions and agreements,
they have indeed accepted that their citizenship law does not apply in
certain circumstances and that they cannot implement them in respect
of those individuals. The circumstances we are talking about are in
regard to particular persons, not the citizenship law in general.
Indeed, the whole point of Yannis's exposition was in regards to those
individuals, namely members of the Greek Royal Family.

Those who belong to King Constantine's family travel on Danish
diplomatic passports, indeed have done so to Greece and been received
their on such documents by the Greek authorities.

Those who belong to Prince Philip's family are the children and
relatives of a foreign Head of State.

Cheers,
Christopher Buyers

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Christopher Buyers <christopher.buyers@virgin.net> os suum: Francois R. Velde <velde@heraldicanospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<r2b5tvg47tpu1qpcc7thb9roqa89be411c@4ax.com>... But this is moot anyway, since there is no contradiction between citizenship laws and the Convention,
How so, when Greece is unable to implement its citizenship law in anyway upon a diplomat, a foreign Head of State or their families anymore than it can lay claim to the moon?

A diplomat as long as he is a diplomat, yes. His family, no, not if
they are nationals of the receiving state.
The point is that the Convention places limits on a receiving country's exercise of its prerogatives with respect to its own citizens who happen to be diplomats of another country. But in the same way, the 1969 convention between France and Spain limits France's prerogatives with respect to Luis Alfonso de Borbón, without in any way invalidating France's claim that he is a French citizen.
What has the convention between France and Spain have to do with this?

See below.
The convention doesn't limit, abrogate, or contradict the receiving country's citizenship laws, or make dual citizenship an impossibility in international law. I still see Yannis's exposition is perfectly plausible.
Having signed and accepted international conventions and agreements, they have indeed accepted that their citizenship law does not apply in certain circumstances and that they cannot implement them in respect of those individuals.

No. They cannot implement those aspects of the citizenship laws that would
violate the international conventions and agreements. Considering them to
be citizens does not, per se, violate those conventions.

You can't possibly use a convention on diplomatic relations to argue that a
particular person does not have a particular citizenship.

Suppose the United States appoints me (a US citizen) to a diplomatic position
in the US embassy in Paris? Is it your belief that this would somehow obliterate
forever my French citizenship and that of my family? This is nonsense. France
would be limited in its claims against me as long as I held that position. My family
would not even be so protected. And all of this would cease with my position.

The 1969 convention between France and Spain is an example of what you deny to be
possible, that a country may be limited in implementing certain aspects of its
citizenship laws in respect of particular individuals, yet those indivisuals
are still its citizens. That convention limits one aspect forever. The Vienna
convention limits most aspects for a limited time, and only for the diplomat,
not his family.
The circumstances we are talking about are in regard to particular persons, not the citizenship law in general. Indeed, the whole point of Yannis's exposition was in regards to those individuals, namely members of the Greek Royal Family.
Those who belong to King Constantine's family travel on Danish diplomatic passports, indeed have done so to Greece and been received their on such documents by the Greek authorities.
Those who belong to Prince Philip's family are the children and relatives of a foreign Head of State.

And all you have shown is that Greece might be limited in implementing
some aspects of its citizenship laws to those relatives of a foreign head
of state who might enjoy diplomatic privileges. It doesn't mean they cannot
be Greek citizens, or transmit Greek citizenship, as you claim.

--
François R. Velde
velde@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

"Francois R. Velde" <velde@heraldicaNOTSPAM.invalid> wrote in message news:<br2cqg$9a2$1@e250.ripco.com>...
And all you have shown is that Greece might be limited in implementing some aspects of its citizenship laws to those relatives of a foreign head of state who might enjoy diplomatic privileges.

You use the phrase "some". O.K. please specify what aspects of its
citizenship laws Greece can implement over these people?

I'd like to intervene in this discussion between François and Chris,
to add a few remarks of my own. Hope they're useful / interesting

First of all, perhaps some of you have got a somewhat mistaken
perception of "international law". Americans especially, living in a
Federal State, may be forgiven for thinking that the world is a bit
like the American federation. You have federal law, which applies to
the whole federation, and you have state law, which applies to each
individual state. Each state can adopt any legislation it likes, as
long as it does not violate federal law. And there are all sorts of
rules as to which areas federal law can cover, and which are left to
the States.

The world is NOT as perfectly organised as that. Perhaps it should be,
and perhaps it will be one day, but in any case it is not now. The
starting point is still, that each country can adopt any law it likes,
without restrictions. It is just a question of having the will, and
means, to enforce it. Over several centuries a body of international
law has built up, which can perhaps be described as agreements
(whether express or implicit) between states limiting their
theoretically unlimited prerogatives, to enable them to avoid
potential conflicts. I don't think there is any overall citizenship
convention, telling us which country can claim whom as her citizen.
However, unless a country wants to default under its obligations under
general principles of international law or under any international
conventions etc. it may have signed (a default which may or may not
have serious consequences. There is no overall international court who
can "fine" a country for being a bad boy, but still countries ignore
international law at their peril) it must accept limitations on the
applications of its law, even to some of its citizens.

Furthermore, what is understood under "citizenship" may well vary from
country to country. Most countries will impose obligations even to
non-nationals and conversely, may make the enjoyment of certain rights
by their own citizens subject to certain additional conditions. To
give examples, most countries will impose their income tax, at least
on income accruing inside their own jurisdiction, on residents whether
or not they are citizens. Conversely, I have already indicated that
non-resident Greek citizens are not subject to military service. Other
countries will not pay welfare benefits to their own citizens who are
not resident.

"Extra-territoriality" is another very difficult notion that crops up:
What exactly is extra-territorial? I was involved in a legal case once
where a Greek court came to the conclusion that a certain American
lady, already dead by that time, had Greek citizenship since she had
married a Greek citizen who had emigrated to the US. The lady in
question was quite unaware all her life that she was a Greek citizen
and, in all probability had never set foot on Greek soil. You may say
that this was crazy, and a clear-cut example of extra-territoriality.
But what was at stake in this trial was ownership of a piece of land
in Greece. Is this then extra-territoriality? What's more, the court
found that this lady's will, made in Colorado, US in accordance with
local formalities, was valid in Greece since Greek law treats as valid
a will made abroad in accordance with local formalities, even if Greek
formalities have not been observed. In fact, the whole point of the
court's judgement that this lady was a Greek citizen was to apply
Greek law of inheritance, based on the valid Colorado will, rather
than Colorado law of inheritance. It is highly probable that both laws
would have come to the same result, i.e. that the person designated
under the will inherits, but applying Greek law was simpler for the
court since it did not have to order an expert to report on exactly
what Colorado law said. Viewed in this light, this judgement does not
seem at all crazy.

Yet another point: It seems to me that Chris is under the impression
that Greece is a crazy state, bent on claiming as its own citizen
anyone whose remote ancestry includes a Greek, and subjecting those
persons to the rigours of Greek law. This is not what I intended to
say and indeed not at all true. This current discussion started when I
pointed out that according to Greek citizenship law Prince Philip and
his descendants in all probability still have Greek citizenship. I
don't think that the Greek rules on automatic transmission of
citizenship from parent to child, irrespective of whether the child
also has other citizenship and irrespective of where the birth takes
place, are unique in the world. But in any case, this is the formal
legal position. It does not mean that Greek authorities will
immediately seize upon anyone with a Greek ancestor, make him a Greek
citizen whether he/she likes it or not, and then subject him to more
loon Greek laws! Let us not forget that it is relatively easy to
determine the citizenship of royals since their ancestry is so well
known and documented. Not only are royals themselves "famous", their
ancestors were also "famous". Even though, one can do a Google search
on, say, Michael Jackson (to take someone famous at random) and find
out more than he would like to know on him personally, it is still
difficult to be certain even about his grandparents, their origins
etc. But with Prince Philip one can, in a matter of minutes or, at
most, a couple of hours, trace his ancestry to the 12th century, with
almost 100% certainty. Consequently, any idle poster on Google can
determine a royals citizenshp!

The ordinary mortal who knows that one of his grandfather's was Greek
and that, therefore, he himself has Greek citizenship, will have to go
through a lengthy, tedious and painstaking bureaucratic process before
the Greek authorities will accept him as Greek. It can be done, and it
is by no means any more lengthy, tedious and painstaking than most
bureaucratic processes in the world, but it does mean that, in
practise, only those who have a real "reason" or "interest" in being
Greek citizens will be accepted, and treated as such, by Greek
authorities. Ordinary Jo from Alabama, who just wants to spend a
fortnight on a beach in Greece, will enter with his American passport
and be treated by Greek authorities to all intents and purposes as an
American, even if his great-grandfather came from the next village
down the road! And of course, as the example of military service
exemption for non-residents shows, even if he is treated like a Greek,
nothing very horrible is going to happen to him. Indeed, the question
of the royal family and their expropriation/citizenship apart, Greece
isn't any less reasonable in such matters as any other Western
democracy. A few years ago Greece did have an American of Greek origin
as US ambassador (he spoke quite good Greek, too) and no-one seems to
have worried about the Vienna Convention or what-have-you. The man was
reasonably well liked, and went home at the end of his term reasonably
happy and with good memories of Greece.

Again, apologies for the length of this, and again I hope it is
interesting.

Yannis

"Yannis" <yanbee2@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:a75bea69.0312090158.6142f45a@posting.google.c om... I'd like to intervene in this discussion between François and Chris, to add a few remarks of my own. Hope they're useful / interesting

<...>
Again, apologies for the length of this, and again I hope it is interesting. Yannis

Interesting, and perfectly clear. Thank you.

Pierre

Search Result 40
From: Yannis (yanbee2@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Citizenship of Prince Philip of Mountbatten
View: Complete Thread (69 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.talk.royalty, misc.legal
Date: 2003-12-09 01:58:17 PST
I'd like to intervene in this discussion between François and Chris, to add a few remarks of my own. Hope they're useful / interesting

Firstly, my name is Christopher, as written. Not Chris. Much the same
as I take your name to be Yannis, because you write it that way, not
Ann, because it happens to form part of it.
First of all, perhaps some of you have got a somewhat mistaken perception of "international law". Americans especially, living in a Federal State, may be forgiven for thinking that the world is a bit like the American federation.

Just to be clear, I am not an American. My background is the
Commonwealth, with a particular interest, in this context, in
Australia, Canada and India.
You have federal law, which applies to the whole federation, and you have state law, which applies to each individual state. Each state can adopt any legislation it likes, as long as it does not violate federal law. > And there are all sorts of rules as to which areas federal law can cover, and which are left to the States.

Well, there are different types of federation, confederation and union
joining once separate entities into a national structure. While some
may operate the system you describe, all of them do not. Some work in
exactly the opposite way. The national government may adopt any law
that it chooses, so long as it does not violate the existing laws of
the component units.
The world is NOT as perfectly organised as that. Perhaps it should be, and perhaps it will be one day, but in any case it is not now. The starting point is still, that each country can adopt any law it likes, without restrictions. It is just a question of having the will, and means, > to enforce it.

No, this is not quite correct. An independent state that has joined
the UN, the EU, the Commonwealth, accepted the Hague and Vienna
conventions, or a number of other international organisations, cannot
adopt any law it likes. It must conform to the international and
bilateral undertakings that it has agreed to, much the same as a state
that has joined a federation conforms to a federal constitution or
accepts certain written or unwritten conventions that oil the wheels
of government, administration or the law. It is only the means by
which the transgression is determined and the methods employed to
bring the transgressor in line that may be different. The principle is
much the same, when you join a club, you agree to play by the club
rules. The days of complete independence are long gone, if they
actually ever existed. Indeed, nowadays there are even several courts
of law in place to determine transgression and to issue judgements and
sanctions, though we are a long way from an ability to enforce those
judgements.
Over several centuries a body of international law has built up, which can perhaps be described as agreements whether express or implicit) between states limiting their theoretically unlimited prerogatives, to enable them to avoid potential conflicts.

True, but they are not merely aimed at avoiding conflict. Many have
been devised and accepted simply because they are the right, moral and
proper thing to do. The abolition of slavery, for example.
I don't think there is any overall citizenship convention, telling us which country can claim whom as her citizen.

True, but I do not know of anyone, certainly not me, who claimed so.

Though, to be fair to the point, it cannot be very long before the
European Court will have to pronounce on competing claims to
citizenship between member states.

snip

I am not at all certain that any of what you have written in this
section is at all relevant, apart from a need to be verbose.

Whether I may or may not think that Greece is a crazy state has little
to do with the point I have been making.

My interest in the topic was precisely regarding the citizenship
claims put forward in regard to Prince Phillip. Anything else was
simply in way of illustration, to show the limits and limited extent
of Greek citizenship claims. If I may say so, you have still failed to
show, despite the length of your latest post, how Greek citizenship
law can apply to a foreign Head of State or their family.

Cheers,
Christopher Buyers

"Yannis" <yanbee2@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:a75bea69.0312090158.6142f45a@posting.google.c om... I'd like to intervene in this discussion between François and Chris, to add a few remarks of my own. Hope they're useful / interesting

<...>
The ordinary mortal who knows that one of his grandfather's was Greek and that, therefore, he himself has Greek citizenship, will have to go through a lengthy, tedious and painstaking bureaucratic process before the Greek authorities will accept him as Greek. It can be done, and it is by no means any more lengthy, tedious and painstaking than most bureaucratic processes in the world, but it does mean that, in practise, only those who have a real "reason" or "interest" in being Greek citizens will be accepted, and treated as such, by Greek authorities. Ordinary Jo from Alabama, who just wants to spend a fortnight on a beach in Greece, will enter with his American passport and be treated by Greek authorities to all intents and purposes as an American, even if his great-grandfather came from the next village down the road! And of course, as the example of military service exemption for non-residents shows, even if he is treated like a Greek, nothing very horrible is going to happen to him. Indeed, the question of the royal family and their expropriation/citizenship apart, Greece isn't any less reasonable in such matters as any other Western democracy. A few years ago Greece did have an American of Greek origin as US ambassador (he spoke quite good Greek, too) and no-one seems to have worried about the Vienna Convention or what-have-you. The man was reasonably well liked, and went home at the end of his term reasonably happy and with good memories of Greece.

