Yesterday I became a US Citizen, so my name that is on all my CAP certificates is now my legal name as well!
That solves the issue of having a different name on my Mitchell/Earhart from my IDs, finally. Lol.
Congrats!!
Congratulations! What a great day for you, I'm sure! :clap:
Congratulations!!
Congratulations Mr. USAFaux2004!
Congratulations! I'm curious about your naturalization process. What was the reason you decided to become a citizen? I had a few friends in high-school that were dual-citizen Canadian-American and later decided to return to Canada.
Congratulations to you! As soon as you turn 18, go register to vote and participate in this government of, by, and for the people.
Congratulations from another naturalized Citizen of this great country.
You worked for it, you have earned it, It is your duty and obligation as an American By Choice to get involved and VOTE. Conservative or Liberal, Democrat, or Republican, or Libertarian, or Independent please do not take your duty and obligation lightly.
BTW I hope your picture on your Certificate of Citizenship looks a whole lot better than mine).
Cliff
Guatemala by Birth, America by Choice.
Congrats!
I originally misread the thread title as your CAPTalk name now being your legal name. :D
Congratulations on your citizenship!
Congratulations on your citizenship and welcome to the family!
Congrats!
I'm not going to stop with the Russian jokes any time soon though ;D
Awsome.......... :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:Congratulations!!!!!!!!! This is why AMERICA is a great place becuse we all at one point came from some where else.
I dont think that has anything to do with why America is great......
However, Congratulations American.
The United States of America was built on a proud history of immigrants coming here and becoming Americans.
You are part of that.
Now...as soon as you can, get your newly-naturalized American posterior out there and VOTE!
:) ;) :D ;D 8) :clap:
Quote from: jimmydeanno on May 06, 2010, 11:32:50 PM
I had a few friends in high-school that were dual-citizen Canadian-American and later decided to return to Canada.
I live near the border and encounter quite a few dual CanAm's, some by birth, some by parental citizenship, some by naturalization.
As long as they don't formally renounce their Canadian nationality (in writing), they can retain their Canadian citizenship, even though the U.S. Oath of Naturalization requires renunciation of allegiance to a foreign state.
However, I'm not sure how other countries handle the issue.
Darn illegal-alien Canadians coming down here and stealing all of our good beer-drinking and hockey playing jobs! Ya' hosers!
Major Lord
Like, take off, man!
To the Great White North! ... Take off!
It's a beauty way to go!
Congratulations none the less!
Congratulations on becoming an American citizen!
...I'm curious, though. CAP let you join under a name other than your actual legal name?
To answer some questions:
I moved to the US on 19 Dec 01, and was eligible for applying on November 15 2007 (3 months before eligibility, thus at 17 years and 9 months old). The process costs $675, so at 18 I chose not to do it.
The minimum time is 5 years from Green Card to citizen, but apparently anyone under 18 can't take the oath of citizenship, even though at 17 the military service oath is OK *and they are pretty close in wording*.
I'm originally from Latvia (but as IceNine said, I'm a ruski), and they allow people to retain citizenship, thus I have a dual citizenship unless I write to the embassy and tell them to take it away.
There was no specific reason for it, other than, if I live here, I might as well be a citizen, right? The vote card (which you could fill out right there and be registered), is already in the mail, and I plan on voting come November.
My photo on the certificate is horrid...I should have taken one myself and cleaned it up a bit...didn't expect that one to be the one they use...lol.
CAP received a copy of my green card when I applied. The name on the card is Mihails (Russian for Michael, with an 's' added on the end by stupid Latvian grammar rules) Hatkevics, which is a bastardized version of Hatkevich with an 's' on the end, the c having a small 'v' over it in the Latvian alphabet to make it a ch sound. So instead of being Hatkevich or even Hatkevichs, I was Hatkevics which drove me insane until a few days ago. On the app we put Michael and Hatkevich which sound right. No one said a thing, and my CAPIDs and everything else came out in this fashion.
