Lord Zee
BBeast
DracoLunaris
Frettzo
Cyclone
Vec
Torack
In others news, the next turn will likely arrive on the 30th of May. On the 1st of June our partial-hiatus will officially come to a close. Not that it seems to have been much of a hiatus really, partial or otherwise xDD
Kho Member
STATUS: "Soon you will have forgotten all things. And soon all things will have forgotten you." 6 yrs ago
Status
Recent Statuses
6 yrs ago
Current
"Soon you will have forgotten all things. And soon all things will have forgotten you."
1
like
Bio
Most Recent Posts
@Antarctic Termite How does it work exactly? I've installed it to chrome and I've got the little icon where all the app icons are. But have no idea if it's functioning or not, or how to access where things are meant to be saved.
Right, I'm going in. Wish me luck.
I'm guessing that the spam-like feel to all of that was intentional. Will an African prince who lost his throne, or an Indian lady who just inherited her great grandfather's uncle's son's daughter's friend's cousin's daughter's husband's step-brother's wife's book on 'How to make money' respond if I email regarding potential interest in the item advertised?
*when that's the story of your writing life*
I'm not alone T-T
I'm not alone T-T
Bloody hell - guys. This would be fascinating to explore ICly:
In Marckx v Belgium, 'Ms. Paula Marckx, being unmarried, gave birth to a daughter in 1973. Under Belgian law, no legal bond between an unmarried mother and her child resulted from the mere fact of birth. To create the bond, the mother had either to recognise maternity in specific proceedings or to adopt the child. In both cases, the child's inheritance rights remained less than those a child born in marriage received automatically.'
Woah. Might do it myself if no one has by the time I'm free.
Edit: I can understand there being no link between an illegitimate child and the father. But the mother, that's new.
Edit 2: I believe the relevant law has since been abolished.
In Marckx v Belgium, 'Ms. Paula Marckx, being unmarried, gave birth to a daughter in 1973. Under Belgian law, no legal bond between an unmarried mother and her child resulted from the mere fact of birth. To create the bond, the mother had either to recognise maternity in specific proceedings or to adopt the child. In both cases, the child's inheritance rights remained less than those a child born in marriage received automatically.'
Woah. Might do it myself if no one has by the time I'm free.
Edit: I can understand there being no link between an illegitimate child and the father. But the mother, that's new.
Edit 2: I believe the relevant law has since been abolished.
@Muttonhawk You brought this on yourself. I shall henceforth remember cases based on stuff from the guild.
There is CS & Rendón Marín (2016). CS obviously stands for Character Sheet. As for Rendón Marín. I know for certain that they have two foreign letters in them - so I start from there and hope for the best.
Writes in exam
The case of Baumbast & R (2002) (i.e BBeaster) concerned a German father who left the UK to work elsewhere, leaving his wife and children in the UK. It was combined with the case of R who were the children of a divorced American woman. In both cases, the children (and through them, their non-Eu mothers) had a right to remain in the UK. The right of the mothers to remain, strangely, was considered 'independent' and would become a permanent personal right to remain once 5 years had passed. Much of this is now contained in the Directive, but the cases are good to know too.
The case of Punakova (2012) (aka Puny Malchivo) concerned a Czech full-time mother who was formerly self-employed, living in the UK. The question arose of whether she, having been self-employed rather than conventionally employed, could be considered a 'worker' and thus have a right to remain in the UK - along with her child. The court never got to decide, as it was ascertained that the father had in fact been employed in the UK, and so the child had a right to remain in the UK. The mother had a derived right through him. The status of self-employed EU workers, thanks to the unsatisfactory escapism of the judges in Puny Malchivo's case, remains uncertain.
I will keep you posted on the others.
Woah, when wasting your time on RPGuild because you don't want to revise turned into the most productive revision session in ages.
There is CS & Rendón Marín (2016). CS obviously stands for Character Sheet. As for Rendón Marín. I know for certain that they have two foreign letters in them - so I start from there and hope for the best.
Writes in exam
The case of Baumbast & R (2002) (i.e BBeaster) concerned a German father who left the UK to work elsewhere, leaving his wife and children in the UK. It was combined with the case of R who were the children of a divorced American woman. In both cases, the children (and through them, their non-Eu mothers) had a right to remain in the UK. The right of the mothers to remain, strangely, was considered 'independent' and would become a permanent personal right to remain once 5 years had passed. Much of this is now contained in the Directive, but the cases are good to know too.
The case of Punakova (2012) (aka Puny Malchivo) concerned a Czech full-time mother who was formerly self-employed, living in the UK. The question arose of whether she, having been self-employed rather than conventionally employed, could be considered a 'worker' and thus have a right to remain in the UK - along with her child. The court never got to decide, as it was ascertained that the father had in fact been employed in the UK, and so the child had a right to remain in the UK. The mother had a derived right through him. The status of self-employed EU workers, thanks to the unsatisfactory escapism of the judges in Puny Malchivo's case, remains uncertain.
I will keep you posted on the others.
Woah, when wasting your time on RPGuild because you don't want to revise turned into the most productive revision session in ages.
So, there's this EU case I want to remember called Metock - decided 2008. It basically interpreted Article 3 of the Citizen's Directive 2004/38 as requiring citizens of the EU to have moved from their member state of origin to a host member state before relying on EU law regarding free movement. (Did you understand any of that? Yeah, me neither).
I was looking at this case, Metock, and I thought to myself - that sounds a lot like Mutton. Hey, I know a Mutton. A Mutton Hawk. MuttonHawk. Muttawk. Metock. It's perfect.
Thank you Muttawk, your username has saved the day.
I was looking at this case, Metock, and I thought to myself - that sounds a lot like Mutton. Hey, I know a Mutton. A Mutton Hawk. MuttonHawk. Muttawk. Metock. It's perfect.
Thank you Muttawk, your username has saved the day.
@Double Capybara Capy...
© 2007-2024