Am I correct in understanding that it means that the Greek citizenship of
Prince Philip and his children is not extinct, but simply dormant, and that
they have only to claim it and it will be (most probably) recognized?

Pierre

christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher Buyers) wrote in message news:<38e9db65.0312092324.7df17715@posting.google.com>... Firstly, my name is Christopher, as written. Not Chris. Much the same as I take your name to be Yannis, because you write it that way, not Ann, because it happens to form part of it.
Fine, I shall call you Christopher from now on, no offence meant. My
own name actually is NOT Yannis, in that the official form is
"Ioannis" and Yannis is just a contraction of that,a bit like Chris is
a contraction of Christopher. But you were not supposed to know that,
of course. Just to be clear, I am not an American. My background is the Commonwealth, with a particular interest, in this context, in Australia, Canada and India.
Fine,although I was not addressing myself only to you. Well, there are different types of federation, confederation and union joining once separate entities into a national structure. While some may operate the system you describe, all of them do not. Some work in exactly the opposite way. The national government may adopt any law that it chooses, so long as it does not violate the existing laws of the component units.
Permit me to disagree. I can't of course pretend to know the mechanics
of every federation in the world, but what I was talking about was a
federation which is one sovereign state such as the US, Australia,
Germany etc. I was NOT talking about confederations (for want of a
better term) of several sovereign states, such as the Commonwealth of
Independent States (if I remember the name correctly; I mean the
entity that succeded the former Soviet Union) or the UN, or the
European Union. I think the crucial thing about a federal state is
that federal law is supreme, even if it may only be limited to certain
areas. But if you have an entity where "federal" law is subject to
"state" law, then that is not one sovereign federal state, but rather
a collection of several federal states. I'm not quite sure which
example you had in mind. In any case, the point I was trying to make
is that in the world in general there is no clear-cut hierarchy
International law-supreme, national law-subject to international law,
as there is in the US. The world is NOT as perfectly organised as that. Perhaps it should be, and perhaps it will be one day, but in any case it is not now. The starting point is still, that each country can adopt any law it likes, without restrictions. It is just a question of having the will, and means, > to enforce it. No, this is not quite correct. An independent state that has joined the UN, the EU, the Commonwealth, accepted the Hague and Vienna conventions, or a number of other international organisations, cannot adopt any law it likes. It must conform to the international and bilateral undertakings that it has agreed to, much the same as a state that has joined a federation conforms to a federal constitution or accepts certain written or unwritten conventions that oil the wheels of government, administration or the law. It is only the means by which the transgression is determined and the methods employed to bring the transgressor in line that may be different. The principle is much the same, when you join a club, you agree to play by the club rules. The days of complete independence are long gone, if they actually ever existed. Indeed, nowadays there are even several courts of law in place to determine transgression and to issue judgements and sanctions, though we are a long way from an ability to enforce those judgements.
Again, permit me to disagree. The crucial difference, in my opinion,
between a federal state and a "club" of sovereign states is that in a
federal state there are competent mechanisms that apply federal law
directly. In a "club" of sovereign states each sovereign state
undertakes to apply the conventions, agreements etc. through its own
mechanisms. A convention signed by a sovereign state does not receive
the force of law inside that state unless it has been approved by that
state itself, e.g. by its legislature. Federal law, on the other hand,
is directly applicable to all states of the US as soon as it has been
adopted by Congress and the President, irrespective of what the States
have to say. The European Union is perhaps closest to a federation (in
that its institutions have the right to issue regulations that are
immediately applicable inside the member states) but it can be
distinguished from a proper federation by the fact that each member
state has the right to leave it whenever it wants and, in so doing,
reject the whole body of European law. As the US Civil War proved, US
States cannot leave the Union. A US State that does not like a federal
law that was lawfully and properly adopted, will be subject to it
anyway. An EU member state has the option of leaving the Union and not
being subject to an EU regulation it doesn't like.

As for the international courts you refer to, countries can choose to
leave the EU or the Council of Europe and not be subject to the
jurisdiction of their courts, and the International Court in the Hague
can only hear a case of both parties to it have agreed to it. No such
requirements apply to ordinary state courts. I cannot tell a Greek
criminal court (or a UK or US one for that matter) "I don't want you
to stand in judgement of me". They'll do so anyway. Over several centuries a body of international law has built up, which can perhaps be described as agreements whether express or implicit) between states limiting their theoretically unlimited prerogatives, to enable them to avoid potential conflicts. True, but they are not merely aimed at avoiding conflict. Many have been devised and accepted simply because they are the right, moral and proper thing to do. The abolition of slavery, for example.
What I meant is this: International law arises because each sovereign
state recognises that it is not alone in the world, it would be
impossible/counter productive etc. to try and enforce its own law
everywhere in the world and thus agrees with all other sovereign
states (or some of them) a) who is competent for what b) to pursue
some common objectives (e.g. abolish slavery) etc. etc. I don't think there is any overall citizenship convention, telling us which country can claim whom as her citizen. True, but I do not know of anyone, certainly not me, who claimed so. Though, to be fair to the point, it cannot be very long before the European Court will have to pronounce on competing claims to citizenship between member states.
Would you please explain how you envisage that happening? The European
Court is only competent for a very specific number,and type, of cases.
Can you give an outline of a possible case that would involve the
European court deciding on competing claims to citizenship between
member states? Esp. Given the fact that a citizen of one member state
also has EU citizenship and that, in principle, all EU citizens have
the same rights under the EU treaties.
I am not at all certain that any of what you have written in this section is at all relevant, apart from a need to be verbose.
First of all, I'm not quite sure what relevancy you are talking about
it. I was simply making some remarks "a propos" the exchange of
messages between you and François. Further, I may be wrong but I
understand the word "verbose" to mean using too many words to say very
little. I may have written a long post (I even apologised for doing
so) but I think this was because I had a lot of information to convey.
You may think that some or all of that information is not interesting.
Fine. At least one other poster thought otherwise, and said so. But I
don't think that my post was verbose, in the sense that I used 1,000
words to say what I could have said using 10. You appreciate of course
that telling someone that his post was "verbose" is rather offensive.
Don't you think it would be a lot more productive if you refrained
from using such terms gratuitously? Whether I may or may not think that Greece is a crazy state has little to do with the point I have been making.
Perhaps, but at least some posters might be interested to know that,
in general, Greece is not a crazy state. My interest in the topic was precisely regarding the citizenship claims put forward in regard to Prince Phillip. Anything else was simply in way of illustration, to show the limits and limited extent of Greek citizenship claims. If I may say so, you have still failed to show, despite the length of your latest post, how Greek citizenship law can apply to a foreign Head of State or their family.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "citizenship claims". I simply
pointed out that according to Greek citizenship law Prince Philip and
his descendants are Greek citizens. What exactly are the "limits and
limited extent" of this? You have been trying to prove that Greece is
bound by certain international conventions to take certain measures
regarding foreign diplomats and/or foreign Heads of State and their
family. François has already explained that this does not prove that
those people cannot be Greek citizens. I am a Greek citizen, I have
the Greek passport to prove it and I have no other citizenship except
Greek one. I work for the European Union and derive an income from it.
This income is not taxable in Greece. Why? Because Greece, together
with all other EU member states has signed a protocol saying that my
EU salary is exempt from national tax. If, in the course of my duties
as EU official I send someone in Greece a letter which is defamatory,
I cannot be prosecuted in the Greek courts. Why? Because the same
protocol accords me, and every other EU official, this immunity. Does
all this mean that I'm no longer a Greek citizen? No-one has asked for
my passport back yet!

I was unaware that I was supposed to "show" how Greek citizenship law
can apply to a foreign Head of State or their family, but in any case
here goes: Take Prince Philip and ignore, for the moment, law
2215/1994 on citizenship of the royal family.
-- Prince Philip can ask to be entered in a Greek municipal register
and be given a Greek passport. He has every right to do so.
-- Prince Philip, being a Greek citizen, can sue Queen Elizabeth for
divorce in the Greek courts. If he was not a Greek citizen the Greek
courts would have no jurisdiction since neither was the marriage
contracted in Greece nor the parties have ever lived here together
-- If Prince Philip buys a piece of land in Greece and then dies, any
Greek court called upon to rule on who inherits this piece of land
would be bound to apply Greek law of inheritance, since Philip is a
Greek citizen. It would not apply Greek law to a foreign citizen, but
the law of inheritance of that person's own country. The fact that
Philip also has British citizenship is irrelevant, because Greek rules
state that Greek citizenship takes preferance in case of double
citizenship.
Is this enough examples? QED.

Yannis

"Pierre Aronax" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3fd6f416$0$29314$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>... "Yannis" <yanbee2@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:a75bea69.0312090158.6142f45a@posting.google.c om... I'd like to intervene in this discussion between François and Chris, to add a few remarks of my own. Hope they're useful / interesting <...> The ordinary mortal who knows that one of his grandfather's was Greek and that, therefore, he himself has Greek citizenship, will have to go through a lengthy, tedious and painstaking bureaucratic process before the Greek authorities will accept him as Greek. It can be done, and it is by no means any more lengthy, tedious and painstaking than most bureaucratic processes in the world, but it does mean that, in practise, only those who have a real "reason" or "interest" in being Greek citizens will be accepted, and treated as such, by Greek authorities. Ordinary Jo from Alabama, who just wants to spend a fortnight on a beach in Greece, will enter with his American passport and be treated by Greek authorities to all intents and purposes as an American, even if his great-grandfather came from the next village down the road! And of course, as the example of military service exemption for non-residents shows, even if he is treated like a Greek, nothing very horrible is going to happen to him. Indeed, the question of the royal family and their expropriation/citizenship apart, Greece isn't any less reasonable in such matters as any other Western democracy. A few years ago Greece did have an American of Greek origin as US ambassador (he spoke quite good Greek, too) and no-one seems to have worried about the Vienna Convention or what-have-you. The man was reasonably well liked, and went home at the end of his term reasonably happy and with good memories of Greece. Am I correct in understanding that it means that the Greek citizenship of Prince Philip and his children is not extinct, but simply dormant, and that they have only to claim it and it will be (most probably) recognized? Pierre
I think the correct position would be that Prince Philip and his
children are Greek citizens, but that in the absence of formal proof
that they are Greek citizens, i.e. in the absence of an entry in a
Greek municipal register or in the absence of a Greek passport, the
Greek administration will not treat them as Greek citizens. It amounts
to more or less the same thing, as far as the end effect is concerned,
but formally they are already Greek citizens. The practical difference
is, perhaps, that once they are officially "recognised" as Greek
citizens their citizenship will date back to the time of their birth,
since it has always been there even if one was "officially" unaware of
it.

On 10 Dec 2003 10:25:34 -0800, yanbee2@yahoo.com (Yannis) wrote:
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3fd6f416$0$29314$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>...
Am I correct in understanding that it means that the Greek citizenship of Prince Philip and his children is not extinct, but simply dormant, and that they have only to claim it and it will be (most probably) recognized?I think the correct position would be that Prince Philip and hischildren are Greek citizens, but that in the absence of formal proofthat they are Greek citizens, i.e. in the absence of an entry in aGreek municipal register or in the absence of a Greek passport, theGreek administration will not treat them as Greek citizens. It amountsto more or less the same thing, as far as the end effect is concerned,but formally they are already Greek citizens. The practical differenceis, perhaps, that once they are officially "recognised" as Greekcitizens their citizenship will date back to the time of their birth,since it has always been there even if one was "officially" unaware ofit.

In case some people are inclined to think that this is just a bizarre
Greek thing, the citizenship laws of most countries work this way. In
the UK, for example, if your father was a British citizen *other than
by descent* then so are you, even if you have never been near the
place, and have no idea that this is the case. For Ireland, similarly,
if you have a parent born in any part of Ireland you are an Irish
citizen. All you need to do is establish the facts, and an Irish
passport will be issued. Differences tend to arise in the treatment of
the third and subsequent generations. Those with an Irish-born
grandparent are entitled to apply for citizenship; such applications
are granted unless there is a good reason why not, like an extensive
criminal record. The UK is less liberal in this respect.

How many generations does Greek citizenship go, for those living
abroad?

--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Christopher Buyers <christopher.buyers@virgin.net> os suum: "Francois R. Velde" <velde@heraldicaNOTSPAM.invalid> wrote in message news:<br2cqg$9a2$1@e250.ripco.com>...
And all you have shown is that Greece might be limited in implementing some aspects of its citizenship laws to those relatives of a foreign head of state who might enjoy diplomatic privileges.
You use the phrase "some". O.K. please specify what aspects of its citizenship laws Greece can implement over these people?

I don't know anything about Greek law, and where in Greek law citizenship makes a
difference (for tax purposes, for example) so I can't provide specifics. But transmission
of nationality through the diplomat or person protected by the Vienna convention is
something that can take place even if no other aspect of these laws can be enforced or
implemented.

Note also that the Vienna convention's protections are not available to the family
of diplomats who are of the receiving country's nationality. So, even if the
Greek-American diplomat posted in Athens is fully protected, his children would
not be, and any aspect of citizenship law could potentially be implemented if the
Greek government wanted to.

Finally, citizenship laws are not only about duties, but also rights. Even if the
Vienna convention limits the duties that can be demanded of a diplomat against his
will, there is no reason that it should limit the rights that he or his family might
wish to enjoy.

--
François R. Velde
velde@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

Don Aitken <don-aitken@freeuk.com> wrote in message in this respect. How many generations does Greek citizenship go, for those living abroad?

