Matthew Ezeani loses Citizenship Bid

Vinegar Hill

Matthew Ezeani, Pamala Izevbekhai's solicitor, has lost his bid for Irish citizenship. The court found that he was not in a relationship with his Irish 'Wife', who in fact is living with another man and further his children are being reared in Dublin and not the family home.

Very Curious indeed. Does he have leave to remain in the country or will he now be deported as well?

I have not seen any mention of this in the press but here is the link to the court citation.

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/09da71281f988b10802578cb003b9192?OpenDocument

walshb

Vinegar Hill wrote: »

Very Curious indeed. Does he have leave to remain in the country or will he now be deported as well?

]

No, he has at least 20 High Court appearances ahead of him, and with 1 million euro or so to play with, he should get a few years out of this.

Mena

Citizenship is not a requirement of residency. Assuming he was here on some legal basis prior to this (and the fact that he applied for citizenship would say that he was/is), then this won't affect that.

They're two different things that have nothing to do with each other.

southsiderosie

All I can say after reading that is...:eek::eek::eek:

Holy smokes. There are so many scams buried in that one affidavit, I don't know where to begin. For those who don't want to read the whole thing, the citizenship application was built on the fact that the applicant married an Irish citizen (Elizabeth Allen) and had fulfilled the three-year co-habitation requirement with his wife. A few highlights:

Consideration by the Minister

17. The Minister, in the form of Mr McConnell’s letter of 14th November 2003, gave the following reasons for his conclusion that the appellants were not living together as husband and wife:

(i) In June 2002, enquiries with the local Gardaí at Clara revealed that Ms Allen was living with Mr Billy Fitzpatrick at that time (some 6 weeks after the lodgement of the declaration). The Clara gardai were aware that Ms Allen had married a Nigerian national but were of the opinion that this person was not residing at the address in Clara;

(ii) On four occasions between September and November 2002, members of the Garda Síochána made unannounced visits to 30 Silverdale Estate, Clara Co Offaly. The appellant was not present on any occasion;

(iii) On 29th September 2002, the then Immigration Officer attached to Tullamore Garda Station formed the opinion, having spoken to Ms Elizabeth Allen, that the appellant and Ms Allen were not living together as husband and wife;

(iv) During the course of an interview with members of the Garda Síochána on 17 November 2002, Ms Elizabeth Allen stated that she and the appellant had lived together on and off for about a year after the marriage. She further stated that the appellant lived in Clara for about 3 months in 1999 and then went to the UK for 6 weeks after which he lived mainly in Dublin setting up his business. She went on to state that he and she had not been living together as husband and wife and that she was in a relationship with another man, Billy Fitzpatrick. Mr Fitzpatrick's home address, as recorded by the Gardai on 28 August 2002, was 30 Silverdale, Clara;

(v) The appellant’s two children, Christian and Cecilia (Chinenye), who commenced school in Dublin in September and October 2002, are registered with their schools as living at 5 Ballyowen Drive, Lucan, Co Dublin. This address is the home address of Celia Otubu, whom the appellant informed the Gardai was his “life” and business partner. When the appellant’s daughter Cecilia entered the State in June 2002, he stated to the Garda Síochána that she would live in Clara and attend school there. He stated in his letter of 25 June 2003, and confirmed over the telephone recently, that he had enquired about a place in school in Clara but that there were no places available. The letter have confirmed with Ard Scoil Chiarain in Clara, the one secondary school located in Clara for both girls and boys, that there was no admissions problem during the course of 2002 nor is there a recollection of an enquiry about a case for a Nigerian child for the 2002 -- 2003 school year.

(vi) Enquiries with the Department of Social and Family Affairs have revealed that Ms Elizabeth Allen has made a number of claims in the period 1999 to date: [These were set out and addressed to the appellant as follows:]

“9 April 1999
Only a matter of weeks after your marriage in the UK Ms Allen lodged a claim for one parent family allowance. This claim was supported by a declaration by your wife that if she went back to live with her spouse or if she married or started living with another person as husband and wife she would inform the Department. This claim was subsequently withdrawn.

