Found Deceased TX - Sherin Mathews, 3, Richardson, 7 Oct 2017 #5 *Arrest*

[CanadianWells]

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/dual-citizenship-allowed-naturalizing-us-citizens.html

''Nevertheless, U.S. practice, as upheld in various court decisions, is to allow dual citizenship. (You can see this on the U.S. State Department’s website, for example, where it explains that: “U.S. law does not . . . require a person to choose one citizenship or another.”)

The United States will not ask naturalizing citizens to take any steps to formally renounce the citizenship of their home country.''

This. I’m not sure what value the info has to the case, but it’s the only info i have to offer. My family are all dual US citizens. 6 sibs, our parents, my kids, my nieces and nephews... have lived and worked in both and could jump back and forth doing that as a dual for eternity.

Also, thank you all for all of your posts. I’ve been ghosting this site for a long time now since a few cases really got to me and made me stop coming as often or posting... but I’ve never stopped appreciating and ghosting this community.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Yes (and no)

To my knowledge, she can refuse to be questioned or give any type of statement. It is her legal right, as it is every citizens right, especially if that statement would be lies or self-incriminating. So in that sense, YES she can continue to refuse without being charged.

The NO comes in because if they have enough evidence they can appeal to the courts to compel her to make a statement under oath. I am not sure if this is done before a grand jury or in a regular court setting, but when this does happen you often just hear the person say "I plead the fifth" over and over again.

IF someone or the evidence, implicates Sini and she is arrested, they can basically question her as much as they feel like as long as she is in custody. She can refuse to answer, but if she is in custody there is no one to stop LE from going to talk to her. In that case I BELIEVE her lawyers could have the place she is being held have law enforcement etc removed from her visitors list but I am not sure if there are legal steps to keeping LE away if she were to be in a jail.

If you think about it what she is doing is fairly smart in not going down to talk to them. Once you are down on their turf they can and often will keep people for hours and hours with "just a few more questions" and basically be detaining you in hopes you will talk. Though, I do think her council should set up a meeting with LE either at his office, or at a place she is comfortable, just so she an reiterate that she was in fact asleep and heard nothing... (or whatever her story initially was). Keeping it on her turf would mean that at any point she or her lawyers could say "that's all" and have LE leave

Once an attorney has been retained, I believe they must be present at questioning.

 

[MarisaS1985]

Not sure about this... I have a friend who is American but whose grandmother is Irish and mother is dual. She then applied for dual just because she could within Irish laws, as at the time it meant she could easily travel Europe and she would be studying abroad.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

This citizenship stuff is interesting. My dad was born in the USA as it was the closest hospital to his town (we are Canadian). About 10 years ago when he was around 50, our government suddenly needed proof for some document and it took about 18 months for him to get a letter from the USA and the hospital and such, in order to get that information the USA required he pick which citizenship he wanted, Canadian or US and said he could not have both. He went with Canadian because other than the week he was in the hospital at birth he was in Canada. He doesn't have a passport as he has never traveled and the US/CAN passport requirement is new within about the last 8 years or so, but now I am wondering if he would need a US passport or a Canadian one simply based on his place of birth? This also has me wondering about this case, because while we believe older sister was born in the USA and therefore has citizenship, if both parents do not have actual citizenship, does that mean that India could in some way claim her as theirs the way my dad was "Canadian" by default despite his place of birth.... Hmmmmmmmm

 

[CTHR]

And on another note , I am shocked at how many people that I know ( and respect and love in several cases ) have no idea if this case , they don't have any interest , they don't watch the news because it's depressing , the reasons are unbelievable .
It's no wonder these things occur ..
I am so grateful for all of you ... for this site , for all the knowledge , time and effort and genuine concern for these precious children that in most cases can't speak for themselves ... keep doing what you do ! It matters !

 

[Margo/Mom]

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/dual-citizenship-allowed-naturalizing-us-citizens.html

''Nevertheless, U.S. practice, as upheld in various court decisions, is to allow dual citizenship. (You can see this on the U.S. State Department’s website, for example, where it explains that: “U.S. law does not . . . require a person to choose one citizenship or another.&#8221

The United States will not ask naturalizing citizens to take any steps to formally renounce the citizenship of their home country.''

Thanks for the correction.

 

[MarisaS1985]

Once an attorney has been retained, I believe they must be present at questioning.

