[blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

John Probst:

>>>I think this is covered by Law, we don't need such an
>>>interpretation.  John

Grattan Endicott:

>>+=+ Hence there can be no argument about it?
>>                                           ~ G ~   +=+

Todd M. Zimnoch:

>On the specific question of withdrawn cards, the law is
>clear.

Richard Hills:

Well, 99% of the time the Laws on withdrawn cards is
clear.  But in this anomalous 1% situation under debate,
Laws 62B1 and 62C1 are as clear on whether a withdrawn
card is a penalty card or without penalty as Schrodinger
was clear on whether his cat is alive or is dead.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC
02 6225 6776

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm