Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

Erolz, you admitted yourself that there was another paragraph in the Annan plan that would allow the TCs to extend that period. From what I remember there were a lot of conflicting provisions and things that could have different interpretations. If we had voted for the Annan plan then we would be killing each other already by now. Another thing is that with the Annan plan the TCs would get EVERYTHING from the first day while we were just given a promise that we would get our share of benefits from the solution after years or decades and there was nothing to guarantee that this would ever happen. Either both sides should get everything from day one or none should. For example the TCs could start as a minority with no special rights and then get any additional rights gradually at the same pace as they return the land, the properties and the Turkish army and Settlers withdraw.

I will not waste any more time on this. It is just a fact that Oceanside50 claims about what the Annan plan said were not true. I have proven that beyond any possible doubt. Yet you have nothing to say about that do you Sotos ? About how his (copied and pasted) representation of the Annan plan was based on blatant gross distortion of what the plan ACTUALLY said. Instead you just come up with assertions like " If we had voted for the Annan plan then we would be killing each other already by now." based on nothing but your own prejudice. It is alos just not true that the TC got everything from day one under the Annan plan and the GC got nothing from day one - that again is actually a distortion of the plan actually says. I could prove that too but what would be the point ? It is clear that you have, like Oceanside50 have no interest in the truth of what the Annan plan actually said.

[erolz66]

Interpretation of the plan( federal law) usually is performed by the federal Supreme Court. As the Annan plan stated, the federal and constituent courts are all equal, therefore interpretation of the federal law would come from the state supreme courts (Tc,Gc). The Tc have always wanted a confederate interpretation and the Gc a federal interpretation. Any laws that come into question will be interpreted on a confederation criteria, meaning that laws the Tc pass through their states parliament will be the laws of the Tc with no further review. The derogations become law and are enhanced by further laws from the Tc constituent state.

Again based on more LIES about what the Annan Plan ACTUALLY says. It does NOT say "the federal and constituent courts are all equal" that is a LIE. It is one that can easily be shown to be a LIE if you read the ACTUAL Annan plan - yet why bother. That it is a lie is of no interest to Oceanside50, nor to others like Sotos. They simply do not care if the lie suits them as far as I can see so they just keep repeating it even though it can be shown absolutely to be a lie.

If you can lie so repeatedly about something that is written down in text in absolute form. as you do here re the Annan plan, what does that say about your credibility when making claims about the past ?

What Oceanside50 CLAIMS the Annan plan says

As the Annan plan stated, the federal and constituent courts are all equal, therefore interpretation of the federal law would come from the state supreme courts (Tc,Gc)

What the Annan plan ACTUALLY says - foundation agreement ,Section D: The Judiciary, article 36, subsection 3

The Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any federal or constituent state law under this Constitution or any question that may arise from the precedence of Constitutional laws. Upon request of constituent state courts or other federal or constituent state authorities it may do so in the form of a binding opinion.

What it ACTUALLY says is the opposite to what Oceanside50 CLAIMS it says and what is more GC posters here like Sotos who claim to be 'objective' apparently have nothing to say about this gross distortion - this blatant lying about what the Annan plan says. Why is that ?

[Oceanside50]

Interpretation of the plan( federal law) usually is performed by the federal Supreme Court. As the Annan plan stated, the federal and constituent courts are all equal, therefore interpretation of the federal law would come from the state supreme courts (Tc,Gc). The Tc have always wanted a confederate interpretation and the Gc a federal interpretation. Any laws that come into question will be interpreted on a confederation criteria, meaning that laws the Tc pass through their states parliament will be the laws of the Tc with no further review. The derogations become law and are enhanced by further laws from the Tc constituent state.

Again based on more LIES about what the Annan Plan ACTUALLY says. It does NOT say "the federal and constituent courts are all equal" that is a LIE. It is one that can easily be shown to be a LIE if you read the ACTUAL Annan plan - yet why bother. That it is a lie is of no interest to Oceanside50, nor to others like Sotos. They simply do not care if the lie suits them as far as I can see so they just keep repeating it even though it can be shown absolutely to be a lie.

If you can lie so repeatedly about something that is written down in text in absolute form. as you do here re the Annan plan, what does that say about your credibility when making claims about the past ?

What Oceanside50 CLAIMS the Annan plan says

As the Annan plan stated, the federal and constituent courts are all equal, therefore interpretation of the federal law would come from the state supreme courts (Tc,Gc)

What the Annan plan ACTUALLY says - foundation agreement ,Section D: The Judiciary, article 36, subsection 3

The Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any federal or constituent state law under this Constitution or any question that may arise from the precedence of Constitutional laws. Upon request of constituent state courts or other federal or constituent state authorities it may do so in the form of a binding opinion.

What it ACTUALLY says is the opposite to what Oceanside50 CLAIMS it says and what is more GC posters here like Sotos who claim to be 'objective' apparently have nothing to say about this gross distortion - this blatant lying about what the Annan plan says. Why is that ?

The United Cyprus Republic, its federal Gov't and constituent states,

Article 2 Section 3

3. The federal government and the constituent states shall fully respect and not infringe upon the powers and functions of each other. There shall be no hierarchy between federal and constituent state laws. Any act in contravention of the Constitution shall be null and void.

In the American Federal constitution there is a Supremacy Clause which explicitly states,

The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.

[Oceanside50]

No federation is the result of ethnic cleansing ... that is why in federations people can freely move and settle with full rights in any state they want. If we were to have a real federation in Cyprus then the result would be two states run by GCs.

good point soto, without restrictions the tc become a minority in their own state. Restrictions were in place in the annan plan to insure that they would keep the majority in land and population. There are also restrictions on investment by the gc, but any land given back to the gc could not be invested in by the gc. Since the tc want land to grow their economy, why would they be interested in allowing idle gc land hindering their economy's growth?.... They figure that with using the restrictions and federal laws already in place, they could in the future enact laws that forces gc to abandon their lands i.e. high taxes....and it would be legal.

[Sotos]

Erolz, you admitted yourself that there was another paragraph in the Annan plan that would allow the TCs to extend that period. From what I remember there were a lot of conflicting provisions and things that could have different interpretations. If we had voted for the Annan plan then we would be killing each other already by now. Another thing is that with the Annan plan the TCs would get EVERYTHING from the first day while we were just given a promise that we would get our share of benefits from the solution after years or decades and there was nothing to guarantee that this would ever happen. Either both sides should get everything from day one or none should. For example the TCs could start as a minority with no special rights and then get any additional rights gradually at the same pace as they return the land, the properties and the Turkish army and Settlers withdraw.

I will not waste any more time on this. It is just a fact that Oceanside50 claims about what the Annan plan said were not true. I have proven that beyond any possible doubt. Yet you have nothing to say about that do you Sotos ? About how his (copied and pasted) representation of the Annan plan was based on blatant gross distortion of what the plan ACTUALLY said. Instead you just come up with assertions like " If we had voted for the Annan plan then we would be killing each other already by now." based on nothing but your own prejudice.

Erolz... you read what you want to read in the plan. For example you quote this part:

9. (2) Notwithstanding the above, with a view to protecting its identity, either constituent state may take safeguard measures to ensure that no less than two-thirds of it Cypriot permanent residents speak its official language as their mother tongues.

And then you claim:

Learn how to speak Turkish and after the 19th year enough GC to outnumber TC 3:1 in the TC component state could reside there under the what the Annan plan ACTUALLY says.

No Erolz. It is not just "learn how to speak Turkish" (and why should they anyway?)... but Turkish should be their their mother tongue. GCs do not have Turkish as their mother tongues. Therefore this provision gives to the TCs the ability to restrict GCs to at most 33% of the state population. And then there is also the interpretation of that "no less" part. A TC leader wanting to limit GCs to an even smaller number could claim that the number of Cypriot permanent residents that speak their official language as their mother tongue should be "no less than two-thirds", but it can be MORE than two-thirds. Obviously we will not agree with that interpretation but the fact is that the wording allows for such interpretation to be made.

It is alos just not true that the TC got everything from day one under the Annan plan and the GC got nothing from day one - that again is actually a distortion of the plan actually says. I could prove that too but what would be the point ? It is clear that you have, like Oceanside50 have no interest in the truth of what the Annan plan actually said.

OK.. let me rephrase that then: The TCS would get all their major benefits from day one, while GCs wouldn't get any of their major benefits from day one. The same day that the agreement would come into force the TCs would have a legal component state and political equality with GCs which is what is the most important issue for them. On the other hand for us what is the most important issue is the return of territory, the refugees to return to their homes and the Turkish army and the agreed number of Settlers to depart. Those things would happen only gradually over years and decades and there was nothing in place to enforce their implementation.