Just to give them a hard time (and for the hard-kewl factor) you should make Vanguard do up BDU nametapes and nameplates with the č in your last name. ;) 8)
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on May 07, 2010, 10:39:01 PM
To answer some questions:
I moved to the US on 19 Dec 01, and was eligible for applying on November 15 2007 (3 months before eligibility, thus at 17 years and 9 months old). The process costs $675, so at 18 I chose not to do it.
The minimum time is 5 years from Green Card to citizen, but apparently anyone under 18 can't take the oath of citizenship, even though at 17 the military service oath is OK *and they are pretty close in wording*.
I'm originally from Latvia (but as IceNine said, I'm a ruski), and they allow people to retain citizenship, thus I have a dual citizenship unless I write to the embassy and tell them to take it away.
There was no specific reason for it, other than, if I live here, I might as well be a citizen, right? The vote card (which you could fill out right there and be registered), is already in the mail, and I plan on voting come November.
My photo on the certificate is horrid...I should have taken one myself and cleaned it up a bit...didn't expect that one to be the one they use...lol.
CAP received a copy of my green card when I applied. The name on the card is Mihails (Russian for Michael, with an 's' added on the end by stupid Latvian grammar rules) Hatkevics, which is a bastardized version of Hatkevich with an 's' on the end, the c having a small 'v' over it in the Latvian alphabet to make it a ch sound. So instead of being Hatkevich or even Hatkevichs, I was Hatkevics which drove me insane until a few days ago. On the app we put Michael and Hatkevich which sound right. No one said a thing, and my CAPIDs and everything else came out in this fashion.
Kudos and Congrats...I'll see you on jury duty some day.
Quote from: Major Carrales on May 07, 2010, 11:16:54 PM
Kudos and Congrats...I'll see you on jury duty some day.
This is something that I've been really eager to do for some reason. However, I have never received the notice telling me I was selected. You'd think that being eligible for at least a decade would offer at least one opportunity...
I get called for it all the time. But for some reason I never have to go? I personally think I would make an excellent juror. I could definitely pick through the BS and the silly objections. At the end, Id stand up and say "OK, now I want to hear what really happened!......Ned! >:D
Quote from: jimmydeanno on May 08, 2010, 03:17:20 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on May 07, 2010, 11:16:54 PM
Kudos and Congrats...I'll see you on jury duty some day.
This is something that I've been really eager to do for some reason. However, I have never received the notice telling me I was selected. You'd think that being eligible for at least a decade would offer at least one opportunity...
Now you've done it.
You're going to be selected for the longest most excruciating trial EVER. It's going to make OJ's trial look like a vacation in Fiji
Quote from: IceNine on May 08, 2010, 04:05:32 AM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on May 08, 2010, 03:17:20 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on May 07, 2010, 11:16:54 PM
Kudos and Congrats...I'll see you on jury duty some day.
This is something that I've been really eager to do for some reason. However, I have never received the notice telling me I was selected. You'd think that being eligible for at least a decade would offer at least one opportunity...
Now you've done it.
You're going to be selected for the longest most excruciating trial EVER. It's going to make OJ's trial look like a vacation in Fiji
The time I was called, it was very much like the film "12 Angry Men," except imagine that movie as a Civil Trial. What I mean by this is that each juror brings to the jury lots of their opinions, beliefs and, sometimes, "baggage." It is up to us who serve on those panels to remember that the idea is that that we uphold the objectivity of the law, work within the evidence presented and seek the "truth" as that evidence suggests free from reasonable doubt. Nothing more...nothing less.
Jury Duty is an obligation very much in the vein of what it means to be a citizen. That said, you can expect that, on the panel, 1) some will not want to be there, 2) Some won't take it seriously or won't care, 3) some will see it as their duty and 4) others will show ignorance of the system. I was elected forman of the jury and had a hard time with one fellow who wanted to disregard the judges instructions and find for the plaintiff because he saw the courts as a sort of "lottery."
