Folinskyinla

[QUOTE=Lwanda_Magere]The last time US 'imported' people from Africa was to use them as slaves.Is that the example you wanted to use?

Anyhow, how about diversifying the DV program some more instead of bringing people who are already here like EU fellows and all the other varieties of whites?

Again, how is 'diversity' defined in the DV program? How is it diversity when people are looked at as the countries they are from? How does that matter when they all settle here and become citizens? Its not a diversity matter any more where they started off coming from, is it?

One is either white or black-thats all America sees..not that you are originally from this and this place. So why doesnt the DV program reflect that?

===============
Hi:

My undergraduate major was in history and I often bring a historical approach to the law. And yes, it was slavery that I was referring to. Historical fact: the international slave trade was abolished before slavery was. And the idea that people cannot be property didn't make it into the constitution until the 13th Amendment.

BTW, back in the days when US Immigration Law was expressly racist -- the two favored "races" were: 1) white and 2) African. The "out" in the racial scheme of things was "Asian." There is some mighty weird case law on who is "white" -- Arabs and Persians were "white, Indians [from India] were not. I don't recall reading anything on who was "African" -- although I would tend to think that the infamous "one-drop" rule would make that the preferred way to go. Who knows? The whole thing reads quite strange to current eyes and sensibilities.

On "diversity" -- it is based on the NUMBER of immigrants coming into the US under the "normal system" and the idea is to allow additional immigrants from countries that normally do NOT fill out the maxium of what they can send. The numbers of EU immigrants is quite low except from the UK [minus Northern Ireland] and Poland. The countries that tend to send the most legal immigrants are China, India, Philippines and Mexico. They don't get DV visas.

CaliforniaBride

How?

Ray

Said Tonto to the Lone Ranger

Folinskyinla

Oooooh, that one is evil.

Matthew Udall

If someone is eligible to participate, the color of their skin is irrelevant.

Matthew Udall

It’s generally not UPL for someone to act as a typist. What I was referring to is someone performing a service knowing (or should know) there are things to look into first to evaluate not only “if” this person can participate, but “should” they enter the lottery. The thread you point to is a good example of someone who “could” enter, but really should not have entered. He was an overstayer, had to depart the U.S. (couldn’t AOS here) for a DV visa, only to find out after its too late that the 10 year ban applied to him.

The outfit I referred to, I’m sure, received many entries from those indicating they are currently in the U.S. Anybody with a desire to do their job well (and act ethically) should always look into the person’s immigration facts to see if they “should” enter even if they “can” enter. And when they do that, bingo… UPL.

As far as no one in a far off foreign country hiring an attorney located in the U.S., that is his or her decision to make. Back when the lottery entries were submitted by regular mail, I could see the benefit of having someone knowledgeable in immigration law to first check into the facts to see if one “should” enter (well, that part holds true even in today’s DV program), make sure the entry was prepared properly, and get it to the proper place on time within the filing window (relating to the old regular mailing system for entries).

Bigot!!! :-). As one of my DV lottery winners once told me, you have to be in to win. Granted, the odds are not that great.

The person in the thread you gave seems to have been clueless, and had an issue that came into play after his entry was selected. But I think that person could have used the help “before” deciding to enter, to see if he “should” enter.

And note that I’m not saying someone should hire an attorney to help him or her enter. They are certainly entitled to enter on their own without the help of another. But when someone starts providing a service for DV entrants, they should do the job properly even if the person submitting the entry wants their “helper” to do a half-assed job (just like the half-assed job I see done by some prolific hobbyists who take it upon themselves to render legal advice to strangers in UPL boards based on the scant information someone posts about themselves “without” first asking the appropriate questions before formulating their opinion and rendering legal advice).

fatbrit

I understand what you are saying. It is indeed, however, both a fine line and a changing line. Somebody translates the instructions, somebody abridges the instructions using plainer language, somebody alters the instructions with decision boxes according to the particular circumstances of their intended audience. Each is a step away from the typist. