Is it illegal for a family member to withhold/hide the passport of a legal adult, from the rightful owner - in the UK? If yes, what action should be taken and on what grounds is it classed as illegal? Considering that both individuals are UK citizens, with a passport registered respectively, does it go against the law to do the aforementioned. Providing that, the true owner explicitly asks for it to be returned to them nor asks for the passport to be held be the individual, in the first place.
It is almost certainly illegal. I was unable to find UK provisions but the penalties for stealing an Australian passport are 10 years imprisonment or a fine of up to 1,000 penalty units (at time of writing a penalty unit was $170 so, $170,000) (Section 32(4) of the Australian Passports Act 2005). Under this law, the crime is knowingly having it in your possession when you know it isn't yours. Obviously, normal familial relationships would not be prosecuted (i.e. one member of the family carrying all the family's passports). Certainly, if the true owner asked for it and the possessor refused, that would trigger the crime. Furthermore, it is completely pointless - all the original owner has to do is report it stolen and apply for another one.
I believe that you have misinterpreted the case, not least because the Hudgins v I.R.S case involves this only peripherally. The original case Diviaio v Kelly was dealing with a request for the number of photographs taken of the plaintiff and if these had been disseminated outside the CIA. This is in no way shape or form a request for records (the records were found to be legitimately exempt). I see no problem in your FOI request. In fact, I can foresee the response: These, http://www.maine.gov/legis/ros/meconlaw.htm, are the laws we use to justify these actions. In a common law jurisdiction, a person (including the government) does not have to prove they are abiding by the law. The onus is on you to prove they aren't; they do not have to help you make your case.
Based on Irish law, specifically the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956, can I live abroad after naturalizing as an Irish citizen and retain my citizenship just by filling that form? Yes, subject of course to factual disputes. The statute (as amended) provides that this revocation is not possible when the citizen has &quot;registered annually in the prescribed manner his name and a declaration of his intention to retain Irish citizenship with an Irish diplomatic mission or consular office or with the Minister&quot;: Revocation of certificates of naturalisation. 19.—(1) The Minister may revoke a certificate of naturalisation if he is satisfied— (a) that the issue of the certificate was procured by fraud, misrepresentation whether innocent or fraudulent, or concealment of material facts or circumstances, or (b) that the person to whom it was granted has, by any overt act, shown himself to have failed in his duty of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State, or (c) that (except in the case of a certificate of naturalisation which is issued to a person of Irish descent or associations) the person to whom it is granted has been ordinarily resident outside the State or, in the case of an application for a certificate of naturalisation granted under section 15A, resident outside the island of Ireland (otherwise than in the public service) for a continuous period of seven years and without reasonable excuse has not during that period registered annually in the prescribed manner his name and a declaration of his intention to retain Irish citizenship with an Irish diplomatic mission or consular office or with the Minister, or (d) that the person to whom it is granted is also, under the law of a country at war with the State, a citizen of that country, or (e) that the person to whom it is granted has by any voluntary act, other than marriage or entry into a civil partnership, acquired another citizenship. To be precise, filing this declaration does not protect the citizen from revocation of naturalization under another subsection of section 19(1). But if we assume that the annual declarations were all filed promptly (or that there is a reasonable excuse for any failure to file promptly), and that there is no dispute about this, then it is plain from the statutory text that the minister has no discretion to revoke the certificate of naturalization under 19(1)(c). If it were a country like UK or New Zealand, it would straightaway revoke citizenship by claiming misrepresentation of the intention to reside. This is not necessarily true. If there is a reason for the decision to leave, the naturalized citizen could seek to rebut any presumption that there had been misrepresentation. In the case of Ireland, filing the annual declaration does not protect the naturalized citizen from denaturalization under 19(1)(a), so even if the declarations are filed, it could be necessary to show evidence that there was a genuine intention to reside in Ireland at the time of naturalization, and that the intention changed subsequently. If that intention did not in fact exist, then the minister could assert that the certificate had been obtained by fraud, and if the naturalized citizen is unable to rebut that assertion, the minister could revoke the certificate under 19(1)(a). Also see Part IV of the statute for other ways in which Irish citizenship may be lost. In practice, I don't think it is presently very common for countries that generally tolerate (or explicitly permit) multiple nationalities, such as Ireland, the UK, and New Zealand, to seek to denaturalize their naturalized citizens who move abroad. Denaturalization seems to be largely confined to politically sensational cases such as those of terrorists. Since Ireland is a party to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, one way to protect your Irish citizenship may be to renounce your other citizenship(s), if that is possible. However, I do not see any related provisions in the 1956 act linked above.