No limit,and no distinction between people living in Greece and people
living abroad. If there is a Greek citizen in your past, you are a
Greek citizen unless someone in between in line had lost their
citizenship before begetting you. But note that before 1984 it was
only the father that transmitted citizenship, not the mother.

yanbee2@yahoo.com (Yannis) nattered on
thusnews:a75bea69.0312102356.1ec52d2c@posting.goog le.com:
Don Aitken <don-aitken@freeuk.com> wrote in message in this respect. How many generations does Greek citizenship go, for those living abroad? No limit,and no distinction between people living in Greece and people living abroad. If there is a Greek citizen in your past, you are a Greek citizen unless someone in between in line had lost their citizenship before begetting you.

Today's episode of Sesame Street was brought to you by the words
"overweening" and "preposterous".

I'd like to see Greece try to violate the sovereignty of the USA in an
attempt to tax their so-called "citizens" over here.

"Bryan J. Maloney" <cavaggione@sbcglobal.nmungemungt> a écrit dans le
message de news:Xns944E4F02AD517dogfaceinsightbbcom@206.141.1 93.32... yanbee2@yahoo.com (Yannis) nattered on thusnews:a75bea69.0312102356.1ec52d2c@posting.goog le.com: Don Aitken <don-aitken@freeuk.com> wrote in message in this respect. How many generations does Greek citizenship go, for those living abroad? No limit,and no distinction between people living in Greece and people living abroad. If there is a Greek citizen in your past, you are a Greek citizen unless someone in between in line had lost their citizenship before begetting you. Today's episode of Sesame Street was brought to you by the words "overweening" and "preposterous". I'd like to see Greece try to violate the sovereignty of the USA in an attempt to tax their so-called "citizens" over here.

Do you generally read the posts of a thread before sending you arrogant
xenophobic comments or do you that randomly? For what is of the violation of
other States' sovereignty, in the present international conjuncture, United
States are not in position to give lessons to the rest of the world.



Pierre

yanbee2@yahoo.com (Yannis) wrote in message news:<a75bea69.0312101019.39cc6aa0@posting.google.com>... christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher Buyers) wrote in message news:<38e9db65.0312092324.7df17715@posting.google.com>...
I will not answer every single point, but simply suggest that there is
a lot of learning to do.

As far as observing the rules of membership are concerned, any club
one joins has rules about how one joins and how one may leave.
Federations and confederaions, international organisations and other
bodies have rules for these just like any other.

Whatever may have happened in the US civil war, one can say has been
superceded by the UN charter on self determination. Of course, the US,
like any other state may leave it if it so wishes ...
I am not at all certain that any of what you have written in this section is at all relevant, apart from a need to be verbose. First of all, I'm not quite sure what relevancy you are talking about it. I was simply making some remarks "a propos" the exchange of messages between you and François. Further, I may be wrong but I understand the word "verbose" to mean using too many words to say very little. I may have written a long post (I even apologised for doing so) but I think this was because I had a lot of information to convey. You may think that some or all of that information is not interesting. Fine. At least one other poster thought otherwise, and said so. But I don't think that my post was verbose, in the sense that I used 1,000 words to say what I could have said using 10. You appreciate of course that telling someone that his post was "verbose" is rather offensive. Don't you think it would be a lot more productive if you refrained from using such terms gratuitously?

verbose=taking 15 lines to say you are not!
Whether I may or may not think that Greece is a crazy state has little to do with the point I have been making. Perhaps, but at least some posters might be interested to know that, in general, Greece is not a crazy state. My interest in the topic was precisely regarding the citizenship claims put forward in regard to Prince Phillip. Anything else was simply in way of illustration, to show the limits and limited extent of Greek citizenship claims. If I may say so, you have still failed to show, despite the length of your latest post, how Greek citizenship law can apply to a foreign Head of State or their family. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "citizenship claims". I simply pointed out that according to Greek citizenship law Prince Philip and his descendants are Greek citizens. What exactly are the "limits and limited extent" of this? You have been trying to prove that Greece is bound by certain international conventions to take certain measures regarding foreign diplomats and/or foreign Heads of State and their family. François has already explained that this does not prove that those people cannot be Greek citizens. I am a Greek citizen, I have the Greek passport to prove it and I have no other citizenship except Greek one. I work for the European Union and derive an income from it. This income is not taxable in Greece. Why? Because Greece, together with all other EU member states has signed a protocol saying that my EU salary is exempt from national tax. If, in the course of my duties as EU official I send someone in Greece a letter which is defamatory, I cannot be prosecuted in the Greek courts. Why? Because the same protocol accords me, and every other EU official, this immunity. Does all this mean that I'm no longer a Greek citizen? No-one has asked for my passport back yet! I was unaware that I was supposed to "show" how Greek citizenship law can apply to a foreign Head of State or their family, but in any case here goes:

I would have thought it obvious that Prince Philip is married to a
foreign Head of State, but fool me.
Take Prince Philip and ignore, for the moment, law 2215/1994 on citizenship of the royal family. -- Prince Philip can ask to be entered in a Greek municipal register and be given a Greek passport. He has every right to do so. -- Prince Philip, being a Greek citizen, can sue Queen Elizabeth for divorce in the Greek courts. If he was not a Greek citizen the Greek courts would have no jurisdiction since neither was the marriage contracted in Greece nor the parties have ever lived here together -- If Prince Philip buys a piece of land in Greece and then dies, any Greek court called upon to rule on who inherits this piece of land would be bound to apply Greek law of inheritance, since Philip is a Greek citizen. It would not apply Greek law to a foreign citizen, but the law of inheritance of that person's own country. The fact that Philip also has British citizenship is irrelevant, because Greek rules state that Greek citizenship takes preferance in case of double citizenship.

It seems to me that you are slowly getting round to the view that
citizenship is available to people of Greek descent who apply for it
and provide the paperwork to prove it. Until such a person is
recognised by the Greek state, they are not in fact Greek citizens at
all. In other words, someone of Greek descent may CHOOSE to be Greek
if he so wishes, no more.

Indeed in the case of Prince Phillip, I suspect that during his
several visits to the country in the 1950's and early 1960's, the
Greek state was perfectly happy not to treat him as a Greek citizen at
all.

Cheers,
Christopher Buyers

"Christopher Buyers" <christopher.buyers@virgin.net> a écrit dans le message
de news:38e9db65.0312111049.7617c240@posting.google.c om... yanbee2@yahoo.com (Yannis) wrote in message
news:<a75bea69.0312101019.39cc6aa0@posting.google.com>... christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher Buyers) wrote in message
news:<38e9db65.0312092324.7df17715@posting.google.com>...

<...>
It seems to me that you are slowly getting round to the view that citizenship is available to people of Greek descent who apply for it and provide the paperwork to prove it. Until such a person is recognised by the Greek state, they are not in fact Greek citizens at all. In other words, someone of Greek descent may CHOOSE to be Greek if he so wishes, no more.

You still refuse to admit what is obvious and was very well explained by
Yannis. What someone of Greek descent can choose to make recognized is that
he IS Greek and has always been. He will not become Greek: he always has
been, simply without claiming to be.

Indeed in the case of Prince Phillip, I suspect that during his several visits to the country in the 1950's and early 1960's, the Greek state was perfectly happy not to treat him as a Greek citizen at all.

It seems to me that you are noiselessly getting round to the view that the
Greek state would have been able to treat him as a Greek citizen, had he
chosen to do so.



Pierre

"Pierre Aronax" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.com> nattered on
thusnews:3fd86eb5$0$23490$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net:
Do you generally read the posts of a thread before sending you arrogant xenophobic comments or do you that randomly? For what is of the violation of other States' sovereignty, in the present international conjuncture, United States are not in position to give lessons to the rest of the world.

A Frenchman lecturing an American on arrogance and xenophobia. One could
build an entire fleet of battleships on the irony.

And in any case, I would still like to see some penny-ante Greek regime
try to enforce their citizenship "laws" over all the folks of Greek
ancestry in the USA.

christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher Buyers) nattered on
thusnews:38e9db65.0312111049.7617c240@posting.goog le.com:
Whatever may have happened in the US civil war, one can say has been superceded by the UN charter on self determination.

Today's episode of Sesame Street has been brought to you by the words
"bull****" and "utter rubbish".

"Pierre Aronax" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3fd8d689$0$20783$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>... "Christopher Buyers" <christopher.buyers@virgin.net> a écrit dans le message de news:38e9db65.0312111049.7617c240@posting.google.c om... yanbee2@yahoo.com (Yannis) wrote in message news:<a75bea69.0312101019.39cc6aa0@posting.google.com>... christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher Buyers) wrote in message news:<38e9db65.0312092324.7df17715@posting.google.com>... <...> It seems to me that you are slowly getting round to the view that citizenship is available to people of Greek descent who apply for it and provide the paperwork to prove it. Until such a person is recognised by the Greek state, they are not in fact Greek citizens at all. In other words, someone of Greek descent may CHOOSE to be Greek if he so wishes, no more. You still refuse to admit what is obvious and was very well explained by Yannis. What someone of Greek descent can choose to make recognized is that he IS Greek and has always been. He will not become Greek: he always has been, simply without claiming to be.

"someone of Greek descent can choose to make recognized" What on earth
does this nonsence mean? Is it French?
Indeed in the case of Prince Phillip, I suspect that during his several visits to the country in the 1950's and early 1960's, the Greek state was perfectly happy not to treat him as a Greek citizen at all. It seems to me that you are noiselessly getting round to the view that the Greek state would have been able to treat him as a Greek citizen, had he chosen to do so.

Again, what on earth do you mean? The Greek state could have chosen to
treat Prince Philip if he had chosen so. Indeed, that is what I have
said. It seems that unless the individual himself chooses to be a
citizen of Greece, he isn't whether he does so by making a noise or
not!.

"Bryan J. Maloney" <cavaggione@sbcglobal.nmungemungt> wrote in message news:<Xns944ECF78C10AEdogfaceinsightbbcom@206.141.193.32>... christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher Buyers) nattered on thusnews:38e9db65.0312111049.7617c240@posting.goog le.com: Whatever may have happened in the US civil war, one can say has been superceded by the UN charter on self determination. Today's episode of Sesame Street has been brought to you by the words "bull****" and "utter rubbish".

I suppose for one who watches and so clearly obtains his information
from Sesame Street it would be. Huff and puff ...

christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher Buyers) wrote in message news:<38e9db65.0312111049.7617c240@posting.google.com>... I will not answer every single point, but simply suggest that there is a lot of learning to do.
I did ask something very specific in my previous message, namely that
you explain to us how you envisage the European Court having to decide
about citizenship pretty soon. You choose to ignore that question
entirely and then (rather haughtily, if I may say so) suggest that
"there is a lot of learning to do"? Fine. But by whom? As far as observing the rules of membership are concerned, any club one joins has rules about how one joins and how one may leave. Federations and confederaions, international organisations and other bodies have rules for these just like any other.
The point I was making was that a Federal State has NO rules allowing
a constituent state to leave it. Whatever may have happened in the US civil war, one can say has been superceded by the UN charter on self determination. Of course, the US, like any other state may leave it if it so wishes ...
There I think you're contradicting yourself. Are you saying that
because the US signed the UN charter any State of the US can now
choose to leave the Union just like the Confederate States tried to do
in 1861-65? Or are you saying that, if the US does not allow that to
happen, it can choose to leave the UN? I would have thought it obvious that Prince Philip is married to a foreign Head of State, but fool me.
Did anyone say that Prince Philip was NOT married to a Foreign Head of
State? Take Prince Philip and ignore, for the moment, law 2215/1994 on citizenship of the royal family. -- Prince Philip can ask to be entered in a Greek municipal register and be given a Greek passport. He has every right to do so. -- Prince Philip, being a Greek citizen, can sue Queen Elizabeth for divorce in the Greek courts. If he was not a Greek citizen the Greek courts would have no jurisdiction since neither was the marriage contracted in Greece nor the parties have ever lived here together -- If Prince Philip buys a piece of land in Greece and then dies, any Greek court called upon to rule on who inherits this piece of land would be bound to apply Greek law of inheritance, since Philip is a Greek citizen. It would not apply Greek law to a foreign citizen, but the law of inheritance of that person's own country. The fact that Philip also has British citizenship is irrelevant, because Greek rules state that Greek citizenship takes preferance in case of double citizenship. It seems to me that you are slowly getting round to the view that citizenship is available to people of Greek descent who apply for it and provide the paperwork to prove it. Until such a person is recognised by the Greek state, they are not in fact Greek citizens at all. In other words, someone of Greek descent may CHOOSE to be Greek if he so wishes, no more.
No, I'm certainly not slowly getting round to this view. If you
carefully read the third example above, it envisages a situation where
Prince Philip's decision to be or not to be Greek is not required at
all.

Look, for whoever is interested here is the situation in even more
detail: Article 1 of the Greek Citizenship Code translates as follows:
"The child of a Greek man or woman acquires, by birth, Greek
citizenship". There is no question of choice there. Obviously, in
order for the Greek State to treat you as one of its citizens, it has
to know about you. Anyone born in Greece, or living in Greece, will
have great trouble "hiding" himself from the State. If the birth is
not registered you can't go to school, can't get free medical care
etc. your parents can't get parental leave or allowances at work etc.
etc. So the birth has to be registered and automatically the Greek
state knows about you and treats you as a citizen. I didn't CHOOSE to
be a Greek citizen, having been born in Greece I became one whether I
liked it or not.