“13 April 1999

Ms Allen made a claim for unemployment benefit. The claim was supported by a declaration to the effect that all details were true and complete. The relevant form required her to specify "spouse/partner.” She stated that her “spouse/partner” was Anthony Allen (from whom separated) and that he resided in England. She made no reference to her marriage to you.

“6 June 2001

Ms Allen made another claim for unemployment benefit supported by a similar type declaration. Similar type information was supplied but she stated that she did not know where Mr Allen was residing.

“21 May 2003

Ms Allen made a repeat application for unemployment benefit. On this occasion, she stated that Mr Fitzpatrick was her partner, that she was living with him and was dependent on him. Once again, she did not mention her marriage to you.”

It would be very interesting to see a study of the Irish citizenship application process. If even a third of the applications look like this one, no wonder the approval rate is so low. It is a shame too because stuff like this really poisons the well for everyone else.

Laminations

This was being discussed on the Pamela Izevbekhai thread, but it's good that it now has it's own.

On this point.

Mena wrote: »

Citizenship is not a requirement of residency. Assuming he was here on some legal basis prior to this (and the fact that he applied for citizenship would say that he was/is), then this won't affect that.

They're two different things that have nothing to do with each other.

Is it totally true they have nothing to do with each other? Source please.

And if true do you think this is right?
Do you think that somebody's residency status shouldn't be affected by a wholly fraudulent citizenship claim?

What do you think should be the consequence? I'd agree with southsiderosie, these cases undermine the others and make it harder for legitimate cases to get a timely judgement. The other thing that damages trust in the system is people failing to condemn the fraudsters and demand some reprimand and deportation. Zero tolerance. We see this with PI. Even after being shown as a fraud she still has her supporters and stories of how the 'kids were taken in the middle of the night without warning' does nothing but Stoke the fires of misplaced sympathy (although I am sympathetic for the children who get caught in these lies)

southsiderosie

Laminations wrote: »

Is it totally true they have nothing to do with each other? Source please.

And if true do you think this is right?
Do you think that somebody's residency status shouldn't be affected by a wholly fraudulent citizenship claim?

AFAIK, it depends on what kind of residency permit a non EU-citizen has. Some have to be renewed annually, while others have to be renewed every five years. I want to say that after ten years you can pretty much stay indefinitely without citizenship, but I am not sure if that is true. There has been a lot of talk about a US-style green card program which would essentially grant permanent residency after five years but I am not sure what actually happened with this.

Laminations wrote: »

What do you think should be the consequence? I'd agree with southsiderosie, these cases undermine the others and make it harder for legitimate cases to get a timely judgement. The other thing that damages trust in the system is people failing to condemn the fraudsters and demand some reprimand and deportation. Zero tolerance. We see this with PI. Even after being shown as a fraud she still has her supporters and stories of how the 'kids were taken in the middle of the night without warning' does nothing but Stoke the fires of misplaced sympathy (although I am sympathetic for the children who get caught in these lies)

One of the issues that came up in the application was the question of denying the citizenship application versus making accusations of fraud. To me, the affidavit suggests that there may have been very serious fraud involved with this citizenship application; this is all the more serious considering that the applicant is a solicitor. The entire premise of this man's residency in Ireland is that he is married to an Irish national, and since that marriage appears to be fraudulent, not only should he not be able to apply for citizenship, I would question whether or not he has a right to stay at all.

On the other hand, I know that some people have had citizenship applications denied because of things like traffic points and the like (which I think that is ridiculous), but they have a long-term residency permit based on refugee status, work history, etc. In those cases, I don't see why people shouldn't be able to stay - they don't present a risk to the state or anything and they have met the requirements for residency; it's just that they don't meet the requirements for citizenship.

