Is a passport proof or presumption of citizenship? This is not a joke question. I've learned something strange through the reply to a minor interpellation by parliament. One would assume that a passport is a proof of citizenship of that country? In Germany apparently it is less than proof. In Germany a German passport only counts as presumption of German citizenship. They wrote, in German language, and translated by me to English (German original below): The citizenship card is the only document with which the existence of German citizenship in all matters for which it is right - is significant and binding (§ 30 StAG). The German passport and identity card are no proof for the German Citizenship, they justify a presumption that the holder of the German nationality. Most Germans poses a German ID card and a lot posses a German passport. The citizenship card (Staatsangehörigkeitsausweis) however is a rarity of which in the year 2018 only a number of 174558 existed (Germany has a population of 83 million). This number comes was soured from another minor interpellation by parliament. Rather, noways it is difficult for Germans born citizen to acquire a citizenship card (Staatsangehörigkeitsausweis). Authorities refuse to process applications for citizenship cards due to "lack of justification" (German, really hard to translate, "fehlendes schutzwürdigen Sachbescheidungsinteresse"). Even a court ruled: Applications for the determination of the existence of the German nationality (§ 30 paragraph 1 sentence 1 StAG) are rejected if they are lacking the necessary dignity of interest. Let me summarize that for you: The German passport and identity card are no proof for the German Citizenship, they justify a presumption that the holder of the German nationality, yet authorities refuse to process citizenship cards, which would be proof, and a court agreed with them. In the view of German administration, unless German citizen specially are required to have a citizenship card for some purpose, they don't have the right to acquire a document that would proof that they are German citizen. Is a passport proof or presumption of citizenship? German original: Der Staatsangehörigkeitsausweis ist das einzige Dokument, mit dem das Bestehen der deutschen Staatsangehörigkeit in allen Angelegenheiten, für die es rechts - erheblich ist, verbindlich feststellt wird (§ 30 StAG). Der deutsche Reisepass und Personalausweis sind kein Nachweis für die deutsche Staatsangehörigkeit, sie begründen nur eine Vermutung, dass der Inhaber die deutsche Staatsangehörigkeit besitzt. German source: Landtag von Baden-Württemberg 16. Wahlperiode Drucksache 16/1883 04.04.2017 https://www.landtag-bw.de/files/live/sites/LTBW/files/dokumente/WP16/Drucksachen/1000/16_1883_D.pdf
It depends on the issuing country. The primary purpose of a passport is to enable the holder to travel internationally, not to prove citizenship. Most countries only issue passports to their citizens, which has made such passports widely recognised as proof of citizenship — both inside and outside of the issuing country. But at the end of the day it is up to the country to decide whether to follow this established pattern or not. For example, Estonia does not. And, of course, it is up to the country to decide which documents prove citizenship of their own citizens inside. Say in Russia a Russian passport for international travel is not a valid document for identification/proving citizenship. So-called "internal passport", similar to that of German citizenship card, serves for this role.
The fact that it is possible to engage in fraud, doesn't mean that it is impossible to prove something. Usually, in a civil action, testimony that a business record says something and that it was not falsified is sufficient to meet a preponderance of the evidence standard (i.e. to establish to the satisfaction of a judge or jury that it is more likely that something is true than it is that it isn't true). It is easy to forge checks too (and hard to prove that a signature is fake), but that doesn't mean that you can't prove payment by check or that negotiable instruments are useless.
Yes and No Germany has several criminal records. Technically, all convictions lead to a criminal record in that there is a record in the Federal Central Register. However, in common usage, a “criminal record” means a crime that appears on a Certificate of Good Conduct. Which crimes do appear is complicated but basically, if you only have one conviction and the fine was less than a specific amount or had a suspended sentenced less than 3 months that conviction won’t appear.
Does this mean that anyone who is born in the US is automatically a US citizen, whether they want it or not? Yes (subject to a couple of exceptions, namely the children of diplomats with full immunity and the children of a hostile foreign occupier). Or does this amendment just offer the possibility of requesting citizenship? In other words: is there an action to be made in order to become a US citizen when born in the US (and therefore one is not before this action is performed)? No. For someone who falls under the 14th amendment's citizenship clause, the only way to avoid being a US citizen is to relinquish or renounce it, which generally means that one is stuck with the US citizenship for at least 18 years. Most countries' citizenship laws, or at least all of those with which I am familiar, operate this way—automatically—for "normal" cases of acquisition of citizenship by virtue of the circumstances of birth. This is true whether the citizenship derives from the place of birth or from the parents' citizenship.