You can actually waive your right to have your attorney present at any stage, but most good attorneys do their darnedest to make sure that their client isn't ever in a position where they may be able to say "yeah lets just get these few questions over with"... Right now I am thinking about the very popular Making a Murderer case, Brendan Dassey was in prison but not convicted yet, and he had an "expert" come in and speak to him, then that expert spoke to his lawyer and then to the police and then the police came in and spoke to him. This questioning and stuff is now in the appeals court and stuff but in this case Dassey wasn't aware of his rights or of how a lawyer should act and the police were able to really benefit from this...

 

[bluesneakers]

Not sure about this... I have a friend who is American but whose grandmother is Irish and mother is dual. She then applied for dual just because she could within Irish laws, as at the time it meant she could easily travel Europe and she would be studying abroad.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I have American friends who are dual citizens and some whose children are dual citizens (one parent from one country, the other American). I've considered getting dual citizenship to avoid nervousness at the border.

 

[cvaldez1975]

Even at $710 a month for one child, that is very affordable for childcare in the area. It is VERY expensive here.

We don't know anything about their financial situation, so I'm holding off on opinions about that.

It's about 1k a month here average. If you are super lucky you can find 800. [emoji30]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cvaldez1975]

She's got a license for both. Someone looked it up and posted screen shots.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

From what I know, sometimes you go for your LVN then take cohorts or "bridges" for your RN. If you already work in the medical field, sometimes your employer will help pay for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sillybilly]

Posts speculating on SA have been removed because at this point there is nothing to indicate that such an act took place.

Let's wait for autopsy results without engaging in speculation that is thus far unsubstantiated.

:tyou:

 

[*JMO*]

Not sure about this... I have a friend who is American but whose grandmother is Irish and mother is dual. She then applied for dual just because she could within Irish laws, as at the time it meant she could easily travel Europe and she would be studying abroad.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I agree. I was born in the USA with an American citizen father and and Irish citizen mother. I was automatically an Irish and American citizen and a dual citizen. I carry both passports. My children and husband are also dual citizens having applied for Irish citizenship through me. Each country makes their own laws about acquiring and allowing dual citizenship. In the US it is pretty lenient.

 

[MarisaS1985]

And on another note , I am shocked at how many people that I know ( and respect and love in several cases ) have no idea if this case , they don't have any interest , they don't watch the news because it's depressing , the reasons are unbelievable .
It's no wonder these things occur ..
I am so grateful for all of you ... for this site , for all the knowledge , time and effort and genuine concern for these precious children that in most cases can't speak for themselves ... keep doing what you do ! It matters !

I am in Canada and only heard about the case because I saw the Amber Alert on twitter, that is why I was so upset when they removed the Amber Alert as within about an hour Sherin went from top trending to not trending at all. People assume when it disappears that the person has been found. I always google to see and realized she wasn't located and it seemed very odd so I came over here! NBCDFW doesn't allow me to watch the broadcasts or live on their website and neither do several other MSM sources so my main source of media has been the CBS DFW and the FB live from Fox4 and from Maria Guerrero. There are a TON of people who go to those live streams from all over the world.

 

[Grouchymom]

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/dual-citizenship-allowed-naturalizing-us-citizens.html

''Nevertheless, U.S. practice, as upheld in various court decisions, is to allow dual citizenship. (You can see this on the U.S. State Department’s website, for example, where it explains that: “U.S. law does not . . . require a person to choose one citizenship or another.&#8221

The United States will not ask naturalizing citizens to take any steps to formally renounce the citizenship of their home country.''

***************************


And yet here is the citizenship oath:

Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America[FONT=source_sans_pro_regular]Oath[/FONT]
[FONT=source_sans_pro_regular]"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God." [/FONT]

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-10345.html

**********************

INA: ACT 337 - OATH OF RENUNCIATION AND ALLEGIANCE


Sec. 337. [8 U.S.C. 1448]


(a) A person who has applied for naturalization shall, in order to be and before being admitted to citizenship, take in a public ceremony before the Attorney General or a court with jurisdiction under section 310(b) an oath



(1) to support the Constitution of the United States;



(2) to renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen;



(3) to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;



