Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
posted by on Friday January 27 2017, @04:01AM   Printer-friendly
from the the-ancestral-hobbit-homeland dept.

During their investigation of the purchase of a large estate in New Zealand by Peter Thiel, Matt Nippert and Anne Gibson, reporters for The New Zealand Herald, noticed that certain processes required by the Overseas Investment Act had not been followed. The explanation: Peter Thiel is a NZ citizen and hence wasn't required to follow the procedures for an overseas investment.

If Thiel is so sure that Trump will deliver, why does he need a bolt hole and more importantly, citizenship in another country?

The New York Times adds:

One question being asked was why Mr. Thiel became a New Zealander in 2011. Close behind that was how it happened.

If you like New Zealand enough to want to become a citizen, the country's Internal Affairs Department noted on Wednesday, one requirement is "to have been physically in New Zealand for a minimum of 1,350 days in the five years preceding the citizenship application." Another requirement is that you "continue to reside" there after becoming a citizen.

Mr. Thiel, 49, does not appear to have done either.

[...] If Mr. Thiel was not a resident in New Zealand for the necessary amount of time, an exception must have been made. The government has not responded to questions about whether that happened and, if so, what the reason was.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday January 28 2017, @09:37AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 28 2017, @09:37AM (#459850) Journal

    First, the obliteration of European nobility in a bunch of nasty wars from the 15th to 17th centuries.

    WTF? Alternative history now? Is this khallow, or has Runaway taken over the account?

    For example, in England there was the War of Roses [wikipedia.org] through to the English Civil War [wikipedia.org]. Feudalism was quite dead by the end of the English Civil War. A key early battle in Continental Europe was the 1415 Battle of Agincourt which saw the destruction of a huge portion of French knights by English bowmen. A similar key ending event in Europe was the Thirty Years' War [wikipedia.org] ending with the Peace of Westphalia [wikipedia.org] in 1648.

    And I notice that you have yet to say why you're being derisive. Do you actually know any relevant history?