Mena

Laminations wrote: »

Is it totally true they have nothing to do with each other? Source please.

Yes, why would they? I have 12 years residency but no citizenship (through choice).

Laminations wrote: »

And if true do you think this is right?

Don't see any problem with it.

Laminations wrote: »

Do you think that somebody's residency status shouldn't be affected by a wholly fraudulent citizenship claim?

Ah now this is something totally different. It's fraud, be it on a citizenship claim or anything else. At the very least he should be prosecuted. Should that affect his residency? I don't know, too many factors to consider, but my gut reaction is yeah, chuck him out, this type of carry on gives legal immigrants a bad name, rightly or wrongly.

Laminations wrote: »

What do you think should be the consequence? I'd agree with southsiderosie, these cases undermine the others and make it harder for legitimate cases to get a timely judgement. The other thing that damages trust in the system is people failing to condemn the fraudsters and demand some reprimand and deportation. Zero tolerance. We see this with PI. Even after being shown as a fraud she still has her supporters and stories of how the 'kids were taken in the middle of the night without warning' does nothing but Stoke the fires of misplaced sympathy (although I am sympathetic for the children who get caught in these lies)

Yeah, Can't argue that at all. However, just for the record, lets not mix up asylum seekers and legal immigrants.

AlekSmart

Mena wrote: »

Yes, why would they? I have 12 years residency but no citizenship (through choice).


Don't see any problem with it

Ah now this is something totally different. It's fraud, be it on a citizenship claim or anything else. At the very least he should be prosecuted. Should that affect his residency? I don't know, too many factors to consider, but my gut reaction is yeah, chuck him out, this type of carry on gives legal immigrants a bad name, rightly or wrongly.

Yeah, Can't argue that at all. However, just for the record, lets not mix up asylum seekers and legal immigrants.

Very true,but the ability to differentiate between the two should surely be a pre-requesite for a qualified Legal Professional such as Mr Ezeani ?

It would indeed be an interesting exercise to research just how much of the "Asylum" business Ceemex actually handles.

If the Izevbekhai debacle has any up-side it is the coming-of-age of Gardai and Immigration Officials in relation to smooth talking foreigners turning up on our shores with stories down pat.

opo

AlekSmart wrote: »

It would indeed be an interesting exercise to research just how much of the "Asylum" business Ceemex actually handles.

It would appear that at one point in time, they were gearing up for a very organised slice of business.....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article696526.ece

Matthew Emeka Ezeani and Celia Otoba, two Africa-born solicitors, are seeking damages for stress and loss of earnings because they were denied access to clients who had been stopped at Dublin airport by the Garda National Immigration Bureau.

“There is no guaranteed right to a lawyer and the state is perfectly entitled to turn people away at point of entry,” said Fergus Ryan, a lawyer and author of Immigration, Refugee, and Citizenship Law in Ireland.

“We had no choice except to go to court,” said Ezeani, whose firm, Ceemex, specialises in litigation on behalf of ethnic minorities. In papers lodged in the High Court, he claims that an immigration official publicly branded him an illegal trafficker in human beings during a confrontation at Dublin

Ezeani is certainly out there in whatever he does.

AlekSmart

opo wrote: »

It would appear that at one point in time, they were gearing up for a very organised slice of business.....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article696526.ece


Quote:
“We had no choice except to go to court,” said Ezeani, whose firm, Ceemex, specialises in litigation on behalf of ethnic minorities. In papers lodged in the High Court, he claims that an immigration official publicly branded him an illegal trafficker in human beings during a confrontation at Dublin

Ezeani is certainly out there in whatever he does.

Excellent stuff !

At last we start to see a little of the reality behind the "Asylum" industry being laid bare.

From the very outset I found the fixation with Pamela Izevbekhai's miraculous sudden arrival in Dublin hard to accept.