(4) to bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and



(5) (A) to bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law, or



(B) to perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law, or



(C) to perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law. Any such person shall be required to take an oath containing the substance of clauses
(1) through (5) of the preceding sentence, except that a person who shows by clear and convincing evidence to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that he is opposed to the bearing of arms in the Armed Forces of the United States by reason of religious training and belief shall be required to take an oath containing the substa nce of clauses
(1) through (4) and clauses (5)(B) and (5)(C), and a person who shows by clear and convincing evidence to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that he is opposed to any type of service in the Armed Forces of the United States by reason of religious training and belief shall be required to take an oath containing the substance of clauses
(1) through (4) and clause (5)(C). The term "religious training and belief" as used in this section shall mean an individual's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code. In the case of the naturalization of a child under the provisions of section 322 of this title the Attorney General may waive the taking of the oath if in the opinion of the Attorney General the child is unable to understand its meaning. 1/ The Attorney General may waive the taking of the oath by a person if in the opinion of the Attorney General the person is unable to understand, or to communicate an understanding of, its meaning because of a physical or developmental disability or mental impairment. If the Attorney General waives the taking of the oath by a person under the preceding sentence, the person shall be considered to have met the requirements of section 316(a)(3) with respect to attachment to the principles of the Constitution and well disposition to the good order and happiness of the United States.



(b) In case the person applying for naturalization has borne any hereditary title, or has been of any of the orders of nobility in any foreign state, the applicant shall in addition to complying with the requirements of subsection (a) of this section, make under oath in the same public ceremony in which the oath of allegiance is administered, an express renunciation of such title or order of nobility, and such renunciation shall be recorded as a part of such proceedings.


(c) Notwithstanding section 310(b) , an individual may be granted an expedited judicial oath administration ceremony or administrative naturalization by the Attorney General upon demonstrating sufficient cause. In determining whether to grant an expedited judicial oath administration ceremony, a court shall consider special circumstances (such as serious illness of the applicant or a member of the applicant's immediate family, permanent disability sufficiently incapacitating as to prevent the applicant's personal appearance at the schedule d ceremony, developmental disability or advanced age, or exigent circumstances relating to travel or employment). If an expedited judicial oath administration ceremony is impracticable, the court shall refer such individual to the Attorney General who may provide for immediate administrative naturalization.


(d) The Attorney General shall prescribe rules and procedures to ensure that the ceremonies conducted by the Attorney General for the administration of oaths of allegiance under this section are public, conducted frequently and at regular intervals, and are in keeping with the dignity of the occasion.

FOOTNOTES FOR SECTION 337

INA: ACT 337 FN 1

FN 1 Section 1 of Public Law 106-448, dated November 6, 2000, amended paragraph (a). The amendment by section 1 shall apply to persons applying for naturalization before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-10309.html

**************************************

[S.2812]

One Hundred Sixth Congress of the United States of America


AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,

the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand


An Act ​

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide a waiver of the oath of renunciation and allegiance for naturalization of aliens having certain disabilities.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. WAIVER OF OATH OF RENUNCIATION AND ALLEGIANCE FOR NATURALIZATION OF ALIENS HAVING CERTAIN DISABILITIES.



Section 337(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1448(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: “The Attorney General may waive the taking of the oath by a person if in the opinion of the Attorney General the person is unable to understand, or to communicate an understanding of, its meaning because of a physical or developmental disability or mental impairment. If the Attorney General waives the taking of the oath by a person under the preceding sentence, the person shall be consider ed to have met the requirements of section 316(a)(3) with respect to attachment to the principles of the Constitution and well disposition to the good order and happiness of the United States.”.


SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendment made by section 1 shall apply to persons applying for naturalization before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-10309.html

********************

I also apologize for using the term “OCI as out of County Indian”
I read that and posted it somewhere in the previously thread regarding Indian / US adoption guidance from the US State Department. I will make every attempt to replace it in my tired old brain with the more often used “Overseas Citizenship of India”

Red BBM

:blushing::facepalm::thinking::blushing:

 

[Grouchymom]

O/T a bit, but I was reading Gibbs and Nolte's info on their lawyer website and was surprised to see that Gibbs was previously in LE and Nolte was previously a prosecutor.
I wonder if they saw too many people being railroaded and decided to switch sides or what would cause a lawyer to switch from putting the "bad guy" away to defending them...
Sorry, was just a random thought...

http://www.mckinneylaw.com/lawyers/gregg-m-gibbs/

http://www.mckinneylaw.com/lawyers/mitchell-r-nolte/

A larger paycheck LOL

 

[MsMarple]

Did you find out what type of lawyer he is? Civil, criminal, family...