My biggest challenge was to steer the jury to the notion that we had to follow the documents presented to us by the court, not to diviate. The main part of the deliberation was that one fellow wanted to award the plaintiff despite the fact that the defendant was found not libel for the incident. The documents were sort of like those "choose your own adventure" stories; much in the same manner as..."if you choose one course of action, go to page 56, if you chose the other, go to page 20." In our case, based on the evidence, the defendant was found not to be responsible. The Jury was then to proceed to the last page bypassing the awarding of compensation for the plaintiff. One fellow felt that the plaintiff needed "something" for her medical bills.
Tempers flew, I was called every name in the book... I was even given the "Who made you Boss?" retort. To which I replied that they had.
All-in-all I had a good time of it, in terms of I felt I accomplished something. Also, while tempers flew, we all left on good terms...only we have never seen one another again for conversation. I also learned that well prepared briefs and motions are critical to being a good litigator. Had the documents been written differently, other than the skilled use of words presented, the outcome of the trial would have been very different. Years of debate and study of the Judicial System had paid off.
Quote from: Flying Pig on May 08, 2010, 04:01:51 AM
I get called for it all the time. But for some reason I never have to go? I personally think I would make an excellent juror. I could definitely pick through the BS and the silly objections. At the end, Id stand up and say "OK, now I want to hear what really happened!......Ned! >:D
Um, as a lawyer, anyone who says they want to be a juror makes me wonder. Believe me, the justice system needs jurors and it is one of the most important things a citizen can do. I greatly value what people called for jury duty have to sacrifice and do if selected.
And those "silly" objections? Part of the process to determine what evidence can and cannot be considered. A judge will determine if they are "silly" or not, not you as a juror. These are legal issues, which the judge has the final say about (which, of course, can impact the facts as something may or may not come into evidence.)
As a juror, that is all you are to consider (the admitted evidence) along with what the jury instructions say the law is. Then you are to apply the law to the facts, and if a criminal case, find if the the State has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. A jury is not a place to go rogue but to consider these items and the arguments of your fellow jurors to come to a decision.
It is an important and weighty responsibility that must be taken seriously.
Quote from: Major Carrales on May 08, 2010, 04:25:37 AM
Quote from: IceNine on May 08, 2010, 04:05:32 AM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on May 08, 2010, 03:17:20 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on May 07, 2010, 11:16:54 PM
Kudos and Congrats...I'll see you on jury duty some day.
This is something that I've been really eager to do for some reason. However, I have never received the notice telling me I was selected. You'd think that being eligible for at least a decade would offer at least one opportunity...
Now you've done it.
You're going to be selected for the longest most excruciating trial EVER. It's going to make OJ's trial look like a vacation in Fiji
The time I was called, it was very much like the film "12 Angry Men," except imagine that movie as a Civil Trial. What I mean by this is that each juror brings to the jury lots of their opinions, beliefs and, sometimes, "baggage." It is up to us who serve on those panels to remember that the idea is that that we uphold the objectivity of the law, work within the evidence presented and seek the "truth" as that evidence suggests free from reasonable doubt. Nothing more...nothing less.
Jury Duty is an obligation very much in the vein of what it means to be a citizen. That said, you can expect that, on the panel, 1) some will not want to be there, 2) Some won't take it seriously or won't care, 3) some will see it as their duty and 4) others will show ignorance of the system. I was elected forman of the jury and had a hard time with one fellow who wanted to disregard the judges instructions and find for the plaintiff because he saw the courts as a sort of "lottery."
My biggest challenge was to steer the jury to the notion that we had to follow the documents presented to us by the court, not to diviate. The main part of the deliberation was that one fellow wanted to award the plaintiff despite the fact that the defendant was found not libel for the incident. The documents were sort of like those "choose your own adventure" stories; much in the same manner as..."if you choose one course of action, go to page 56, if you chose the other, go to page 20." In our case, based on the evidence, the defendant was found not to be responsible. The Jury was then to proceed to the last page bypassing the awarding of compensation for the plaintiff. One fellow felt that the plaintiff needed "something" for her medical bills.