Up until the Sunday Times took an interest,every attempt was made to deflect attention from the mechanics of the Izevbekhai flight-out-of-Africa.

The real issue here for Ireland and the greater non-African world is just how well organized and effective the Human Trafficking industry is within the Dark Continent.

We need to look beyond the "mother and babies" heart string tugging media darlings and instead focus on those "Businessmen" who lurk (Profitably) in the corners.

southsiderosie

AlekSmart wrote: »

Excellent stuff !

At last we start to see a little of the reality behind the "Asylum" industry being laid bare.

From the very outset I found the fixation with Pamela Izevbekhai's miraculous sudden arrival in Dublin hard to accept.

Up until the Sunday Times took an interest,every attempt was made to deflect attention from the mechanics of the Izevbekhai flight-out-of-Africa.

The real issue here for Ireland and the greater non-African world is just how well organized and effective the Human Trafficking industry is within the Dark Continent.

We need to look beyond the "mother and babies" heart string tugging media darlings and instead focus on those "Businessmen" who lurk (Profitably) in the corners.

I don't think this is solely an African issue; human trafficking is rife in Eastern Europe. Since Ireland opened up to the new accession states relatively early, there was less of that there, but girls from the former Soviet Union are still ripe for the picking for traffickers. From what I have read (and the gruesome cases that have been in the media) Chinese worker smuggling is also a huge business in both Europe and the US. I guess what makes these different groups distinct is that they use different immigration strategies that are rooted in ethnic networks: some groups are using legal loopholes and the mechanisms of the state to arrive and stay in Ireland, while other groups tend to avoid the authorities altogether.

Vinegar Hill

Mena wrote: »

Citizenship is not a requirement of residency. Assuming he was here on some legal basis prior to this (and the fact that he applied for citizenship would say that he was/is), then this won't affect that.

They're two different things that have nothing to do with each other.

His reason for being here was his marriage to an Irish citizen and was therefore granted leave to remain at the time. You just can not arrive in any country and be granted leave to remain without a valid reason.

Now that has been proven to be false (he is not living with his 'wife' and she is in fact living with another man) should his leave to remain now be canceled and should he be deported?

Laminations

Vinegar Hill wrote: »

Now that has been proven to be false (he is not living with his 'wife' and she is in fact living with another man) should his leave to remain now be canceled and should he be deported?

Simple answer. Yes. Right after the state takes a civil case against him for fraud.

Vinegar Hill

Laminations wrote: »

Simple answer. Yes. Right after the state takes a civil case against him for fraud.

Forget the civil case, just deport him (and the children) now. It all appears to be based on deception.

He and his children are living with his business and life partner in Dublin and not the wife.

southsiderosie

Vinegar Hill wrote: »

Forget the civil case, just deport him (and the children) now. It all appears to be based on deception.

He and his children are living with his business and life partner in Dublin and not the wife.

I don't think the proper response of the state to someone who has ignored or flouted the rule of law is to ignore the rule of law. Ireland's legal procedures could stand to be streamlined, but nonetheless they do exist and need to be followed.

Vinegar Hill

southsiderosie wrote: »

I don't think the proper response of the state to someone who has ignored or flouted the rule of law is to ignore the rule of law. Ireland's legal procedures could stand to be streamlined, but nonetheless they do exist and need to be followed.

And how much will it cost over how many years? Then come the appeals.

oscarBravo

Vinegar Hill wrote: »

And how much will it cost over how many years? Then come the appeals.

Wait, due process is expensive?

Bugger that, hang the fecker and charge his family for the rope.

Laminations

Is it mandatory to post annual returns for a company? Can't find any for Ceemex on cro.ie. Just it's registration in 2002.

Any money made by Ceemex was made on the back of a residency that was obtained through deceit.

Laminations

southsiderosie wrote: »

I don't think the proper response of the state to someone who has ignored or flouted the rule of law is to ignore the rule of law. Ireland's legal procedures could stand to be streamlined, but nonetheless they do exist and need to be followed.