First, no, given the wording of the question: &quot;by demanding identity first&quot;. US courts have never held that citizens must immediately comply with non-emergency orders free of back-talk. Let's assume that the refusal is conditional: &quot;I won't comply until you show me your ID&quot;. In most (?) jurisdictions, there is no obligation imposed on police to show ID, though I am excluding home searches. There is a policy requirement in Seattle (§7) that Employees may use a Department-issued business card that contains their name and serial number to satisfy the request for the information. Employees will also show their department identification card and badge (sworn) when specifically requested to do so. Exception: Employees are not required to immediately identify themselves if: An investigation is jeopardized A police function is hindered There is a safety consideration Massachusetts has a law saying that &quot;Such identification card shall be carried on the officer's person and shall be exhibited upon lawful request for purposes of identification&quot;. In the domain of search and seizure law, the court reasoned in Doornbos v. Chicago, regarding a seizure by plainclothes police that Absent reasonable grounds to think that identification would present an unusual danger, it is generally not a reasonable tactic for plainclothes officers to fail to identify themselves when conducting a stop. The tactic provokes panic and hostility from confused civilians who have no way of knowing that the stranger who seeks to detain them is an officer... it is usually unreasonable for a plainclothes officer to fail to identify himself when conducting a stop or frisk As you can see, this identification requirement is tied to constitutional search and seizure limits for which there is voluminous case law regarding what is &quot;reasonable&quot;. The scenario that you propose is fairly far from the kind of case identified in Doornbos: is the order from a uniformed officer in a police vehicle? That seems to be what you're describing. Now we must inquire as to the legality of the order. Picking on Washington state law, RCW 46.61.015 requires that No person shall willfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any duly authorized flagger or any police officer or firefighter invested by law with authority to direct, control, or regulate traffic. RCW 46.61.021 requires a person driving to stop for a LEO, and to identify himself: failure to comply is a misdemeanor. There is no statutory provision that a person can refuse to obey these (or similar sections in the motor vehicle title) until the officer provides ID. A police officer (in Washington: and I suspect any other state) does not have unrestricted authority to give people orders, there are specific statutory circumstances giving police the power to order people to do things. Obstructing a police officer is a crime, but obstructing an officer is where one &quot;willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties&quot;, and not &quot;doesn't cooperate&quot;. There is a provision, RCW 9a.76.030 where A person is guilty of refusing to summon aid for a peace officer if, upon request by a person he or she knows to be a peace officer, he or she unreasonably refuses or fails to summon aid for such peace officer and the &quot;knows to be a peace officer&quot; clause implies either that the officer is uniformed, or has provided identification. Finally, we have &quot;failure to disperse&quot; when a person congregates with a group of three or more other persons and there are acts of conduct within that group which create a substantial risk of causing injury to any person, or substantial harm to property; and (b) He or she refuses or fails to disperse when ordered to do so by a peace officer or other public servant engaged in enforcing or executing the law. These laws are attuned to emergency needs, thus outside the penumbra of your scenario. In short, the primary question must be, when can police lawfully give you an order that you must obey, which narrows the matter down to traffic-related matters. The seizure must be reasonable: it is reasonable to require a person to stop for a uniformed officer. Reasonability does not entail that all officers must produce ID when effecting a seizure, but this may be the case with plain-clothes officers. Even when in Seattle with a departmental policy requiring officers to identify themselves, an officer's failure to identify does not render the seizure illegal.
NY Est Pow &amp; Trusts L § 3-2.1(a)(1)(C)(4) requires that There shall be at least two attesting witnesses, who shall, within one thirty day period, both attest the testator's signature, as affixed or acknowledged in their presence, and at the request of the testator, sign their names and affix their residence addresses at the end of the will. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the thirty day requirement of the preceding sentence has been fulfilled. The failure of a witness to affix his address shall not affect the validity of the will. That means that the witnesses attest to having seen you sign the will, and you must know that it is a will being signed. There is no requirement that they see the will itself, and they do not &quot;attest&quot; anything regarding sound mind, memory or testamentary capacity. It is not required that witnesses receive a copy of the will (for any reason), and it is probably extremely rare for them to do so. However, a witness could be called, during a subsequent court procedure, to testify as to relevant facts such as that a beneficiary held a gun to the testator's head.
The key word is "uses". What does it mean to use a passport? It means providing it as evidence of identity. No one acting in a movie is attempting to convince anyone else - in real life - of their identity with a simulated passport. Nor is anyone impersonating a police officer or kidnapping anyone or falsely accusing anyone in the normal process of making a movie.
Documents from countries which did not sign (or to be received by non-signatory countries) must be certified by the foreign ministry of the source country (or its equivalent) and then further certified by the foreign ministry of the receiving country, before such documents can be used in legal proceedings. The Wikipedia article says: A state that has not signed the Convention must specify how foreign legal documents can be certified for its use. Two countries may have a special convention on the recognition of each other's public documents, but in practice this is infrequent. Otherwise, the document must be certified by the foreign ministry of the country in which the document originated, and then by the foreign ministry of the government of the state in which the document will be used; one of the certifications will often be performed at an embassy or consulate. In practice this means the document must be certified twice before it can have legal effect in the receiving country. For example, as Canada is not a signatory, Canadian documents for use abroad must be certified by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs in Ottawa or by a Canadian consular official abroad, and subsequently by the relevant government office or consulate of the receiving state. This seems to answer the question rather completely.