Tempers flew, I was called every name in the book... I was even given the "Who made you Boss?" retort. To which I replied that they had.
All-in-all I had a good time of it, in terms of I felt I accomplished something. Also, while tempers flew, we all left on good terms...only we have never seen one another again for conversation. I also learned that well prepared briefs and motions are critical to being a good litigator. Had the documents been written differently, other than the skilled use of words presented, the outcome of the trial would have been very different. Years of debate and study of the Judicial System had paid off.
Major:
You I'd want as a juror. You did your job the way it is supposed to be done and led your fellow jurors to do the same thing. The jury process isn't perfect but until someone comes up with a better way, its the best way we have to deliver justice. Thank you for doing your duty as a citizen and in reminding your fellow citizens of theirs.
Prosecuting attorneys and defense attorneys don't like cops, lawyers, private investigators, and related professionals on juries....we tend to pee in their pool. We also know the dark secret of the law: That a Juror can vote his conscience regardless of the law or jury instructions, which tends to irritate lawyers no-end! ( Which I have to say, genuinely pleases many of us, reinforcing our our non-juror status!)
Do you remember the lady who showed up for jury selection at the OJ trial in a Star Trek uniform, claiming she would "uphold the values of the Federation". She was either brilliant, insane, or insanely brilliant and really, really wanted out of Jury duty. Like Robert, I would love to be on a Jury ( I just get called once a year and held hostage for a day or two while they pick out the people who look like they are gullible for Jurors) But its unlikely to happen!
Major Lord
(oh yes, rattorneys also don't like people who watch "CSI" on criminal juries!)
^^^^Lord High Executioner:
Indeed. I have seen juries do goofy things, like issue a quotient verdict (everyone comes up with a number then divides by 12). Big no-no. Yes, I know that not all jurors or juries follow the law or the evidence. But I think most do. If I don't believe that, I need to get out my profession.
Another thing I've found is that you can't necessarily judge a person's proclivities by their profession. It is an important piece of information but not the whole story. There are ways in jury selection to try to get to a prospective juror's beliefs and philosophy. But I'm not going to tell you how I do it. ::)
And re CSI: I don't think that's a bad thing. I want jurors with some sophistication about the process, even if it is from TV. Of course no case I've ever had was resolved in one hour or less with time out for commercials. That's probably a bigger problem in my book--people's shorter and short attention spans and getting them from A to Z without boring the jurors to death.
And perhaps I'll change my legal name to My CAP Name as well. Kind of catchy. ::) Meet Capt My CAP Name!
Quote from: Major Lord on May 08, 2010, 10:23:42 PM
Prosecuting attorneys and defense attorneys don't like cops, lawyers, private investigators, and related professionals on juries....we tend to pee in their pool. We also know the dark secret of the law: That a Juror can vote his conscience regardless of the law or jury instructions, which tends to irritate lawyers no-end! ( Which I have to say, genuinely pleases many of us, reinforcing our our non-juror status!)
Do you remember the lady who showed up for jury selection at the OJ trial in a Star Trek uniform, claiming she would "uphold the values of the Federation". She was either brilliant, insane, or insanely brilliant and really, really wanted out of Jury duty. Like Robert, I would love to be on a Jury ( I just get called once a year and held hostage for a day or two while they pick out the people who look like they are gullible for Jurors) But its unlikely to happen!
Major Lord
(oh yes, rattorneys also don't like people who watch "CSI" on criminal juries!)
I found that attorneys and judges also hate Engineers, especially those with a good knowledge of physics and radar in traffic related cases who can prove that both sides are full of it ... >:D >:D >:D
Major Lord
(oh yes, rattorneys also don't like people who watch "CSI" on criminal juries!)