Indeed he is entitled to due process, but hasn't the supreme court ruled that his claims of marriage to an Irish national are/were fraudulent? What else needs to be proven in court?

donkey balls

Having just read the times article in the link posted and having worked at Dublin airport,The immigration desks (GNIB)cannot be accessed by the public as they are in a restricted zone and only people who have clearance for the terminals and other facility can get to them.
Now in the article both lawyers said that they could not get access to there clients my question is how did they know that someone from Nigeria was going be arriving on a certain day&time?
Did there clients make pre arrangements to be on a certain flight? And for both lawyers to meet them at the airport,And how did their clients make contact with them in the first place? This stinks as a form of human trafficking so your legging it from your country in fear of your life and on the way to Dublin you lose your passport yet you probely have a flyer for ceemax.:rolleyes:.
I also noticed that they decided to move to Ireland in the article posted, I wonder would this have being due to our lax laws at the time and also the IBC Thimgy which the govt eventually sorted out,For some strange reason I reckon the UK authority would not put up with the crap we the Irish people have been putting up with over the last few years with appeals and more appeals hence why they set up here.

Vinegar Hill

oscarBravo wrote: »

Wait, due process is expensive?

Bugger that, hang the fecker and charge his family for the rope.

You make it sound as though it is a criminal proceeding. If I was advocating a criminal proceeding for this apparent fraud then by all means the individual is entitled to due process. His case has already gone to and has been decided by the Supreme Court.

This is simply an individual that tried to deceive the government to remain in the country and further to gain citizenship. His claims have been judged by the courts and have been shown to be without merit.

He should be deported.

AlekSmart

oscarBravo wrote: »

Wait, due process is expensive?

Bugger that, hang the fecker and charge his family for the rope.

Whilst doubtlessly OscarBravo's (Tongue in Cheek ?) suggestion will find approval by many,it remains a highly unlikely course of action for this State to take.

Mind you,neither has it been suggested by even the most vitriolic of posters who oppose the nature of the Izevbekhai/Ezeani strokes.

What has and continues to be suggested is that the Irish State shows some respect for it's own processes and those tasked with upholding them.

Stringent as it may appear,if a learned professionally qualified person such as Mr Ezeani embarks on a concerted campaign to subvert our Laws then after due-process,which I consider a Supreme Court judgement to be the epitome of,he should be sent packing tout-suite after the imposition of a hefty fine.

Instead,and perhaps satisfying,as OscarBravo points out,the requirement for the utmost level of due-process,this gentleman and his legal team will embark on yet another stalling exercise,whilst the baffled natives gaze wonderingly at the ever increasing cost.

AlekSmart

Laminations wrote: »

Is it mandatory to post annual returns for a company? Can't find any for Ceemex on cro.ie. Just it's registration in 2002.

Any money made by Ceemex was made on the back of a residency that was obtained through deceit.

The real story here may begin during these peoples periods spent in the UK.....twould be interesting to see what paper trail has been left in the "other juristiction".

From reading blog's and other accounts of these people,it appears they regard free unrestricted movement as their human right.

They appear to believe that individual Countries Immigration requirements are illegal and of no relevance to tyhem should they wish to establish a base in any particular land...especially if its economically beneficial to them.

You're spot-on,Laminations,with the CRO avenue of investigation,I'd go further and involve the CAB as an integral part of investigations into the likes of these people at a far earlier stage !

oscarBravo

Vinegar Hill wrote: »

He should be deported.

...without due process.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

donkey balls

What about his biz/life partner? How did she manage to arrive on our little island would I be right in saying that she is also the mother of the two children residing in Dublin? I wonder will the bar councel suspend his licence to practise here in Ireland after the failed&fraudelent means to stay here,Then again nothing might come of it considering a former govt minister lied on oath who just happened to be an officer of the court or if the Bar does actually remove him from practicing the councel will be called racists.:rolleyes:
Jaysus you could not make this stuff up a dodgy asylum case with a dodgy legal rep:eek: IMO the bar councel of Ireland should revoke his licence to practise and be seen to be pro active rather than the old boys club/self regulation.