If you are born abroad, acquire another citizenship in this way and
live abroad it is a lot easier to "hide" from the Greek state, whether
intentionally or unintentionally. Most if not all of the problems that
you would encounter if you were unregistered in Greece are eliminated.
You could then say that you can "choose" whether to make your Greek
descent known,and thus make yourself known as a Greek citizen, or not.
But that is not exactly to choose Greek citizenship. There have been
cases where people inadvertently let the Greek authorities know of
their existence and as a result suffered consequences that they were
not exactly reckoning with. I once knew an Australian of Greek
descent. He had an Australian passport, had been born in Australia and
lived there. He chose to move to Greece. He could have entered on his
Australian passport without a problem, but decided that he wanted to
benefit from a rule allowing Greeks returning from abroad to import
their personal property (in his case it was his car) tax free. He thus
made himself known as a Greek citizen. I'm not sure he knew what he
was doing, all he cared about was getting his car in tax-free. Well,
he did get his car in tax free alright, but then he was asked to do
his national service in the Army, since he'd already declared that he
stopped being resident abroad, and thus lost his exemption! One can
even have cases where it is not the interested party who makes it
known to the authorities that he is a Greek citizen, but some third
party. A Greek woman marries a German man of Greek descent. She then
goes to live in Germany and manages to get German citizenship as well.
She sues her husband in the Greek courts for divorce. Greek courts
will apply Greek law, since both parties also have Greek citizenship.
If her husband only had German citizenship, Greek courts would apply
German law to the divorce, since the parties only "common" citizenship
is German. In this scenario the husband is not even asked if he wishes
to be a Greek citizen, it is his wife that points out his citizenship
and, provided she proves it with adequate elements, the husband will
be treated as a Greek citizen even if he doesn't want to. Indeed in the case of Prince Phillip, I suspect that during his several visits to the country in the 1950's and early 1960's, the Greek state was perfectly happy not to treat him as a Greek citizen at all.
I don't see how Philip's citizenship would have affected his treatment
by the Greek State during his official visits. One lays out the red
carpet, the band plays, there are handshakes, official banquets toasts
etc. etc. No rule says that you can't have that for a Greek citizen!
His citizenship simply wasn't an issue during his visits.

Yannis

"Bryan J. Maloney" <cavaggione@sbcglobal.nmungemungt> wrote in message.
Today's episode of Sesame Street was brought to you by the words "overweening" and "preposterous". I'd like to see Greece try to violate the sovereignty of the USA in an attempt to tax their so-called "citizens" over here.
Ignoring your provocative choice of language, let me make clear once
again that one should not confuse "citizenship law of country X" with
"law of country X" in general. Citizenship law tells you who is a
citizen of country X or not. As both myself and others have pointed
out, that does not mean that if you are a citizen of country X the
whole law of that country will apply to you. And conversely, it
doesn't mean that if you're not a citizen of country X, there's never
any possibility of law of X applying to you.

Let's not forget that the US once invaded another country (Panama) to
bring someone (Gen. Noriega) before a US court. Noriega was never a US
citizen. That did not stop the US from wanting to apply US law to him!
What's more, at least some people will say that the US were quite
right to treat him this way!

As for your concern about Americans being taxed by Greece, it might
interest you to know that there is a treaty between Greece and the US
(as indeed there is between most countries of the Western world)
against double taxation to prevent that from happening. That is
assuming that the Greek authorities a) know about a "Greek" living in
the US, who's never had any tax dealings in Greece. Highly doubtful to
begin with and b) Have enough time and resources (which they don't) to
bother about this person's income in the US. But, most important of
all, having just checked the Greek income tax code I can assure you
that this at least applies to ANYONE irrespective of citizenship who
is resident in Greece. Anyone not resident in Greece, even if a Greek
citizen, is not subject to Greek income tax.

Yannis

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher
Buyers) os suum:
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3fd8d689$0$20783$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>... "Christopher Buyers" <christopher.buyers@virgin.net> a écrit dans le message de news:38e9db65.0312111049.7617c240@posting.google.c om... yanbee2@yahoo.com (Yannis) wrote in message news:<a75bea69.0312101019.39cc6aa0@posting.google.com>... > christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher Buyers) wrote in message news:<38e9db65.0312092324.7df17715@posting.google.com>... <...> It seems to me that you are slowly getting round to the view that citizenship is available to people of Greek descent who apply for it and provide the paperwork to prove it. Until such a person is recognised by the Greek state, they are not in fact Greek citizens at all. In other words, someone of Greek descent may CHOOSE to be Greek if he so wishes, no more.

Greek citizenship laws do not state that a person of Greek descent only has an
option to become a Greek citizen, do they? Where did you get the notion that a
choice has to be expressed before? Where does recognition by the Greek state
come in? A Greek child he is not stateless until the paperwork is filed.

One should not confuse a legal fact and its recognition. I can have a right,
whether or not its existence has been proven in court or through the appropriate
administrative mechanism. I may have difficulties enforcing the right, or
enjoying the legal consequences of that right, until such time as it is proven,
but the right exists nonetheless.
You still refuse to admit what is obvious and was very well explained by Yannis. What someone of Greek descent can choose to make recognized is that he IS Greek and has always been. He will not become Greek: he always has been, simply without claiming to be."someone of Greek descent can choose to make recognized" What on earthdoes this nonsence mean? Is it French?

That shouldn't be any problem: aren't you extremely familiar with the French
language?

--
François Velde
velde@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit yanbee2@yahoo.com (Yannis) os suum: Anyone not resident in Greece, even if a Greekcitizen, is not subject to Greek income tax.

US law, in that respect, is much more "extra-territorial" (whatever that means)
since US citizens are liable to US income tax no matter where they live and
where that income is earned.

--
François Velde
velde@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

"Francois R. Velde" <velde@heraldicanospam.invalid> a écrit dans le message
de news:h20ktvgc09fhe11f261d1u5ph7fl5p53ne@4ax.com... In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit yanbee2@yahoo.com (Yannis) os suum: Anyone not resident in Greece, even if a Greekcitizen, is not subject to Greek income tax. US law, in that respect, is much more "extra-territorial" (whatever that
means) since US citizens are liable to US income tax no matter where they live
and where that income is earned.

So, it seems that, after all, that is the USA who happen to violate other
State's sovereignity on that respect.

Pierre

yanbee2@yahoo.com (Yannis) wrote in message news:<a75bea69.0312120726.6148767c@posting.google.com>... christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher Buyers) wrote in message news:<38e9db65.0312111049.7617c240@posting.google.com>... I will not answer every single point, but simply suggest that there is a lot of learning to do. I did ask something very specific in my previous message, namely that you explain to us how you envisage the European Court having to decide about citizenship pretty soon. You choose to ignore that question entirely and then (rather haughtily, if I may say so) suggest that "there is a lot of learning to do"? Fine. But by whom?

My meaning was regarding federations. Having introduced the point
about Americans and limited understanding, you clearly know little
more about federations than a limited knowledge of the USA. If, for
example, you had any knowledge of a country where a large number of
Greeks reside, namely Australia, you would know that it is state law
that predominates. So much so that even if the Australian constitution
were to be overturned by constitutional means to effect a republic,
the states would remain monarchies and the state Governors continue to
represent the Queen, including the gentleman of Greek extraction who
currently represents HM in one of them. So will they remain until and
if those constituent states changed their own constitutions.

As for the European Court, my comment was that it cannot be long
before the European Court will be called upon to decide on competing
citizenships. It had little to do with the topic at hand, and that is
why I did not choose to concentrate on it. But the sort of thing I had
in mind was a person of dual nationalities dying interstate, perhaps
someone retired living overseas or dying interstate in a third
country.
As far as observing the rules of membership are concerned, any club one joins has rules about how one joins and how one may leave. Federations and confederaions, international organisations and other bodies have rules for these just like any other. The point I was making was that a Federal State has NO rules allowing a constituent state to leave it. Whatever may have happened in the US civil war, one can say has been superceded by the UN charter on self determination. Of course, the US, like any other state may leave it if it so wishes ... There I think you're contradicting yourself. Are you saying that because the US signed the UN charter any State of the US can now choose to leave the Union just like the Confederate States tried to do in 1861-65? Or are you saying that, if the US does not allow that to happen, it can choose to leave the UN?

Both are possible. The US can choose to leave the UN whenever it wants
to, even if it does not want to give any reason. That is its right.

As a member however, it has signed up to the right of self
determination. Indeed, the origin of that very right derives from
President Wilson's 14 points. So the US could hardly contend that it
exists for everyone else, but not within the US.

While I would be the first to admit that, current circumstances being
what they are, no state or constituent part of the US is in any way
likely to want to leave. One can also envisage a time, perhaps in the
distant future, when the US may no longer be a superpower or as rich
as it now is. In such times, a place such as Hawaii or Alaska may well
decide that they want out.
I would have thought it obvious that Prince Philip is married to a foreign Head of State, but fool me. Did anyone say that Prince Philip was NOT married to a Foreign Head of State? Take Prince Philip and ignore, for the moment, law 2215/1994 on citizenship of the royal family. -- Prince Philip can ask to be entered in a Greek municipal register and be given a Greek passport. He has every right to do so. -- Prince Philip, being a Greek citizen, can sue Queen Elizabeth for divorce in the Greek courts. If he was not a Greek citizen the Greek courts would have no jurisdiction since neither was the marriage contracted in Greece nor the parties have ever lived here together -- If Prince Philip buys a piece of land in Greece and then dies, any Greek court called upon to rule on who inherits this piece of land would be bound to apply Greek law of inheritance, since Philip is a Greek citizen. It would not apply Greek law to a foreign citizen, but the law of inheritance of that person's own country. The fact that Philip also has British citizenship is irrelevant, because Greek rules state that Greek citizenship takes preferance in case of double citizenship. It seems to me that you are slowly getting round to the view that citizenship is available to people of Greek descent who apply for it and provide the paperwork to prove it. Until such a person is recognised by the Greek state, they are not in fact Greek citizens at all. In other words, someone of Greek descent may CHOOSE to be Greek if he so wishes, no more. No, I'm certainly not slowly getting round to this view. If you carefully read the third example above, it envisages a situation where Prince Philip's decision to be or not to be Greek is not required at all.

But your first example states explicitly that "Prince Philip CAN ASK
to be entered in a Greek municipal register and be given a Greek
passport". If he does not apply, are you saying that one will be
thrust upon him? How on earth is the Greek government going to obtain
a passport photograph of him? Employ papparazzi to sneak into Buck
House as waiters and footmen to snap him when off guard?

Is this third example relevant? If a foreigner without any modicum of
Greek blood or extraction were to buy a piece of land in Greece are
you really saying that a foreign law of inheritance would apply if he
died interstate? Are the Greek courts, judges and judicial system that
learned as to know what all foreign laws of inheritance are?
Look, for whoever is interested here is the situation in even more detail: Article 1 of the Greek Citizenship Code translates as follows: "The child of a Greek man or woman acquires, by birth, Greek citizenship". There is no question of choice there.

Perfectly true and understandable, until we get to the issue under
discussion. Namely, what is a Greek?

In the case of a person who holds foreign nationality, the definition
would have to be expounded, because he isn't a Greek. He is an
American, Canadian, Australian or what have you, until he chooses
otherwise.
Obviously, in order for the Greek State to treat you as one of its citizens, it has to know about you. Anyone born in Greece, or living in Greece, will have great trouble "hiding" himself from the State. If the birth is not registered you can't go to school, can't get free medical care etc. your parents can't get parental leave or allowances at work etc. etc. So the birth has to be registered and automatically the Greek state knows about you and treats you as a citizen. I didn't CHOOSE to be a Greek citizen, having been born in Greece I became one whether I liked it or not. If you are born abroad, acquire another citizenship in this way and live abroad it is a lot easier to "hide" from the Greek state, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Most if not all of the problems that you would encounter if you were unregistered in Greece are eliminated. You could then say that you can "choose" whether to make your Greek descent known,and thus make yourself known as a Greek citizen, or not. But that is not exactly to choose Greek citizenship.

But we are not talking about Greeks born in Greece are we? Nor are we
talking about "hiding". We are only talking of people who may be of
Greek descent born outside Greece and who may not consider themselves
to be, or want to invoke the rights of Greek citizenship. In such
cases, unless they take active steps to register themselves there is
no cat in hells chance for them to be Greek citizens. Unless of
course, the Greek state maintains birth and marriage records on a
scale similar to those in Salt Lake City.
There have been cases where people inadvertently let the Greek authorities know of their existence and as a result suffered consequences that they were not exactly reckoning with. I once knew an Australian of Greek descent. He had an Australian passport, had been born in Australia and lived there. He chose to move to Greece. He could have entered on his Australian passport without a problem, but decided that he wanted to benefit from a rule allowing Greeks returning from abroad to import their personal property (in his case it was his car) tax free. He thus made himself known as a Greek citizen. I'm not sure he knew what he was doing, all he cared about was getting his car in tax-free. Well, he did get his car in tax free alright, but then he was asked to do his national service in the Army, since he'd already declared that he stopped being resident abroad, and thus lost his exemption! One can even have cases where it is not the interested party who makes it known to the authorities that he is a Greek citizen, but some third party. A Greek woman marries a German man of Greek descent. She then goes to live in Germany and manages to get German citizenship as well. She sues her husband in the Greek courts for divorce. Greek courts will apply Greek law, since both parties also have Greek citizenship. If her husband only had German citizenship, Greek courts would apply German law to the divorce, since the parties only "common" citizenship is German. In this scenario the husband is not even asked if he wishes to be a Greek citizen, it is his wife that points out his citizenship and, provided she proves it with adequate elements, the husband will be treated as a Greek citizen even if he doesn't want to.

But do you not see? Every example you give is of someone invoking
their rights to Greek citizenship in some way.

Even so, put things another way and envisage your lady is of entirely
Italian descent, married and living in Greece without taking out Greek
citizenship. She sues her partner for divorce in Greece. Will the
Greek courts apply Italian or erman law? Are they competent to? They
are likely to apply Greek law, because that is the law under which the
party applied for the divorce. The lady's citizenship is unlikely to
enter into it.
Indeed in the case of Prince Phillip, I suspect that during his several visits to the country in the 1950's and early 1960's, the Greek state was perfectly happy not to treat him as a Greek citizen at all. I don't see how Philip's citizenship would have affected his treatment by the Greek State during his official visits. One lays out the red carpet, the band plays, there are handshakes, > official banquets toasts etc. etc. No rule says that you can't have that for a Greek citizen! His citizenship simply wasn't an issue during his visits.