[erolz66]

In the American Federal constitution there is a Supremacy Clause which explicitly states,

The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.

Which is what the Annan Plan says as well

The Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any federal or constituent state law under this Constitution or any question that may arise from the precedence of Constitutional laws. Upon request of constituent state courts or other federal or constituent state authorities it may do so in the form of a binding opinion.

And is the OPPOSITE of what you CLAIMED the Annan Plan says When you said

As the Annan plan stated, the federal and constituent courts are all equal, therefore interpretation of the federal law would come from the state supreme courts (Tc,Gc)

The above is CLEARLY and absolutely a gross distortion of what the Annan plan ACTUALLY says. It explicitly that the Supreme Court and ONLY the Supreme Court has the Jurisdiction to determine the validity of ANY federal of CONSTITUENT STATE law, under the constitution.

Keep basing your arguments about the Annan plan on LIES if you must. I have little interest in engaging with such mindless stupidity.

[erolz66]

Erolz... you read what you want to read in the plan. For example you quote this part:

You are right Sotos - I did not read the 'mother tongues' part correctly and thus my interpretation was wrong and I ACCEPT that because I do NOT deny the TRUTH of what the Annan Plan says - for to try and so so would be the act of a raving fanatic.

So why if you claim to not treat TC and GC posters here differently have you ONLY commented on the one small distortion I made re the Annan Plan and which I have admitted and accepted as soon as you mentioned it and IGNORE the much larger and more numerous distortions that Oceanside50 KEEPS making and basing his arguments on and refuses to accept as distortions ?

[Oceanside50]

Upon request of constituent state courts or other federal or constituent state authorities it may do so in the form of a binding opinion.

Erolz are you kidding us man, because this thing has gone on long enough with you. Read the above statement. " Upon request of constituent state court(not individual, or resident of the federal Cyprus both gc and tc) but the court of the tc state. Why would a court in the tc state question its own verdict or interpretation and then have it interpreted in the federal court???? its meaningless

this could also be interpreted as, an individual could not appeal to a higher court, but would have to rely on a constituent states court to appeal itself, highly unlikely

[erolz66]

Upon request of constituent state courts or other federal or constituent state authorities it may do so in the form of a binding opinion.

Erolz are you kidding us man, because this thing has gone on long enough with you. Read the above statement. " Upon request of constituent state court(not individual, or resident of the federal Cyprus both gc and tc) but the court of the tc state. Why would a court in the tc state question its own verdict or interpretation and then have it interpreted in the federal court???? its meaningless

this could also be interpreted as, an individual could not appeal to a higher court, but would have to rely on a constituent states court to appeal itself, highly unlikely

No YOU read it and yes this has gone on long enough. You whole argument is that under the Annan plan the TC component state could enact laws that 're enforced partition', like say a law stating that restaurants must have separate seating areas for GC and TC customers and such a law could NOT be challenged any higher that the TC component state Supreme Court. The whole argument is BOLLOCKS based on LIES about what the Annan Plan says , LIES like it says " the federal and constituent courts are all equal". Even then your argument is STILL BOLLOCKS because nothing in any Cyprus agreement could annul the right of Citizens to take abuses of their human rights to the ECHR short of Cyprus leaving the Council of Europe and the EU.

[Oceanside50]

I never said that the Tc would enact laws to separate Tc and Gc in restaurants. My example of southern America is there to show that federal laws could branch out and be enacted through the constituent states legislature , in order to enhance the federal law, like they did in southern America during segregation. The southern Americans did not want the negroes to mingle or have anything to do with white Americans. They did this in many different ways like the list I showed from Reverend Martin Luther Kings' list. The southern states of America took the federal law ( plessy v Ferguson) , which the federal Supreme Court interpreted as separate but equal is fair and constitutional. The southern states wanting to expand the meaning to themselves and to aliviate their fear of blacks , enacted more laws such as whites and blacks could not eat in the same restaurants. This was legal because the federal Supreme Court said it was and no one challenged it in the courts of appeal until the 1960's or 1950's. How does all this relate to Cyprus??? do you understand what i just wrote..if you have any questions please ask.and i will answer them for you, as best as I can.... I will wait for your response and then answer my question.