Laminations

donkey balls wrote: »

IMO the bar councel of Ireland should revoke his licence to practise and be seen to be pro active rather than the old boys club/self regulation.

What? Without due process?

I'm sure OscarBravo will explain to us what he thinks needs to happen now in order for due process to have been observed. Another court case where he is allowed put forth a defense? Was he blindfolded and gagged in the supreme court?

donkey balls

IMO due process has been done ala the court decision going against him what else is there to prove.

conorhal

oscarBravo wrote: »

...without due process.

The only due process required, as far as I can ascertain, would be refusing to renew his work visa, after which he would have a set time to quit the country or be declared illegal.

I wonder if the GNIB will have the balls to cancel his visa though? Doubt it.

Laminations

In light of the supreme court ruling should the GNIB cancel his visa?

This question to Nodin, OscarBravo, djpbarry etc.
If not, why not

donkey balls

Considering the amount of coverage his and Pammy case got I reckon the GNIB wont hold back on having him sent home on the next flight,Then again it's the dept of trade&enterprise who issue work visa/permits and with the down turn in the economy alot of skills/trades have been taking of the list to be eligible for a permit.
That's if he is on a visa/permit (considering the so called marriage he would be excempt from having to have a visa)years ago as a manager I dealth with the dept regarding permits and the process at the time was that if a non EU national was being hired by an Irish based company,The company had to prove to the dept that there was no suitable Irish or EU national to take up employment with that company be interesting to see what comes of this.

walshb

oscarBravo wrote: »

...without due process.

There is due process, and there is downright takin' the piss....

That seems to be the case for many of our friends from abroad once they land here. They fail, they fail, they fail, they fail, they fail, they fail..................and on and on.....Something stinks. IMO it's the legal eagles and the gravy train that facilitates this ****ing sham.

oscarBravo

Laminations wrote: »

I'm sure OscarBravo will explain to us what he thinks needs to happen now in order for due process to have been observed.

Due process is a fairly simple concept. It's not a question of opinion as to what is and is not due process.

conorhal wrote: »

The only due process required, as far as I can ascertain, would be refusing to renew his work visa, after which he would have a set time to quit the country or be declared illegal.

If that's all the due process required, then that's all that should happen. If, on the other hand, there is the possibility of an appeal against that happening, then he should be allowed that appeal.

The mocking tone in response to the idea that someone should be treated fairly in law puzzles me, frankly.

Laminations wrote: »

In light of the supreme court ruling should the GNIB cancel his visa?

I don't know. I don't know if it's up to them, and if it is, what their criteria are. I don't really care, as long as they apply the rules fairly and without regard to populist sentiment.

oscarBravo

walshb wrote: »

There is due process, and there is downright takin' the piss....

No, there's only due process.

If you want our legal system changed so that the first decision that's made by any official at any system is permanently binding and not subject to judicial review, you should start a campaign for such a change.

Laminations

oscarBravo wrote: »

Due process is a fairly simple concept. It's not a question of opinion as to what is and is not due process.

So you can't explain...the fairly simple concept, or what steps are involved.

I don't know. I don't know if it's up to them, and if it is, what their criteria are. I don't really care, as long as they apply the rules fairly and without regard to populist sentiment.

The fact that you don't really care what happens to a fraudster speaks volumes.

Laminations

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, there's only due process.

If you want our legal system changed so that the first decision that's made by any official at any system is permanently binding and not subject to judicial review, you should start a campaign for such a change.

Ah so the supreme court judgement should now be subject to judicial review? Wonderful.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

walshb

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, there's only due process.
.