Again the issue of whether or not a band played is neither here nor
there, it isn't the point. The point is that he was received on his
British Passport and accepted as a British subject, not a Greek
citizen. If you have evidence that he was received as the latter,
please present it and not tell us that a band played or did not play.


Cheers,
Christopher Buyers

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Pierre Aronax <pierre_aronax@hotmail.com> os suum:
"Francois R. Velde" <velde@heraldicanospam.invalid> a écrit dans le message de news:h20ktvgc09fhe11f261d1u5ph7fl5p53ne@4ax.com... In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit yanbee2@yahoo.com (Yannis) os suum: Anyone not resident in Greece, even if a Greekcitizen, is not subject to Greek income tax. US law, in that respect, is much more "extra-territorial" (whatever that means) since US citizens are liable to US income tax no matter where they live and where that income is earned.
So, it seems that, after all, that is the USA who happen to violate other State's sovereignity on that respect.

Well, I don't call that a violation of sovereignty. Bryan Maloney does, but
I'm surprised that you (or anyone) pays any attention to anything he says.

--
François R. Velde
velde@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

In article <3fda19f8$0$2753$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>, Pierre Aronax
says..."Francois R. Velde" <velde@heraldicanospam.invalid> a écrit dans le messagede news:h20ktvgc09fhe11f261d1u5ph7fl5p53ne@4ax.com... In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit yanbee2@yahoo.com (Yannis) os suum: Anyone not resident in Greece, even if a Greekcitizen, is not subject to Greek income tax. US law, in that respect, is much more "extra-territorial" (whatever thatmeans) since US citizens are liable to US income tax no matter where they liveand where that income is earned.So, it seems that, after all, that is the USA who happen to violate otherState's sovereignity on that respect.

Imposing a tax liability on one's citizens is not a violation of the
sovereignty of another state. In fact more states are broadening the
tax liabilities of their citizens. There was a time, for example, when
the income of British citizens that arose abroad was not taxed unless it
was remitted to the UK; that law has now been changed and the government
has explored the idea of taxing British citizens world wide.

Such an arrangement can defeat national commercial enterprise, however; if
US citizens working abroad were taxed twice they would quickly opt not
to do so. The US government has determined that it is in the commercial
interests of the US to allow its citizens working abroad to benefit from (a) a
taxation agreement with the state in which they are resident and where they are
liable for tax which usually provides for the citizen to pay tax on the
difference between the US (relatively low Federal) rate, and the local
national (often higher rate). The US also gives its citizens working
abroad the right to deduct up to $75,000 from their total earnings (US) tax
free, plus a deduction of all housing expenses above $10,000 from their US
taxes.

The US position, which also (unfortunately applies to Residents) is based
on the not unreasonable premise that its citizens and legal residents still
benefit from that status even while living abroad. They are still
entitled to the protection of the US government, they are still entitled
to retirement and social benefits provided they have been paying into
the system. Residents who wished to avoid this could simply renounce the
status of legal resident (and perhaps opt for another form of visa);
citizens who attempt to do so will be charged estate duty on any capital
they remit or have remitted from the US [a US citizen who has already
transferred his or her assets outside the US but renounces subsequently his
or her citizenship, will still be liable for the estate tax, even if by
remaining abroad it is effectively uncollectible. Foreign courts will not
enforce a tax demand in such a case, unless the tax payer was guilty of
some crime and had accumulated these funds illegally].

The EU makes a different provision, but requires that citizens of each
European state are taxed in the state in which they are legally resident and
employed. Some employees in high tax regimes take a lot of trouble to
arrange their affairs so that all or part of their earnings are paid to
them in a low tax state - but this is seldom viewed with much sympathy
when the high state tax challenges the assumptions regarding residence that
make such a strategy possible.

What would be a challenge to another country's sovereignty would be an
attempt by one country (A) to collect taxes on the earnings of the citizens
of another (B), not legal residents of the first (A), who are working abroad -
perhaps by demanding that their national (A) companies with overseas offices
and employees deduct the national (A) taxes from the salaries of these
employees. That would certainly be in breach of international taxation
agreements and would also make it very difficult to hire anyone, thus defeating
the commercial interests of nation A.

Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm

christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher Buyers) wrote in message news:<38e9db65.0312121156.43732f85@posting.google.com>... My meaning was regarding federations. Having introduced the point about Americans and limited understanding, you clearly know little more about federations than a limited knowledge of the USA. If, for example, you had any knowledge of a country where a large number of Greeks reside, namely Australia, you would know that it is state law that predominates. So much so that even if the Australian constitution were to be overturned by constitutional means to effect a republic, the states would remain monarchies and the state Governors continue to represent the Queen, including the gentleman of Greek extraction who currently represents HM in one of them. So will they remain until and if those constituent states changed their own constitutions.
I admit that I don't know very much about the workings of the
Commonwealth of Australia. But the example you give does not prove
that the law of the Australian States supercedes that of the
Commonwealth. You're just saying that the Commonwealth can become a
republic (i.e. have an elected Head in place of the Queen) whilst some
or all of the states remain monarchies (i.e. retain the Queen as the
head of their administration). I don't see any contradiction in that.
A contradiction between state and federal law is this: Federal law in
the US, during prohibition, prohibited the manufacture, sale or
importation of intoxicating liquor in the US. If, say, Nevada made a
law saying that, exceptionally, in their territory manufacturing and
selling alcohol was allowed, this law would be void because it
violated federal law. Thus we say that federal law takes precedence. As for the European Court, my comment was that it cannot be long before the European Court will be called upon to decide on competing citizenships. It had little to do with the topic at hand, and that is why I did not choose to concentrate on it. But the sort of thing I had in mind was a person of dual nationalities dying interstate, perhaps someone retired living overseas or dying interstate in a third country.
First of all, the term you want is intestate, someone dying without
leaving a will. InterRstate is not a legal term, I think it's a
motorway between two states in the US. Second, the sort of thing you
had in mind would never work. The European Court of Justice in
Luxembourg is only competent for applications either by member states
against the institutions of the EU, or for applications in the
opposite direction. The only way a case between individuals can come
before the ECJ is where European law would be applicable AND the
national court is not sure how to interpret European law, in which
case it poses a question to the ECJ. European law provides nothing
about how each member state determines who is or isn't its citizen. In
other words, citizenship laws of member states of the EU is not
"harmonized". The ECJ would therefore have nothing to say about a case
such as the one you (very vaguely) outline. The question would never
come to it. Whichever national court had to deal with the persons
inheritance would first apply its private international law (see below
for an explanation of what this is) to see the law of which country
should govern the inheritance, and would then apply that law.
of inheritance But your first example states explicitly that "Prince Philip CAN ASK to be entered in a Greek municipal register and be given a Greek passport". If he does not apply, are you saying that one will be thrust upon him? How on earth is the Greek government going to obtain a passport photograph of him? Employ papparazzi to sneak into Buck House as waiters and footmen to snap him when off guard?
A citizen of each country can apply for a passport. He does not have
to, if he doesn't need a passport, and just because he doesn't have a
passport does not mean he is not a citizen. There must be hundreds of
thousands of people in Greece, the US, Australia or wherever who have
never possessed a passport of their respective countries because they
never left the country. That does not mean they're not citizen. The
fact that one has the right to apply for a passport is an indication
that one is a citizen. He does not become one as soon as he applies
for the passport. Is this third example relevant? If a foreigner without any modicum of Greek blood or extraction were to buy a piece of land in Greece are you really saying that a foreign law of inheritance would apply if he died interstate?
That is exactly what I'm saying. Moreover, it's not me that's saying
it, it's article 28 of the Greek civil code.
Are the Greek courts, judges and judicial system that learned as to know what all foreign laws of inheritance are?
Of course not. That is why article 337 of the Greek Code of Civil
Procedure provides that if the court does not know the contents of a
foreign law it has to apply, it can order that evidence be adduced or
take any measure it sees fit to find out its contents. In practice
when Greek courts have to apply foreign law that they're not familiar
with, they'll order the parties to adduce an opinion from the
Institute of International and Comparative Law in Athens. This is a
specialist institution staffed with lawyers who have the resources to
enable them, at least in theory, to give an opinion on the contents
of the law of every land.
What I'm describing here is not some sort of Greek peculiarity. As far
as I know the legal systems of almost every country in the world
provide for their Courts to apply foreign law in certain
circumstances. Each country has its own set of specialist legal rules
for such cases, collectively known as "private international law" or
"conflict of laws". These rules determine which law will apply in a
situation with some sort of international element e.g. if a Greek
marries a Spaniard and they go to live in Cuba, which law governs
their marital relationships and a possible divorce? Look, for whoever is interested here is the situation in even more detail: Article 1 of the Greek Citizenship Code translates as follows: "The child of a Greek man or woman acquires, by birth, Greek citizenship". There is no question of choice there. Perfectly true and understandable, until we get to the issue under discussion. Namely, what is a Greek?
A Greek, at least in this context, is a citizen of Greece. I think
that's self-evident. In the case of a person who holds foreign nationality, the definition would have to be expounded, because he isn't a Greek. He is an American, Canadian, Australian or what have you, until he chooses otherwise.
An online dictionary (www.dictionary.com) defines "expound" as To
explain in detail; elucidate: I'm not sure the sentense in which you
use that word makes much sense, but maybe it's me that don't
understand it. In any case it is obvious from other provisions of the
Greek Citizenship Code, as well as previous legislation (if anyone
wants further details, please ask) that Greek law fully recognises
dual citizenship. In other words the fact that a Greek is also an
American, Canadian etc. does not stop the Greek state from considering
him (or her) a Greek. But we are not talking about Greeks born in Greece are we? Nor are we talking about "hiding". We are only talking of people who may be of Greek descent born outside Greece and who may not consider themselves to be, or want to invoke the rights of Greek citizenship. In such cases, unless they take active steps to register themselves there is no cat in hells chance for them to be Greek citizens. Unless of course, the Greek state maintains birth and marriage records on a scale similar to those in Salt Lake City.
Leaving aside cats and their chances in hell, I have given you at
least two examples of someone finding himself a Greek citizen without
choosing it and without taking any active steps. Read again the
example of the Greek-German who finds that he is subject to the Greek
law of divorce, because his wife has told the court that he is a Greek
citizen. In fact, it is also possible for the court to discover that
"of its own motion" and apply Greek law to the fellow, even if he
doesn't like it / doesn't want to be Greek.There have been cases where people inadvertently let the Greek authorities know of their existence and as a result suffered consequences that they were not exactly reckoning with. I once knew an Australian of Greek descent. He had an Australian passport, had been born in Australia and lived there. He chose to move to Greece. He could have entered on his Australian passport without a problem, but decided that he wanted to benefit from a rule allowing Greeks returning from abroad to import their personal property (in his case it was his car) tax free. He thus made himself known as a Greek citizen. I'm not sure he knew what he was doing, all he cared about was getting his car in tax-free. Well, he did get his car in tax free alright, but then he was asked to do his national service in the Army, since he'd already declared that he stopped being resident abroad, and thus lost his exemption! One can even have cases where it is not the interested party who makes it known to the authorities that he is a Greek citizen, but some third party. A Greek woman marries a German man of Greek descent. She then goes to live in Germany and manages to get German citizenship as well. She sues her husband in the Greek courts for divorce. Greek courts will apply Greek law, since both parties also have Greek citizenship. If her husband only had German citizenship, Greek courts would apply German law to the divorce, since the parties only "common" citizenship is German. In this scenario the husband is not even asked if he wishes to be a Greek citizen, it is his wife that points out his citizenship and, provided she proves it with adequate elements, the husband will be treated as a Greek citizen even if he doesn't want to. But do you not see? Every example you give is of someone invoking their rights to Greek citizenship in some way.
See what I said above. People may find themselves being treated as
Greek citizens even if they have not "chosen" to be one. Even so, put things another way and envisage your lady is of entirely Italian descent, married and living in Greece without taking out Greek citizenship. She sues her partner for divorce in Greece. Will the Greek courts apply Italian or erman law? Are they competent to? They are likely to apply Greek law, because that is the law under which the party applied for the divorce. The lady's citizenship is unlikely to enter into it.
In the example you give the Greek courts will apply Greek law because
the parties to the marriage do not have a "common" citizenship and
therefore the court will next look to the law of the place they last
lived together in. This being Greece, Greek law. But if you reverse
the situation, i.e. Greek woman going to Italy, marrying Italian,
living there, leaving husband and coming back to Greece and suing her
husband for divorce, then the Greek courts would, by the same
reasoning, apply Italian law. Whether you think it is a good idea or
not, at least in Greek courts, citizenship does enter into divorce. Indeed in the case of Prince Phillip, I suspect that during his several visits to the country in the 1950's and early 1960's, the Greek state was perfectly happy not to treat him as a Greek citizen at all. I don't see how Philip's citizenship would have affected his treatment by the Greek State during his official visits. One lays out the red carpet, the band plays, there are handshakes, > official banquets toasts etc. etc. No rule says that you can't have that for a Greek citizen! His citizenship simply wasn't an issue during his visits. Again the issue of whether or not a band played is neither here nor there, it isn't the point. The point is that he was received on his British Passport and accepted as a British subject, not a Greek citizen. If you have evidence that he was received as the latter, please present it and not tell us that a band played or did not play.
In fact, I don't even have evidence that Prince Philip was ever in
Greece on an official visit. I simply don't know, I'm not saying that
he wasn't. I further don't know whether, when you arrive for an
official visit, you have to show a passport. Again, I'm not saying
that you don't I just don't know. Just the idea of the royals plane
landing, the band waiting outside, officials lined up etc. and then
somebody says "Passports please!" and the Queen opens her purse and
says "Now, Philip, what have you done with your passport?".... But
then again, perhaps some minor official takes care of little
formalities like that.