The recognition of other country’s passports is a courtesy Each nation is sovereign over its own borders. So who they allow in (and out) is a matter for them. For example, many Arab countries will ban your entry if you have an Israeli stamp in your passport no matter what nationality it is. So, yes, any country can decide not to record sex in a passport and, yes, there may be consequences in other nations.
If the parents left the brother, let's call him Bob, full or partial ownership of the house in a will, or a long-term right of tenancy, then he has a right to live there. If they left no will, their property will be handled according to the local law on intestacy. The details vary from one Australian state to another, but if neither has a living spouse, their children will probably split the estate. This will probably include a share of the house, and so Bob will have a right to live there, unless a different division is made. Or the house could be sold and the proceeds split. Bob would not have a right to live there merely because he had been living there for some years, or even all his life. Nor would Bob have such a right if he had been caring for his parents, not for that reason alone. Everything depends on who winds up owning the house. Generally the owner or owners get to decide who may live in the house. A person could also be given or left a right of occupancy. A co-owner normally has a right to live in a house. But there is no automatic right of a child to live in his or her parents' house.
If you buy a house and your wife signs a quitclaim deed to you, that transfers to you whatever rights she has in the house. Similarly, if you and your wife sign an agreement that anything deposited in a particular bank account in your name would be your separate property, that would override the pre-nup as far as that account was concerned. Such an agreement could include a dollar limit per month or per year, or an explicit purpose, such as savings for a down payment. (It could be thought of as a gift to you of her share of any funds deposited.) Giving property to your parents or others with the understanding that it will be returned on your request might be seen as an attempt to evade the pre-nup, and a court might hold that the property was actually shared, if you ever do divorce. There might also be gift tax issues if the value is high enough. Whether asking your wife to agree to a quitclaim or any sort of agreement to modify the pre-nup would help or harm your marriage I cannot know, nor did you ask that. But I would think that for most people being open would work better than going behind a spouse's back. None of this should be taken as legal advice. I am not a lawyer.
Yes, it's illegal You are missing something terribly important: The package might not be your property [yet]. In any way, it is not in your possession, while it is in the hands of the postal service! The contents of the package started fully owned by the sender and were entrusted to the postal service to deliver it. This entrustment is (contractually) defined as the time it is handed to the postal service, but the postal service does not gain any ownership. They do however have insurance on the parcel (to some degree), as they are liable for the loss of it. In many cases, the transfer of ownership happens upon delivery (for example, in the UK), so that you can't even be sure you own the contents while the box is still on the truck. At least in the eye of many postal services I know, it is the basic presumption, that they hold the item as entrusted. So to be on the safe side, it's best to presume that the package only becomes your package the moment you sign for the receipt of the package or it is dropped into your mailbox or at your dedicated dropoff point (you can specify that with many postal carriers btw). Otherwise, your actions might interfere with the contract of the mail service [to bring it to your door] and might incur liability upon them as their insurance presumes the parcel was lost and it has to be replaced. By the way, it is customary that any message of the parcel is damaged go to the sender, not the receiver so that in the case of commercial mail they can send/fund a replacement, as the sender needs to ensure that a non-defect item is delivered under their own contract with the recipient. Criminal lawsuits But, you want to know which specific law you'd be sued under 18 USC §1708 (2) not only for taking the box, but also for taking the item from the box (emphasis mine)! Whoever steals, takes, or abstracts, or by fraud or deception obtains, or attempts so to obtain, from or out of any mail, post office, or station thereof, letter box, mail receptacle, or any mail route or other authorized depository for mail matter, or from a letter or mail carrier, any letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or abstracts or removes from any such letter, package, bag, or mail, any article or thing contained therein, or secretes, embezzles, or destroys any such letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or any article or thing contained therein [...] Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. The act of taking is relevant. It is irrelevant that you would receive the parcel later. You take it from the car on the delivery route. You also do trespass under whatever jurisdiction applies where the car is parked. For example, Criminal Trespass on Indian country is defined under 25.CFR § 11.411 (b). The rules in other jurisdictions are very similar: you are not allowed to enter the car, as it is clearly off-limits to the general public. The car is btw. supposed to be closed to prevent such, so you have to actually break property of the postal service (which is an extra charge to just the normal B&amp;E). (b) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he or she is not licensed or privileged to do so, he or she enters or remains in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by: (3) Fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to exclude intruders. A car door, even if not locked and left ajar, is an enclosure manifestly designed to exclude intruders, and the inside of a car is &quot;any place&quot;. So, in the correct jurisdiction, this statute of criminal trespass does apply. And as pointed out above, taking the mail without the driver knowing is illegal. In some fashion, taking your own mail is also a strange case of obstructing the correspondence, which specifically calls out that the parcel has to be given by the mailman to the recipient (emphasis mine). Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post office or any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any letter or mail carrier, or which has been in any post office or authorized depository, or in the custody of any letter or mail carrier, before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If it is discovered by the driver while still on route, they will have to call the base and investigate the missing parcel, which takes time from the delivery, so might constitute retarding the passage of mail. If you break the lock to the car, you'd be charged as Injury to mail bags: Whoever tears, cuts, or otherwise injures any mail bag, pouch, or other thing used or designed for use in the conveyance of the mail, or draws or breaks any staple or loosens any part of any lock, chain, or strap attached thereto, with intent to rob or steal any such mail, or to render the same insecure, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. A Postal car, especially with a lock on the door, is such a device. And if you somehow had the key to the car, you'd break 18 USC § 1704 instead. Plus, your taking does possibly incur monetary damages to the postal carrier, so civil charges for that money and expenses in investigating would also accrue against the taking person. civil lawsuits? If you'd take the parcel, you make the postal driver accountable for the loss of the parcel and the worth of the package, as the internal system of the postal service does recognize that they did not deliver the parcel, did not scan it out at the home base, but they did scan it onto their route. So unless they can point the finger at you or a known thief, they might need to admit that they did not lock the car or committed some other misconduct that allowed someone to steal the parcel. This can lead to the financial loss of the delivery driver or them being fired. Should the mail carrier or the postal service discover it was you, the mail carrier can now sue you for the injury the lost parcel meant to them as you interfered with their work contract. The tort is Tortious interference. Then, the mail service can sue you for intentionally interfering with the delivery contract the service had with the one ordering the delivery done: they were required to bring the parcel to the target and got paid for that. Only your action of taking did prevent this. Would you not have taken the parcel, they would have delivered, so you interfered with their contract. Life Advice: Approach the driver, get out a photo-ID (Drivers license, passport, ID-card etc) and ask them something akin to this &quot;The website told me you might have a parcel for me. Can you look? I am this person, and this ID proves I live at the target address, as indicated on this ID.&quot; With those credentials in hand, the postal driver can check and give it to you but isn't technically obligated to. But as it often means they can save a few valuable minutes getting to your house, they might, especially if you know your mail carrier and are friendly. On the other hand, it's extremely unlikely for letter mail to be given this way, as searching for a parcel on a truck is much easier than looking for the letter mails in the bags.
The Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 §8 requires it, so from a legal perspective, you must do it. That law does not specify the consequences, and there isn't a clear limit on the possible punishment. The government does invite you to inquire about your penalty, saying The Indian Citizenship Act, 1955, does not allow dual citizenship. Holding Indian passport/acquiring Indian passport/travelling on Indian passport after acquisition of foreign citizenship constitutes an offence under the Indian Passport Act, 1967, and attracts penalties. The Government of India has prescribed imposition of penalty on a graded scale, depending on number of trips made on Indian passport after acquiring foreign nationality, for the violation of Passport Rules and retention of Indian Passport for more than 3 years after acquiring of foreign nationality. §12 of the Passport Act spells out the penalties (up to 5 years in prison and ₹50,000. If you can avoid being in illegal possession of an Indian passport, you might avoid prosecution under the act (though they probably cannot get you extradited to enforce the penalty). They certainly have the power to revoke your passport, but no provision of the law obligates you to formally apply for a passport revocation when you believe that your passport should be revoked. Unless you officially renounce your citizenship, do the paperwork, and officially surrender your passport, the government can reasonably suspect that you are illegally in possession of an illegal passport, so they are empowered to investigate, including searching and seizing. However, if you have zero interest in India, that may not matter.