True, in an ideal world, a fair world and an honest world there is due process.
In Eire, there is takin' the piss.

oscarBravo

Laminations wrote: »

So you can't explain...the fairly simple concept, or what steps are involved.

If you can point out what part of "due process" you don't understand, I'll try to explain it to you.

You seem to feel that a belief in the idea of due process ought to be dependent on a comprehensive knowledge of every legal step involved. That's a pretty flawed belief.

The fact that you don't really care what happens to a fraudster speaks volumes.

*sigh*

I don't care what happens to him, in the sense that I'm not going to lose sleep if he's deported. The outcome of the process isn't important to me; what matters is that the process is applied fairly.

By contrast, it would appear that there are those for whom the important thing is that he be deported. Whether or not that's the correct thing to do, or whether or not there are reasons why he might legally be allowed to stay - these things are irrelevant.

Perhaps you think the former a more admirable philosophy. We'll agree to differ.

oscarBravo

Laminations wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I didn't say that. The Supreme Court judgement is that he's not entitled to citizenship. That doesn't automatically deprive him of his right to live in the country (that I'm aware of).

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Please don't caricature my arguments. I'm being castigated for having the temerity to suggest that we apply the rule of law here.

He can't appeal the Supreme Court judgement (unless he takes it to Europe - should we deny him his right to do so? If so, should we only deny it to him? to foreigners? black people?). Does that mean that he shouldn't be allowed to appeal a deportation order? What if the deportation order wasn't legal?

walshb wrote: »

True, in an ideal world, a fair world and an honest world there is due process.
In Eire, there is takin' the piss.

I guess we're back to hanging the fecker, so. Cheaper than putting him on a plane.

walshb

oscarBravo wrote: »

I guess we're back to hanging the fecker, so. Cheaper than putting him on a plane.

Sense prevails:)

Seriously, can you not see something rotten with a legal sytem that facilitates appeal
after appeal after appeal, costing taxpayers millions of euro annually?

Whether it's due process or not, it stinks, and it needs serious revision.

oscarBravo

walshb wrote: »

Sense prevails:)

Seriously, can you not see something rotten with a legal sytem that facilitates appeal
after appeal after appeal, costing taxpayers millions of euro annually?

Whether it's due process or not, it stinks, and it needs serious revision.

As long as you are campaigning to reduce access to legal redress from everyone equally, and not just people you don't like for whatever reason, go for it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

walshb

oscarBravo wrote: »

As long as you are campaigning to reduce access to legal redress from everyone equally, and not just people you don't like for whatever reason, go for it.

Absolutely. Appeal after appeal for anyone, or ANY case, is IMO a farce.
It renders the law an ass. Either someone is "innocent" or "guilty."
There needs to be clarity, finality. Why have judges, laws and courts if they can't
make a decision, or can't work?

As it pertains to the asylum process, it absolute stinks. It's a money racket, and it's costing honest and decent people in this country a ****ing fortune.

The PI case was NOT due process. That was a disgrace, and there should be a national enquiry into how it came about. Someone should be held accountable. Pamela was simply exploiting the system. She desperately wanted to stay, and I won't blame her for using any trick in the book. But, the real culprits were those encouraging and defending and deceiving a case that was so obvioulsy fraudulent.

Laminations

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you can point out what part of "due process" you don't understand, I'll try to explain it to you.

I'm curious as to what part of due process you think hasn't been fulfilled by the supreme court hearing. It has not just determined that he is bot entitled to citizenship, it determined that he tried to defraud the state. Now if by due process you mean forms need to be stamped before he is deported then fine, if you mean he should be entitled to appeal facts established in the supreme court (not just an interpretation of some law) then we'll agree to differ

oscarBravo wrote: »

He can't appeal the Supreme Court judgement (unless he takes it to Europe - should we deny him his right to do so? If so, should we only deny it to him? to foreigners? black people?). Does that mean that he shouldn't be allowed to appeal a deportation order? What if the deportation order wasn't legal?