Further, Prince Philip was in and out of Greece in the late 1930s,
before he was naturalised as a British citizen, and presumably he did
so on a Greek passport so, at least at some point in his life he must
have possesed one. But even assuming that, when (if) he visited Greece
he showed his British passport (and I'd agree that is the most likely
scenario) that does not mean that he ceased to be a Greek citizen. A
lot of Greek emigrants enter and leave Greece each year on their
foreign passports. That does not make them lose their Greek
citizenship.

Look, I'm not quite sure where this thread is going. It started when I
pointed out that by the Greek laws of citizenship, and disregarding
law 2215/1994, Prince Philip and all his descendants are Greek
citizens. You contradicted that. You fail to cite any valid legal
grounds for this contradiction. You refer to international law and
Francois points out that the provisions that you refer to do not stop
anyone from being a Greek citizen. From what you have written in your
last message, I'd say it is rather obvious you are not very familiar
with legal matters in general, let alone Greek law. There is nothing
wrong with that. Law is a vast subject and Greek law is even more
technical. We can't all be lawyers, or specialists in every subject.
The fact that I know more about Greek law than you does not mean that
I'm smarter than you or that there is something wrong with you. I just
happen to be Greek, and I just happen to have chosen law as my field
of study. I don't know what you do, but I do know there is at least
one area where you know a lot more than me, the subject of
non-European royal houses where you have put up a site with a lot of
information. That's the way it is, none of us can be omniscient. I've
told you what the position is under Greek citizenship law. You might
not like it, you might think Greek laws are crazy, but that doesn't
change the fact that Greek law is what I told you it is. Why do you
think you have to prove that you know best in a subject where you
obviously don't have the required specialist knowledge? Exactly what
are you trying to prove and to whom? We are all just here to learn
from each other. If you can contribute to this process, by all means
do so. But I don't think that's what you've been doing lately.

"Francois R. Velde" <velde@heraldicaNOTSPAM.invalid> a écrit dans le message
de news:brddrl$nd3$1@e250.ripco.com... In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Pierre Aronax
<pierre_aronax@hotmail.com> os suum:

<...> So, it seems that, after all, that is the USA who happen to violate
other State's sovereignity on that respect. Well, I don't call that a violation of sovereignty. Bryan Maloney does,

It was him who I was quoting implicitely.
but I'm surprised that you (or anyone) pays any attention to anything he says.

Perhaps indeed.

Pierre

"Yannis" <yanbee2@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:a75bea69.0312131240.25159e92@posting.google.c om... christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher Buyers) wrote in message
news:<38e9db65.0312121156.43732f85@posting.google.com>...

<....> I further don't know whether, when you arrive for an official visit, you have to show a passport. Again, I'm not saying that you don't I just don't know. Just the idea of the royals plane landing, the band waiting outside, officials lined up etc. and then somebody says "Passports please!" and the Queen opens her purse and says "Now, Philip, what have you done with your passport?"....
<...>

Excellent! :)

Pierre

Reading the thread on Greek citizenship, a perverse question came to my
perverse mind. When Othon I was king of Greece, his brother Adalbert was his
presumptive heir. Did Adalbert have Greek citizenship? And if such is the
case, can his posterity be considered as Greek in the same way that Prince
Philip's posterity is?

Pierre

yanbee2@yahoo.com (Yannis) wrote in message news:<a75bea69.0312131240.25159e92@posting.google.com>... christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher Buyers) wrote in message news:<38e9db65.0312121156.43732f85@posting.google.com>...

Do you really have to be so long winded about everything you write?
I admit that I don't know very much about the workings of the Commonwealth of Australia. But the example you give does not prove that the law of the Australian States supercedes that of the Commonwealth.

It wasn't meant to!

Your gap in understanding of federal systems is so great that there
really isn't space here to bring you up to speed. If you want to
understand them better you are best advised to borrow some books from
a good library and read them through.
You're just saying that the Commonwealth can become a republic (i.e. have an elected Head in place of the Queen) whilst some or all of the states remain monarchies (i.e. retain the Queen as the head of their administration).

The point is that the Federal government cannot legislate over the
heads of the state even on a fundamental issue such as the form of
government. That is what a republic is, not merely an elected Head of
State.
I don't see any contradiction in that. A contradiction between state and federal law is this: Federal law in the US, during prohibition, prohibited the manufacture, sale or importation of intoxicating liquor in the US. If, say, Nevada made a law saying that, exceptionally, in their territory manufacturing and selling alcohol was allowed, this law would be void because it violated federal law. Thus we say that federal law takes precedence.

And why do you imagine that the reverse could not be the case in the
Australian type of federation? It generally is unless the states
themselves have agreed otherwise. This thread is not about alcohol so
I did not post about laws on alcohol.
As for the European Court, my comment was that it cannot be long before the European Court will be called upon to decide on competing citizenships. It had little to do with the topic at hand, and that is why I did not choose to concentrate on it. But the sort of thing I had in mind was a person of dual nationalities dying interstate, perhaps someone retired living overseas or dying interstate in a third country. First of all, the term you want is intestate, someone dying without leaving a will. InterRstate is not a legal term, I think it's a motorway between two states in the US.

Sorry, which motorway is that. Do you have the number?
The only way a case between individuals can come before the ECJ is where European law would be applicable AND the national court is not sure how to interpret European law, in which case it poses a question to the ECJ.

Excuse me, which individuals do you have in mind? I certainly
mentioned none.
European law provides nothing about how each member state determines who is or isn't its > citizen. In other words, citizenship laws of member states of the EU is not "harmonized". The ECJ would therefore have nothing to say about a case such as the one you (very vaguely) outline. The question would never come to it. Whichever national court had to deal with the persons inheritance would first apply its private international law (see below for an explanation of what this is) to see the law of which country should govern the inheritance, and would then apply that law. of inheritance

But a case could arise if there were a conflict between the
authorities of two states, in respect of probate issues. Conflict is
the issue. It simply goes without saying that if there was no conflict
a national court could settle the matter.

The authorities in each state may attempt to determine the settlement
of the estate on the basis of either the citizenship or residency of
the deceased. Of course the court may decide that they had no
competence to decide on citizenship, but if, as you indicated in
earlier posts, the Greek government insists on its "rights" over its
"citizens" who die in Greece, they may have to.
A citizen of each country can apply for a passport. He does not have to, if he doesn't need a passport, and just because he doesn't have a passport does not mean he is not a citizen. There must be hundreds of thousands of people in Greece, the US, Australia or wherever who have never possessed a passport of their respective countries because they never left the country. That does not mean they're not citizen. The fact that one has the right to apply for a passport is an indication that one is a citizen. He does not become one as soon as he applies for the passport.

Is Prince Philip living in Greece secretly?

Again, you miss the point. We are not talking about residents of the
country in question. We are talking about those who are born outside,
or reside outside, and hold the nationality of another country. In
these cases, a passport or registration of birth at an Embassy or
consulate are proof of citizenship. Both of which require, either the
individual or their parents to actively apply for nationality.
Look, for whoever is interested here is the situation in even more detail: Article 1 of the Greek Citizenship Code translates as follows: "The child of a Greek man or woman acquires, by birth, Greek citizenship". There is no question of choice there. Perfectly true and understandable, until we get to the issue under discussion. Namely, what is a Greek? A Greek, at least in this context, is a citizen of Greece. I think that's self-evident.

It isn't self evident at all, because I am questioning what a Greek
citizen actually is in the first place.

I suspect that you know perfectly well what I am getting at here.
In the case of a person who holds foreign nationality, the definition would have to be expounded, because he isn't a Greek. He is an American, Canadian, Australian or what have you, until he chooses otherwise. An online dictionary (www.dictionary.com) defines "expound" as To explain in detail; elucidate: I'm not sure the sentense in which you use that word makes much sense, but maybe it's me that don't understand it. In any case it is obvious from other provisions of the Greek Citizenship Code, as well as previous legislation (if anyone wants further details, please ask) that Greek law fully recognises dual citizenship. In other words the fact that a Greek is also an American, Canadian etc. does not stop the Greek state from considering him (or her) a Greek.

But you have not defined Greek or Greek citizen, that is my point.

It isn't sufficient to say something is a football, one has to say
what shape it is. Is it black and white and round, or is it shaped
like an elongated egg?
But we are not talking about Greeks born in Greece are we? Nor are we talking about "hiding". We are only talking of people who may be of Greek descent born outside Greece and who may not consider themselves to be, or want to invoke the rights of Greek citizenship. In such cases, unless they take active steps to register themselves there is no cat in hells chance for them to be Greek citizens. Unless of course, the Greek state maintains birth and marriage records on a scale similar to those in Salt Lake City. Leaving aside cats and their chances in hell, I have given you at least two examples of someone finding himself a Greek citizen without choosing it and without taking any active steps. Read again the example of the Greek-German who finds that he is subject to the Greek law of divorce, because his wife has told the court that he is a Greek citizen. In fact, it is also possible for the court to discover that "of its own motion" and apply Greek law to the fellow, even if he doesn't like it / doesn't want to be Greek.

Are you saying that in the first example the person in question did
not apply for a benefit applicable to Greek citizens himself?

In your second example, it was the Greek woman who makes the
application for divorce yes? It actually says nothing about what his
reaction may or could be, whether or not he accepts the competence of
the Greek courts or if he decides to contest their attempt to impose
their authority. Who knows, he may choose to sue her for divorce
simultaneously in Germany!
There have been cases where people inadvertently let the Greek authorities know of their existence and as a result suffered consequences that they were not exactly reckoning with. I once knew an Australian of Greek descent. He had an Australian passport, had been born in Australia and lived there. He chose to move to Greece. He could have entered on his Australian passport without a problem, but decided that he wanted to benefit from a rule allowing Greeks returning from abroad to import their prsonal property (in his case it was his car) tax free. He thus made himself known as a Greek citizen. I'm not sure he knew what he was doing, all he cared about was getting his car in tax-free. Well, he did get his car in tax free alright, but then he was asked to do his national service in the Army, since he'd already declared that he stopped being resident abroad, and thus lost his exemption! One can even have cases where it is not the interested party who makes it known to the authorities that he is a Greek citizen, but some third party. A Greek woman marries a German man of Greek descent. She then goes to live in Germany and manages to get German citizenship as well. She sues her husband in the Greek courts for divorce. Greek courts will apply Greek law, since both parties also have Greek citizenship. If her husband only had German citizenship, Greek courts would apply German law to the divorce, since the parties only "common" citizenship is German. In this scenario the husband is not even asked if he wishes to be a Greek citizen, it is his wife that points out his citizenship and, provided she proves it with adequate elements, the husband will be treated as a Greek citizen even if he doesn't want to. But do you not see? Every example you give is of someone invoking their rights to Greek citizenship in some way. See what I said above. People may find themselves being treated as Greek citizens even if they have not "chosen" to be one.

So it is "being treated as a Greek citizen", not exactly the same as
"being a Greek citizen".
Even so, put things another way and envisage your lady is of entirely Italian descent, married and living in Greece without taking out Greek citizenship. She sues her partner for divorce in Greece. Will the Greek courts apply Italian or German law? Are they competent to? They are likely to apply Greek law, because that is the law under which the party applied for the divorce. The lady's citizenship is unlikely to enter into it. In the example you give the Greek courts will apply Greek law because the parties to the marriage do not have a "common" citizenship and therefore the court will next look to the law of the place they last lived together in. This being Greece, Greek law. But if you reverse the situation, i.e. Greek woman going to Italy, marrying Italian, living there, leaving husband and coming back to Greece and suing her husband for divorce, then the Greek courts would, by the same reasoning, apply Italian law. Whether you think it is a good idea or not, at least in Greek courts, citizenship does enter into divorce.

Sorry, now I am confused. You are now saying that the Greek courts
could not apply Greek law to a Greek citizen?
> Indeed in the case of Prince Phillip, I suspect that during his > several visits to the country in the 1950's and early 1960's, the > Greek state was perfectly happy not to treat him as a Greek citizen at > all. I don't see how Philip's citizenship would have affected his treatment by the Greek State during his official visits. One lays out the red carpet, the band plays, there are handshakes, > official banquets toasts etc. etc. No rule says that you can't have that for a Greek citizen! His citizenship simply wasn't an issue during his visits. Again the issue of whether or not a band played is neither here nor there, it isn't the point. The point is that he was received on his British Passport and accepted as a British subject, not a Greek citizen. If you have evidence that he was received as the latter, please present it and not tell us that a band played or did not play. In fact, I don't even have evidence that Prince Philip was ever in Greece on an official visit. I simply don't know, I'm not saying that he wasn't. I further don't know whether, when you arrive for an official visit, you have to show a passport. Again, I'm not saying that you don't I just don't know. Just the idea of the royals plane landing, the band waiting outside, officials lined up etc. and then somebody says "Passports please!" and the Queen opens her purse and says "Now, Philip, what have you done with your passport?".... But then again, perhaps some minor official takes care of little formalities like that.

There are basically three types of visits, State Visits, official
visits and private visits. Perhaps Greece has an awful lot of bands,
but as far as I know there has never been a State visit to Greece
during the present reign, and there was never a need for them to play
at every visit.

During the later 1940's and early 1950's Prince Philip was an ordinary
naval officer serving with the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean Fleet
based at Malta. The Prince, with Princess Elizabeth, made one official
visit to Athens for a week in December 1950. All other visits were of
an official or private nature.

On all occasions other than state visits it is usual to go through
passport and customs formalities, for which a VIP building or facility
is usually set asside.
Further, Prince Philip was in and out of Greece in the late 1930s, before he was naturalised as a British citizen, and presumably he did so on a Greek passport so, at least at some point in his life he must have possesed one.

He certainly didn't have a British Passport at the time. But, I have
not questioned that at all. I have never asserted that the Prince was
never a Greek citizen, or for that matter that he may not choose to be
one at some future point in his life. I have only questioned your
assertion that he is one now and that his children are also. All you
have been able to demonstrate is that they may have the right to apply
for Greek citizenship if they so choose.
But even assuming that, when (if) he visited Greece he showed his British passport (and I'd agree that is the most likely scenario) that does not mean that he ceased to be a Greek citizen. A lot of Greek emigrants enter and leave Greece each year on their foreign passports. That does not make them lose their Greek citizenship. Look, I'm not quite sure where this thread is going. It started when I pointed out that by the Greek laws of citizenship, and disregarding law 2215/1994, Prince Philip and all his descendants are Greek citizens. You contradicted that. You fail to cite any valid legal grounds for this contradiction. You refer to international law and Francois points out that the provisions that you refer to do not stop anyone from being a Greek citizen.