No, but its sure fun to show up on calls for a burg or a robbery and the people are waiting for the Crime Scene Investigators to show up with their guns holstered backwards and bring out the black light. They almost seem offended at the thought of a lowly patrol cop dusting for prints and collecting evidence.
Ive managed to sit at both tables in my career. As the arresting officer and as a sole defendant in a couple federal lawsuits. We wanted all the professional people who could analyze facts and the plantiff attorney was looking for jurors who didn't like cops. We had one woman who's brother had been shot by the police and the plantiff attorney instantly wanted her on the jury. She ended up on the jury also. What the plantiff forgot to ask was why the cops had shot her brother. Come to find out, he had been attacking her sister (his wife) when he got himself shot. OOOPs. I thought it was an amuzing twist.
I don't have any issue with defense lawyers who are testing the evidence, what I take issue with is when they know they are had, and they resort to correcting grammar in my report or calling my integrity into question with no basis or asking me stupid questions like if I dusted the methamphetamine for prints. Uh yeah bozo....Im going to apply fingerprint powder to powdered meth. That tells me the the defense is just trying to cast doubt by making it look like I failed at my evidence collection by making up stories.
I've been called for jury duty several times, but only caught one trial. It was an open and shut case of "attempted mutder", Two teenagers were accused of trying to run over a cop. We spent 4 hours listening to testimony, and 15 minutes deciding that the case was bogus. Now that I'm retired I look forward to serving again.
Quote from: Flying Pig on May 09, 2010, 09:48:39 PM
Major Lord
(oh yes, rattorneys also don't like people who watch "CSI" on criminal juries!)
No, but its sure fun to show up on calls for a burg or a robbery and the people are waiting for the Crime Scene Investigators to show up with their guns holstered backwards and bring out the black light. They almost seem offended at the thought of a lowly patrol cop dusting for prints and collecting evidence.
Ive managed to sit at both tables in my career. As the arresting officer and as a sole defendant in a couple federal lawsuits. We wanted all the professional people who could analyze facts and the plantiff attorney was looking for jurors who didn't like cops. We had one woman who's brother had been shot by the police and the plantiff attorney instantly wanted her on the jury. She ended up on the jury also. What the plantiff forgot to ask was why the cops had shot her brother. Come to find out, he had been attacking her sister (his wife) when he got himself shot. OOOPs. I thought it was an amuzing twist.
I don't have any issue with defense lawyers who are testing the evidence, what I take issue with is when they know they are had, and they resort to correcting grammar in my report or calling my integrity into question with no basis or asking me stupid questions like if I dusted the methamphetamine for prints. Uh yeah bozo....Im going to apply fingerprint powder to powdered meth. That tells me the the defense is just trying to cast doubt by making it look like I failed at my evidence collection by making up stories.
Most cops are actually really good witnesses--for the prosecution. They're hard to crack. What I have also found is that in the post-911 world, treating a law enforcement officer on the stand like a jerk doesn't win you points with the jury.
Actually, I quite enjoy both my prosecutorial brothers and sisters and law enforcement officers. Actually, of all the people I talk to during the course of my day or week, talking to LEOs is extremely interesting (and no, I'm not just doing it to learn their "tricks"). Cops encounter some very interesting situations and people. And they're usually pretty intelligent people, whether they have formal education or not. And most have wickedly cynical senses of humor, which I also enjoy.
For me cross examining LEOs on the stand is not personal. I have a job to do when a cop or lab tech is on the stand. I try to do it with professionalism and civility. We're all trying to do justice and we all have a different role in the judicial process. And we all have to do our jobs right to obtain a just result. And, in another hat I wear as a co-chair of the county mental illness board that commits people to the state hospital or a local psych hospital, I deal with law enforcement as allies as well. They take the people I commit on an emergency basis to the facility where they are held for treatment and observation.
So don't think just because I'm a defense attorney that means I don't like the PoPo. 5-0 is like any other group of people: most are dedicated and honest and a few are jerks and a small number are dirtbags. Kind of like lawyers or CAP members. :)