Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday February 06 2017, @12:04AM   Printer-friendly
from the serving-two-masters dept.

In a case that should have the Founders of the USA spinning in their graves, The Intercept has got hold of documents relating to Peter Thiel's NZ citizenship. These documents reveal that Thiel would not normally qualify for citizenship, which requires the holder to actually reside in New Zealand. NZ law provides for citizenship under "exceptional circumstances and public interest" for people who don't plan to live in NZ.

Thiel's extreme wealth was the exceptional circumstance that allowed for citizenship and which in turn allowed Thiel to avoid certain administrative protocols that a non-citizen would have had to follow relating to the purchase of his large estate in NZ.

As part of taking up citizenship, Thiel had to pledge an oath of loyalty to HM Queen Elizabeth II (in her role as Queen of New Zealand), which certainly raises questions about either his sincerity or his fitness to be an advisor to the President.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday February 06 2017, @05:19PM

    by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday February 06 2017, @05:19PM (#463525) Journal

    I think your sarcasm detector needs recalibration. To make my position perfectly clear to anybody else who has misunderstood:

    As the most obvious example, can an employer put surveillance cameras in the restrooms or employee changing areas of a restaurant?

    No, absolutely not.

    I don't know how things work at a beauty pageant. Possibly either the contract or the expectation is that everything is semi-public (e.g. everybody always gets dressed in a single large room with few walls and male hairstylists/tailors/etc were present too, so "everybody knows everybody can see everybody else").

    Yes, I think that is usually the case, but that still doesn't give just *anybody* the right to wander in. Think of it like military "need to know" information. You only allow in those people who have a need to be there. Hair stylists etc have a legitimate reason to be in the changing area. Delusional pussygrabbers do not. Doubly so in this case, where the girls were as young as 14 years old.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @10:01PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @10:01PM (#463717)

    I think your sarcasm detector needs recalibration.

    Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying. Apparently I do need to brush it up,

    Yes, I think that is usually the case, but that still doesn't give just *anybody* the right to wander in. Think of it like military "need to know" information. You only allow in those people who have a need to be there. Hair stylists etc have a legitimate reason to be in the changing area. Delusional pussygrabbers do not. Doubly so in this case, where the girls were as young as 14 years old.

    Here I think you may be a bit off-base. To be clear, I am not a lawyer. However, I would suggest that a court and a "reasonable person" would not agree. Assuming that public changing area I described before, if I were defending a Mr. Drumpf in court, I would have no problem suggesting that "the girls in question expect male strangers of the event to be wandering around and seeing them partially/unclothed. There is no difference between Mr. Drumpf and a hairdresser: they are both staff members in support of the event."

    I'm *sure* that a criminal court would agree, and I'm fairly sure that a civil court would agree. Note this is not saying it is moral or right; I'm only saying that it would be legal... from my non-lawyer perspective, of course.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @03:09AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @03:09AM (#463862)

      Take a long hard look at yourself in the mirror.

      You just tried to make a 'legal' argument justifying dear leader's abhorrent behavior while simultaneously saying you have no legal expertise from which to draw on. Furthermore no one else said anything about the courts. You had to grasp hard at those straws in order to come up with some rationalization to avoid admitting that the emperror has no clothes.

      That's called motivated reasoning. At least you are in good company with it, 40% of the country is so drugged out on partisanship that they too are deeply motivated reasoners when it comes to the minority president. When you finally do come down from that high, the withdrawal symptoms are going to be a bitch.