Sorry, I missed the proof there. He may have said so, but he has never
demonstrated his case. If he had really done so, would you have
intervened?

Even so, not stopping someone from becoming a Greek citizen if they so
wished and actually being one can be two different things.
From what you have written in your last message, I'd say it is rather obvious you are not very familiar with legal matters in general, let alone Greek law. There is nothing wrong with that. Law is a vast subject and Greek law is even more technical. We can't all be lawyers, or specialists in every subject. The fact that I know more about Greek law than you does not mean that I'm smarter than you or that there is something wrong with you. I just happen to be Greek, and I just happen to have chosen law as my field of study. I don't know what you do, but I do know there is at least one area where you know a lot more than me, the subject of non-European royal houses where you have put up a site with a lot of information. That's the way it is, none of us can be omniscient. I've told you what the position is under Greek citizenship law. You might not like it, you might think Greek laws are crazy, but that doesn't change the fact that Greek law is what I told you it is. Why do you think you have to prove that you know best in a subject where you obviously don't have the required specialist knowledge? Exactly what are you trying to prove and to whom? We are all just here to learn from each other. If you can contribute to this process, by all means do so. But I don't think that's what you've been doing lately.

Ah I see, your argument does not hold water so you are a "specialist
who knows best", one should simply accept your pronouncement. I am
perfectly happy to accept that you know Greek law better than I do.
The question is whether or not you have made a convincing case. You
have merely given an opinion, untested in any court, made on the basis
of your own understanding of the law. That does not necessarily mean
that you are correct or one is not entitled to question you, or for
that matter that you are a good lawyer. I suppose we cannot all be
good lawyers, however much we may have studied the law or practised
it.

Christopher Buyers

"Pierre Aronax" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3fdb9505$0$13422$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>... Reading the thread on Greek citizenship, a perverse question came to my perverse mind. When Othon I was king of Greece, his brother Adalbert was his presumptive heir. Did Adalbert have Greek citizenship? And if such is the case, can his posterity be considered as Greek in the same way that Prince Philip's posterity is?
I don't think Adalbert had Greek citizenship. The clause providing
that the Greek crown would go to him if Otto left no issue was
included in the Treaty electing Otto. Otto ruled without a
constitution (as an absolute monarch) until 1844. The (first) Greek
constitution of 1844 also provided that if Otto left no issue he would
be succeeded by Adalbert, but it also included an article saying that
every successor to the Greek crown should profess the Orthodox faith.
Presumably this excluded Adalbert (and all other Bavarians) from the
succession unless they were prepared to convert to Orthodox
Christianity. I think Otto's succession remained a somewhat ambiguous
question until his downfall,and indeed the uncertainty about the
succession may have contributed to his downfall.

But to answer the original question, I can't see how Adalbert could
have become a Greek citizen. The mere fact that, under certain
conditions, he might be called to succeed to the Greek crown, does not
in my opinion make him a Greek citizen. Presumably if he became King
of Greece he, and his issue, could be seen as Greek citizens, the same
way as King George I and his issue were treated as Greek citizens even
though there was no special law granting Greek citizenship to George
I. But I can't see how Adalbert could have acquired Greek citizenship
before he even succeeded.

Yannis

christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher Buyers) wrote in message > Your gap in understanding of federal systems is so great that there And why do you imagine that the reverse could not be the case in the Australian type of federation?
Well, mainly because of article 109 of the Constitution of Australia,
which reads as follows: "109. When a law of a State is inconsistent
with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the
former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid".Check it
online on http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/chapter5.htm
European law provides nothing about how each member state determines who is or isn't its > citizen. In other words, citizenship laws of member states of the EU is not "harmonized". The ECJ would therefore have nothing to say about a case such as the one you (very vaguely) outline. The question would never come to it. Whichever national court had to deal with the persons inheritance would first apply its private international law (see below for an explanation of what this is) to see the law of which country should govern the inheritance, and would then apply that law. of inheritance But a case could arise if there were a conflict between the authorities of two states, in respect of probate issues. Conflict is the issue. It simply goes without saying that if there was no conflict a national court could settle the matter.
The ECJ is not competent to settle conflicts between two member
states. Eventually,one or the other or both national courts would have
to settle the matter. If it involved a point of European law, each
national court could have asked the ECJ a question. Since it does not,
each national court will have to decide on its own. The ECJ simply is
not competen i.e. has nothing to say. Again, you miss the point. We are not talking about residents of the country in question. We are talking about those who are born outside, or reside outside, and hold the nationality of another country. In these cases, a passport or registration of birth at an Embassy or consulate are proof of citizenship. Both of which require, either the individual or their parents to actively apply for nationality.
Greece has a special registry in Athens for registration of births,
deaths and marriages occurring outside of Greece and involving Greek
citizens. I have dealt with them and I know they will accept
registration of a relevant event (e.g. a birth) even by a third party,
provided a valid birth etc.certificate from the country in question is
provided. In other words, it may be that a third party can register a
child's birth to a Greek citizen abroad, without that child's or its
parents' consent. > Look, for whoever is interested here is the situation in even more > detail: Article 1 of the Greek Citizenship Code translates as follows: > "The child of a Greek man or woman acquires, by birth, Greek > citizenship". There is no question of choice there. Perfectly true and understandable, until we get to the issue under discussion. Namely, what is a Greek? A Greek, at least in this context, is a citizen of Greece. I think that's self-evident. It isn't self evident at all, because I am questioning what a Greek citizen actually is in the first place.
I'm sorry I don't get that. What exactly are you questioning? All that
article 1 tells is you is that if the father or the mother (or both)
are Greeks (Greek citizens) then the child will also be a Greek (Greek
citizen). What exactly are you questioning? If neither of the parents
are Greek citizens, i.e. they never were or they were once but at some
point prior to the birth lost their citizenship, then the child is not
a Greek either. Isn't all this abundantly clear? I suspect that you know perfectly well what I am getting at here.
No I don't. This must be a habit of yours. Every time you run out of
arguments or can't explain your position, you make a dark statement of
the "You know very well what I'm saying or You're coming round to my
position" variety. But you have not defined Greek or Greek citizen, that is my point.
Fine, here's a definition if you must have one: A Greek citizen is
someone who a) Either is the child of a Greek citizen or b) is someone
who has acquired Greek citizenship through naturalisation. Let's make
this even more clear. Prince Andrew of Greece was a Greek citizen.
Prince Philip is his son, so he's also a Greek citizen. Prince Charles
is Philip's son, so Charles is also a Greek citizen. Princes William
and Harry are Charles' sons, so they're also Greek citizens. It isn't sufficient to say something is a football, one has to say what shape it is. Is it black and white and round, or is it shaped like an elongated egg? Leaving aside cats and their chances in hell, I have given you at least two examples of someone finding himself a Greek citizen without choosing it and without taking any active steps. Read again the example of the Greek-German who finds that he is subject to the Greek law of divorce, because his wife has told the court that he is a Greek citizen. In fact, it is also possible for the court to discover that "of its own motion" and apply Greek law to the fellow, even if he doesn't like it / doesn't want to be Greek. Are you saying that in the first example the person in question did not apply for a benefit applicable to Greek citizens himself? In your second example, it was the Greek woman who makes the application for divorce yes? It actually says nothing about what his reaction may or could be, whether or not he accepts the competence of the Greek courts or if he decides to contest their attempt to impose their authority. Who knows, he may choose to sue her for divorce simultaneously in Germany!
I did say, and I repeat it, that the fellow's reaction is irrelevant.
The Greek court will treat him as a Greek citizen even if he protests
and says he wants to be treated as a German one. As long as the court
is in possession of facts proving that this man is a Greek citizen,
i.e. the child of a Greek citizen, his protests will go unheard. He
cannot contest the court's authority in Greece, he is subject to it
whether he likes it or not. He may sue for divorce simultaneously in
Germany, provided the German courts will also accept jurisdiction.
This depends on German rules and I don't know what they are. It may be
that,under certain circumstances, the one or the other court will
suspend its case awaiting the other's ruling. Usually it is the court
that was resorted to second that suspends, so if the Greek courts were
the first ones they will not suspend. It is perfectly possible to have
two divorce judgements, a Greek and a German one. It is perfectly
possible (although somewhat unpleasant and embarassing) to have two
conflicting judgements. In theory, you may be divorced in Greece and
still be considered married in Germany, or vice versa. Thank God it
doesn't happen often enough, but it might.
See what I said above. People may find themselves being treated as Greek citizens even if they have not "chosen" to be one. So it is "being treated as a Greek citizen", not exactly the same as "being a Greek citizen".
No it is exactly the same. People are "being treated as a Greek
citizen" because whoever is giving them that treatment considers them
Greek citizens.
This being Greece, Greek law. But if you reverse the situation, i.e. Greek woman going to Italy, marrying Italian, living there, leaving husband and coming back to Greece and suing her husband for divorce, then the Greek courts would, by the same reasoning, apply Italian law. Whether you think it is a good idea or not, at least in Greek courts, citizenship does enter into divorce. Sorry, now I am confused. You are now saying that the Greek courts could not apply Greek law to a Greek citizen?
Yes I am, there is nothing so special about that, Greek private
international law rules (and the private international law rules of
most other countries, I imagine) envisage several situations where
their own courts will apply foreign law even to one of their own
nationals. Further, Prince Philip was in and out of Greece in the late 1930s, before he was naturalised as a British citizen, and presumably he did so on a Greek passport so, at least at some point in his life he must have possesed one. He certainly didn't have a British Passport at the time. But, I have not questioned that at all. I have never asserted that the Prince was never a Greek citizen, or for that matter that he may not choose to be one at some future point in his life. I have only questioned your assertion that he is one now and that his children are also. All you have been able to demonstrate is that they may have the right to apply for Greek citizenship if they so choose.
Right. So now you accept that Philip was a Greek citizen at some point
in his life. Since you say that he is not one now, can you tell us
when he suppposedly lost his Greek citizenship? How did this come
about, i.e. in accordance with which provision of Greek citizenship
law? Greek law provides that a citizen can be stripped of his Greek
citizenship for some very grave offences (treason against Greece
etc.). This was never done with Philip and there never was any grounds
for this happening. Even if Philip did betray Greek (which he did not)
loss of citizenship is not automatic, a ministerial decision is
needed, and there never was one. Unless of course you can point us to
one, including ref. number and/or publication details in the
Government Gazette of Greece. Greek citizenship law also allows a
citizen to disclaim his Greek citizenship but again an official act is
needed and it is only allowed if the person disclaiming Greek
citizenship at the same time acquires another citizenship AND it is a
prerequisite of the law of that second country that before
naturalisation the person being naturalised has to give up its
previous citizenship. Again this is an official act and there are
records. No-one so far has suggested that Philip went through this
procedure, and no-one has pointed out any records proving that this
happened. Therefore Philip did not lose his Greek citizenship, he
still has it, and as he had it when he begot Charles etc. they, too
are Greek citizens. That's what I've been saying all along. Look, I'm not quite sure where this thread is going. It started when I pointed out that by the Greek laws of citizenship, and disregarding law 2215/1994, Prince Philip and all his descendants are Greek citizens. You contradicted that. You fail to cite any valid legal grounds for this contradiction. You refer to international law and Francois points out that the provisions that you refer to do not stop anyone from being a Greek citizen. Sorry, I missed the proof there. He may have said so, but he has never demonstrated his case. If he had really done so, would you have intervened?
Even so, not stopping someone from becoming a Greek citizen if they so wished and actually being one can be two different things.
Indeed. Philip is actually one. The second of the two different
things. From what you have written in your last message, I'd say it is rather obvious you are not very familiar with legal matters in general, let alone Greek law. There is nothing wrong with that. Law is a vast subject and Greek law is even more technical. We can't all be lawyers, or specialists in every subject. The fact that I know more about Greek law than you does not mean that I'm smarter than you or that there is something wrong with you. I just happen to be Greek, and I just happen to have chosen law as my field of study. I don't know what you do, but I do know there is at least one area where you know a lot more than me, the subject of non-European royal houses where you have put up a site with a lot of information. That's the way it is, none of us can be omniscient. I've told you what the position is under Greek citizenship law. You might not like it, you might think Greek laws are crazy, but that doesn't change the fact that Greek law is what I told you it is. Why do you think you have to prove that you know best in a subject where you obviously don't have the required specialist knowledge? Exactly what are you trying to prove and to whom? We are all just here to learn from each other. If you can contribute to this process, by all means do so. But I don't think that's what you've been doing lately. Ah I see, your argument does not hold water so you are a "specialist who knows best", one should simply accept your pronouncement. I am perfectly happy to accept that you know Greek law better than I do. The question is whether or not you have made a convincing case. You have merely given an opinion, untested in any court, made on the basis of your own understanding of the law. That does not necessarily mean that you are correct or one is not entitled to question you, or for that matter that you are a good lawyer. I suppose we cannot all be good lawyers, however much we may have studied the law or practised it.