O/T I refuse to subscribe either when I am only interested in one or two articles here and there! I would be willing to donate a dollar or something though if they had that sort of option on these news sites! A 'like what you see? Donate a cup of coffee" button would be awesome, esp when following a single case covered well!!

ETA I googled and actually think I found him straight away. Here is the link http://www.mckinneylaw.com/lawyers/mitchell-r-nolte/

A criminal defense attorney.

That's the same firm of Gregg Gibbs, one of the early attorneys. So maybe he's handed her case over to his partner?

 

[margarita25]

http://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Body-found-in-Richardson-search-for-Sherin-Matthews-452318173.html

 

[Karinna]

Hopefully, the autopsy will clearly state what had and had not been done to this precious little girl. <keeping fingers crossed>

I hope so too. My opinion is all the milk stories are fabricated, and that he lost it on Sherin and choked her with his own hands. It wouldn't take much to choke out a very small child and she would probably have gone unconscious in about a minute or two and with that her heart went into cardiac arrest that she never recovered from. I think her death will be by asphyxiation IMO, unless it was something else like blunt force trauma? He says choking on milk because IMO he can't say he did it with his own two hands because that would be a murder charge.
But will see what the coroner has to say, hopefully within the next couple of days.

 

[Javagal1978]

A larger paycheck LOL

That's exactly what I thought, too, lol!

 

[MsFacetious]

That bothered me, too. I read that they were immediately taken with her because she was smiling all the time. It did not seem to me that they heard anything else yet about her and that they were adamant that SHE was the child they wanted. That tells me they were expecting an 'easy' child. A special needs child required an enormous amount of patience. No one with a quick temper should ever adopt a special needs child.

No one with a quick temper should adopt a child, PERIOD. :twocents:

Just a poll, who has ever done anything remotely close to bringing your 4 year old to a garage to feed them milk (or ensure if thats what it was)

There is a troubled history for adopted kids....

I had two kids in 10 months. One was a perfect angel... the other cured my desire for more kids for 8 years. She essentially screamed for her first 2 years. There was many, many nights when I would go out into the garage or into the van in the garage with her. My husband had to sleep sometime and it was traumatizing for her sister to be continually awakened by the screaming.

I did it a few times with my toddler for the same reason. If my husband had to work the next morning I'd try to prevent him from being awakened if I could.

I don't ever recall feeding any of them out there (with the exception of nursing.) All of them had issues gaining weight and growing at some point.

Diana Zoga Twitter
Richardson PD: asking for mother of #SherinMathews to come in and speak with detectives. Making a direct plea this afternoon&#128064;

This makes me want to cry. I don't trust LE at all. Yet they've already arrested their suspect. I can't imagine not cooperating WITH my lawyer present.

"The mere fact" is that he withdrew.
(Quotations are simply a joke/in reference to Kent Starr's frequent terminology)

I'm guessing either he knew he was in over his head, thought it was too high profile of a case, or did not support his client being uncooperative with police at this point.
Ally own opinion.

I am thinking he felt there was no reason she shouldn't cooperate... and she disagreed. I don't blindly trust people, however lawyers generally don't trust cops. So if my lawyer was saying it was okay to go talk to them.... I probably would. Especially when someone else has already been charged in the case.

 

[MsFacetious]

A person cannot be required to incriminate themselves. So there's that. I think there would be the possibility of subpoena, should LE have reason to believe that she knows something more than she has already said. That would attach some consequences to refusal to come in. And compel statements under oath, I do believe. However, she would have the option of "taking the fifth" (reference to 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination) on any questions.

She has every legal right to not talk to the cops.
Just like Terri Horman had every legal right to not talk to the cops.
However, CPS also has every legal right to keep her daughter.
Just like Terri Horman lost all rights to her daughter.

If her priority is getting her older daughter back, it IS in her best interest to cooperate.
I do not believe they will give her custody back if she isn't cooperating.
It would just be too risky to the older sister.

Without knowing what she knew and when she knew it...
How can they possibly trust her to protect the sister?
Maybe it hasn't been worded that way to her yet? I can't imagine it hasn't.

Obviously she is talking to CPS on some level since she is having visits.
However, I would think that LE will be a part of the custody hearings.
So even if she's cooperating with CPS, she isn't cooperating with law enforcement.
The judge won't be impressed that she isn't cooperating in the investigation.

Unfortunately I think she may go the way Terri Horman did.
Refuse to cooperate and lose her daughter.