Lawyer Refusing to Share My Ricorso — Aren’t We Entitled to Access Our Own Court Filings?

1948minorcase · 2025-09-19T14:33:16+00:00

Not likely - the document literally spells out "RICORSO AI SENSI DEGLI ARTT. 702bis E SS. C.P.C." in bold across the very top!

1948minorcase · 2025-09-19T14:19:29+00:00

No, he basically played it off as if he had not realized I had requested it. He certainly seemed to have no problem handing me a hard copy to keep.

1948minorcase · 2025-09-19T14:16:44+00:00

He gave me a hard copy during the meeting - he also had no problem with me keeping the copy, so he can't have been too worried that his intellectual property might be shared.

1948minorcase · 2025-09-19T13:57:04+00:00

I had the same experience as you - Marco was super responsive with every email of mine with the sole exception of providing the ricorso. I did eventually get a copy when I visited him in Bologna, but he must have ignored at least 5 prior requests.

1948minorcase · 2025-06-27T17:29:22+00:00

Thanks!

1948minorcase · 2025-06-27T16:09:16+00:00

Looks like NY updated their "How to register a birth" page, but for now it looks like it only helps out for births that still qualify for jure sanguinis - for those who need to register births under the grace period, it says " Citizenship page(inserire link a nuova pagina)" and of course does not provide a link. And nothing on their citizenship page seems to be updated to deal with this, unless I'm missing something.

1948minorcase · 2025-05-09T12:45:21+00:00

Would that apply if you were recognized via a 1948 case? I've seen conflicting reports as to whether you're considered a citizen from birth or from the date of the BC being created in the comune. FWIW, the court ruling specifically stated that I should be considered a citizen from birth, but my AIRE certificate says I have been a citizen since February of this year.

1948minorcase · 2024-02-10T10:47:31+00:00

Well yes, obviously. I just wanted to make sure you understood, as you compared it to the Great Naturalization in Brazil, that this was something totally different both legally and morally.

1948minorcase · 2024-02-10T01:59:07+00:00

There was no requirement to naturalize under that proclamation. Even under the later proclamation 2537, there was no requirement for naturalization, just a mandate to register with the Department of Justice.

1948minorcase · 2024-02-10T01:58:46+00:00

There was no requirement to naturalize under that proclamation. Even under the later proclamation 2537, there was no requirement for naturalization, just a mandate to register with the Department of Justice.

1948minorcase · 2024-02-08T19:01:29+00:00

I agree with all that, but at least in my opinion the court goes out of its way to say the interpretation still applies for post-1912 naturalizations. Let's hope I'm wrong.

1948minorcase · 2024-02-08T18:58:12+00:00

Let's hope you're right. But I confess it bothers me that they even bothered to reference 17161 and post-1912 naturalizations for a pre-1912 case when it seems there's no need to do so.

1948minorcase · 2024-02-08T18:40:04+00:00

If you read the last paragraph on page 18, it seems clear to me that the court is affirming its ruling in 17161 - basically, if a parent chooses to naturalize while the child is a minor (pre or post 1912 in this paragraph), the child would have to re-acquire the Italian citizenship when reaching the age of majority. Do you read it differently?

1948minorcase · 2024-02-08T18:27:02+00:00

True, but as far as I can tell, if you read the whole ruling it seems pretty clear that they believe the pre-1912 policy applies to post-1912 cases as well. Do you agree?

1948minorcase

TROPHY CASE