No, I am not a "specialist who knows best". If I thought you should
simply accept my pronouncements I would not have exchanged several
posts with you discussing your points. But what I'm saying is this: In
order to contradict a specialist you need at least some specialist
knowledge yourself. When I say "law XYZ article 1 says that Philip is
a Greek citizen" I expect someone who wishes to contradict me to say
something like "no,no you're disregarding law ABC article 27 which
says he can't be". Apart from a reference to the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Immunity you have cited no other legal grounds for
disputing my conclusions as to Philip's Greek citizenship. It has
already been shown conclusively by others that your argument based on
the Vienna Convention does not hold water. In brief, the Vienna
convention might arguably apply to Philip,but in any case even if it
did it does not deprive him, or anyone else it catches, of their
citizenships. Further you go on to get one legal term rather
embarassingly wrong and you display a manifest ignorance of European
law, the competence of the ECJ as well as basic principles of public
international law of every country. I don't know if my case is
convincing enough but I do know that you have not done much to shake
it. Sure what I have given is merely an opinion untested in any court,
but this is what lawyers do every day. To a very large extent this is
how society works. It is only disputes that get to the courts. Things
that are crystal clear don't tend to come before them very frequently.
And as I said before I have given you the reasons and the provisions
on which I base this opinion. I don't think you have done the same.

At the end of the day, I can't make you change your mind. If you
continue to believe that you know best even about the citizenship law
of a country you know very little about, well what can I do about it?
I can only hope that if anyone else is still reading this thread they
can make up their mind as to whose case is convincing and, hopefully
they'll have at least learned something useful from this exchange.

Yannis <yanbee2@yahoo.com> wrote in message ... But you have not defined Greek or Greek citizen, that is my point. Fine, here's a definition if you must have one: A Greek citizen is someone who a) Either is the child of a Greek citizen or b) is someone who has acquired Greek citizenship through naturalisation. Let's make this even more clear. Prince Andrew of Greece was a Greek citizen. Prince Philip is his son, so he's also a Greek citizen. Prince Charles is Philip's son, so Charles is also a Greek citizen. Princes William and Harry are Charles' sons, so they're also Greek citizens. It isn't sufficient to say something is a football, one has to say what shape it is. Is it black and white and round, or is it shaped like an elongated egg?

What fascinating is that over the summer we had a thread as to whether or
not the Queen was even a British citizen! as defined by law since the Crown
embodies the state, or whether she was, in fact, a citizen of any of the
Commonwealth realms to which she is head of state, yet it's theoretically
possible that HM is a Greek citizen by virtue of marriage to Prince Philip
of Greece and Denmark, and we know that the Dutch government begrudging
confirmed that Queen Beatrix is a British citizen.

Larry

yanbee2@yahoo.com (Yannis) wrote in message news:<a75bea69.0312151020.68c6ee42@posting.google.com>...

I will not waste my time trying to answer all your petty little jibes
and diversions, so shall leave you to ponder, read up on or extol your
self presumed superior expertise in constitutional, divorce and
property law elsewhere. I will only concentrate on what seems to be
the crux of the issue.
> > Article 1 of the Greek Citizenship Code translates as follows: > > "The child of a Greek man or woman acquires, by birth, Greek > > citizenship". There is no question of choice there. > > Perfectly true and understandable, until we get to the issue under > discussion. Namely, what is a Greek? A Greek, at least in this context, is a citizen of Greece. I think that's self-evident. It isn't self evident at all, because I am questioning what a Greek citizen actually is in the first place. I'm sorry I don't get that. What exactly are you questioning? All that article 1 tells is you is that if the father or the mother (or both) are Greeks (Greek citizens) then the child will also be a Greek (Greek citizen). What exactly are you questioning?



Cheers,
Christopher Buyers

106. The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject
to this Constitution, continue as at the establishment of the
Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the State, as
the case may be, until altered in accordance with the Constitution of
the State.
107. Every power of the Parliament of a Colony which has become or
becomes a State, shall, unless it is by this Constitution exclusively
vested in the Parliament of the Commonwealth or withdrawn from the
Parliament of the State, continue as at the establishment of the
Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the State, as
the case may be.
113. All fermented, distilled, or other intoxicating liquids passing
into any State or remaining therein for use, consumption, sale, or
storage, shall be subject to the laws of the State as if such liquids
had been produced in the State.

christopher.buyers@virgin.net (Christopher Buyers) wrote in message > Your gap in understanding of federal systems is so great that there And why do you imagine that the reverse could not be the case in the Australian type of federation? Well, mainly because of article 109 of the Constitution of Australia, which reads as follows: "109. When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid".

I do not think this article means what you want it to since it only
applies to those areas of legislation where the states themselves have
agreed that the Federal government should have. Indeed, it would not
be lawful for the latter to legislate in other areas and if it did,
the courts will throw them out. In terms of my example on state
constitutions see articles 106 and 107. Indeed, in terms of your
example see article 113, which seems to suggest that "all fermented,
distilled, or other intoxicating liquids" are subject to state laws
rather than the Commonwealth.
European law provides nothing about how each member state determines who is or isn't its > > > citizen. In other words, citizenship laws of member states of the EU is not "harmonized". The ECJ would therefore have nothing to say about a case such as the one you (very vaguely) outline. The question would never come to it. Whichever national court had to deal with the persons inheritance would first apply its private international law (see below for an explanation of what this is) to see the law of which country should govern the inheritance, and would then apply that law. of inheritance But a case could arise if there were a conflict between the authorities of two states, in respect of probate issues. Conflict
is the issue. It simply goes without saying that if there was no
conflict a national court could settle the matter. The ECJ is not competent to settle conflicts between two member states. Eventually,one or the other or both national courts would have to settle the matter. If it involved a point of European law, each national court could have asked the ECJ a question. Since it does not, each national court will have to decide on its own. The ECJ simply is not competen i.e. has nothing to say.

I really cannot imagine how you can keep insisting that the ECJ cannot
have competence in an age of open borders. Many instances could arise
where an individual may be affected Europe wide agreements.
Again, you miss the point. We are not talking about residents of
the country in question. We are talking about those who are born
outside, or reside outside, and hold the nationality of another country. In these cases, a passport or registration of birth at an Embassy or consulate are proof of citizenship. Both of which require, either
the individual or their parents to actively apply for nationality. Greece has a special registry in Athens for registration of births, deaths and marriages occurring outside of Greece and involving Greek citizens. I have dealt with them and I know they will accept registration of a relevant event (e.g. a birth) even by a third party, provided a valid birth etc.certificate from the country in question is provided. In other words, it may be that a third party can register a child's birth to a Greek citizen abroad, without that child's or its parents' consent.

Do you know this for a fact or is this specultaion?
>> Look, for whoever is interested here is the situation in even more >> detail: Article 1 of the Greek Citizenship Code translates as follows: >> "The child of a Greek man or woman acquires, by birth, Greek >> citizenship". There is no question of choice there. > > Perfectly true and understandable, until we get to the issue under > discussion. Namely, what is a Greek? A Greek, at least in this context, is a citizen of Greece. I think that's self-evident. It isn't self evident at all, because I am questioning what a Greek citizen actually is in the first place. I'm sorry I don't get that. What exactly are you questioning? All that article 1 tells is you is that if the father or the mother (or both) are Greeks (Greek citizens) then the child will also be a Greek (Greek citizen). What exactly are you questioning? If neither of the parents are Greek citizens, i.e. they never were or they were once but at some point prior to the birth lost their citizenship, then the child is not a Greek either. Isn't all this abundantly clear?

The article says that a child of a Greek is a Greek citizen. It is
explaining the status of 'a child of a Greek', not defining what a
Greek is.

It cannot be "Greek citizen" simply because such a being did not exist
before the act conferring said citizenship. So clearly those who
drafted and passed the law had something else in mind. They used the
phrase "a Greek" to mean something else, what is it?

Are they, for example, referring to people of Greek culture and
language, or people born within the territorial limits of the Greek
state, or something else? What was the definition of those drafting
and approving the citizenship law had in mind?
I suspect that you know perfectly well what I am getting at
here. No I don't. This must be a habit of yours. Every time you run out of arguments or can't explain your position, you make a dark statement of the "You know very well what I'm saying or You're coming round to my position" variety.

If that is so, you have wasted and awful lot of time and energy
replying to nothing.
But you have not defined Greek or Greek citizen, that is my point.Fine, here's a definition if you must have one: A Greek citizen issomeone who a) Either is the child of a Greek citizen or b) is
someonewho has acquired Greek citizenship through naturalisation. Let's makethis even more clear. Prince Andrew of Greece was a Greek citizen.Prince Philip is his son, so he's also a Greek citizen. Prince
Charlesis Philip's son, so Charles is also a Greek citizen. Princes Williamand Harry are Charles' sons, so they're also Greek citizens.

But the assertion is that Prince Philip is not a Greek citizen
anymore. Indeed there is no evidence to suggest that either the Greek
government or authorities accept or treat him as such.
Are you saying that in the first example the person in question didnot apply for a benefit applicable to Greek citizens himself? In your second example, it was the Greek woman who makes the application for divorce yes? It actually says nothing about what
his reaction may or could be, whether or not he accepts the competence
of the Greek courts or if he decides to contest their attempt to
impose their authority. Who knows, he may choose to sue her for divorce simultaneously in Germany!I did say, and I repeat it, that the fellow's reaction is irrelevant.The Greek court will treat him as a Greek citizen even if he protestsand says he wants to be treated as a German one.

I take it that you are now only dealing with your second example and
that you actually accept that the first is false, i.e. the individual
himself voluntarily applied for the benefits of Greek citizens?
As long as the courtis in possession of facts proving that this man is a Greek citizen,i.e. the child of a Greek citizen, his protests will go unheard. Hecannot contest the court's authority in Greece, he is subject to itwhether he likes it or not. He may sue for divorce simultaneously inGermany, provided the German courts will also accept jurisdiction.This depends on German rules and I don't know what they are. It may
bethat,under certain circumstances, the one or the other court willsuspend its case awaiting the other's ruling. Usually it is the courtthat was resorted to second that suspends, so if the Greek courts
werethe first ones they will not suspend. It is perfectly possible to
havetwo divorce judgements, a Greek and a German one. It is perfectlypossible (although somewhat unpleasant and embarassing) to have twoconflicting judgements. In theory, you may be divorced in Greece andstill be considered married in Germany, or vice versa. Thank God itdoesn't happen often enough, but it might.
See what I said above. People may find themselves being treated as Greek citizens even if they have not "chosen" to be one. So it is "being treated as a Greek citizen", not exactly the same as "being a Greek citizen". No it is exactly the same. People are "being treated as a Greek citizen" because whoever is giving them that treatment considers them Greek citizens.

I must say that for a lawyer, you seem to be pretty loose an imprecise
with the use of language.
This being Greece, Greek law. But if you reverse the situation, i.e. Greek woman going to Italy, marrying Italian, living there, leaving husband and coming back to Greece and suing her husband for divorce, then the Greek courts would, by the same reasoning, apply Italian law. Whether you think it is a good idea or not, at least in Greek courts, citizenship does enter into divorce. Sorry, now I am confused. You are now saying that the Greek courts could not apply Greek law to a Greek citizen? Yes I am, there is nothing so special about that, Greek private international law rules (and the private international law rules of most other countries, I imagine) envisage several situations where their own courts will apply foreign law even to one of their own nationals.

Since you have not mentioned any limits or areas of law where this
could not apply, I take it that they are also at liberty to do so with
foreign citizenship law too.
Further, Prince Philip was in and out of Greece in the late 1930s, before he was naturalised as a British citizen, and presumably he did so on a Greek passport so, at least at some point in his life he must have possesed one. He certainly didn't have a British Passport at the time. But, I have not questioned that at all. I have never asserted that the Prince was never a Greek citizen, or for that matter that he may not choose to be one at some future point in his life. I have only questioned your assertion that he is one now and that his children are also. All you have been able to demonstrate is that they may have the right to apply for Greek citizenship if they so choose. Right. So now you accept that Philip was a Greek citizen at some point in his life.

If you have evidence that I insisted that he was never a Greek citizen
please present it. Otherwise, please do not insinuate a lie.
Since you say that he is not one now, can you tell us when he suppposedly lost his Greek citizenship?

Simple, when he renounced foreign nationality and became naturalised
in the UK.
How did this come about, i.e. in accordance with which provision of Greek citizenship law?
snip

I do not have to prove anything of the kind. I simply point you to the
Greek government and the Greek authorities. There is no evidence
whatever that they accept or treat him as a Greek citizen. As I have
pointed out and you have not shown otherwise, the Prince visited
Greece a number of times during the 1950's and 1960's as either a
British subject or the spouse of a foreign Head of State. He was
accepted as such by the Greek authorities, not as a Greek citizen. Not
even a dual citizen. If you have some proof that they do accept him as
either, you have singularly failed to produce it.
No, I am not a "specialist who knows best". If I thought you shouldsimply accept my pronouncements I would not have exchanged severalposts with you discussing your points. But what I'm saying is this:
Inorder to contradict a specialist you need at least some specialistknowledge yourself. When I say "law XYZ article 1 says that Philip isa Greek citizen" I expect someone who wishes to contradict me to saysomething like "no,no you're disregarding law ABC article 27 whichsays he can't be".

Leaving aside specialisation for a moment, perhaps a lesson of life
may be more relevant here. Expect the unexpected!
Apart from a reference to the Vienna Convention onDiplomatic Immunity you have cited no other legal grounds fordisputing my conclusions as to Philip's Greek citizenship. It hasalready been shown conclusively by others that your argument based onthe Vienna Convention does not hold water. In brief, the Viennaconvention might arguably apply to Philip, but in any case even if itdid it does not deprive him, or anyone else it catches, of theircitizenships.

Again, you miss the point. There is no way that Greece can give effect
to citizenship over Prince Philip. Whatever the ins and outs of Greek
citizenship law. He is the spouse of a foreign Head of State and
likely to remain so for life, thus benefiting from diplomatic travel
documents and thus immunity for life. Diplomatic immunity is a
convention to which Greece has signed up to in the Vienna convention,
indeed if history is right it is Greek city states who invented it. So
there is no way that Greece can seek to claim citizenship over him.

Greece may pass any law it wishes, it could probably pass one to annex
Alaska or Pluto, but if it cannot effect that claim or is unable to
put such a law into practice, Alaska and Pluto are not annexed. In the
same way, Prince Philip is not a Greek citizen.

Cheers,
Christopher Buyers