So you see due process as the right to continuously appeal and frag out a decision for 7 years?
Let me ask you this. Do you think the system is broken?

I guess we're back to hanging the fecker, so. Cheaper than putting him on a plane.

Funny that you opened the post with a request not to caricature your opponent.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm not sure why you're asking me that question. I made an observation about the subject of this thread being entitled to due process. There seems to be a great deal of hostility to the idea - in some cases to the very idea of due process at all (appealing a court judgement? ludicrous!!).

If someone can point out to me the part of the Supreme Court judgement that constitutes a deportation order, great: he should be deported. Until then, the next step is to establish whether or not Ezeani actually has a legal right to remain in the country. My issue is with those who apparently wish to skip that step and just chuck him out of the country on the grounds that he has committed fraud. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

walshb wrote: »

Absolutely. Appeal after appeal for anyone, or ANY case, is IMO a farce.
It renders the law an ass. Either someone is "innocent" or "guilty."
There needs to be clarity, finality. Why have judges, lawas and courts if they can't
make a decision, or can't work?

So we should abolish every court above district court level. You roll the dice, and if the judge makes a mistake in law - tough titty. Appealing an unjust decision is, after all, a farce.

Laminations wrote: »

I'm curious as to what part of due process you think hasn't been fulfilled by the supreme court hearing.

The part where there hasn't yet been a legal determination (that I've seen) that he's no longer allowed to live in the country.

So you see due process as the right to continuously appeal and frag out a decision for 7 years?

No. I see due process as the right to seek remedies under law. If you have a problem with remedies being available under the law, then campaign to change the law.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

walshb

oscarBravo wrote: »

So we should abolish every court above district court level. You roll the dice, and if the judge makes a mistake in law - tough titty. Appealing an unjust decision is, after all, a farce.
.

No, everyone is entitled to appeal, but where does it end? That is the racket.

I said appeal after appeal after appeal. Not appeal.

In Pamela's case it was almost non stop, neverending.

I apply this view not just to the asylum process, which seems to really benefit from this sham, but to any case involving anyone.

Yes, appeal, that is fair, but when does it get farcical, and unfair?

Laminations

oscarBravo wrote: »

The part where there hasn't yet been a legal determination (that I've seen) that he's no longer allowed to live in the country.

I agree that a determination needs to be made, this can I believe be done quickly without the need for court. When I say he should be deported, of course I mean on the back of a deportation order. It is the consequence which I feel befits his fraud, not the immediate next step, but I believe it shouldn't be a drawn out process, and I see little grounds on which he could be or should be allowed to appeal.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I have no argument with that.

I don't think anyone on this thread has an issue simply with appealing an unjust decision. The problem is with asylum seekers who determinedly and persistently appeal no-hope cases time and again, often over many years and at great cost to the state, exploiting every conceivable loophole just so they can stay here for as long as possible. This is not justice — it's procedural stonewalling and obstructionism.

If people are exploiting loopholes, close the loopholes. To suggest that someone should be denied the right to a legal avenue that's open to them is a dangerous precedent.

walshb wrote: »

No, everyone is entitled to appeal, but where does it end? That is the racket.

I said appeal after appeal after appeal. Not appeal.

OK, so we just get rid of the Supreme Court. If the High Court makes an error in law, tough titty.

Yes, appeal, that is fair, but when does it get farcical, and unfair?

I would argue that it gets unfair when someone who has a case in law is prevented from arguing that case.

walshb

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, so we just get rid of the Supreme Court. If the High Court makes an error in law, tough titty. I would argue that it gets unfair when someone who has a case in law is prevented from arguing that case.

Who's prevented from arguing? That is why folks have an appeal, and in our country, appeals and appeals and appeals. That is my point, when does it become a farce?

You seem to have no issue with that appeal process being neverending.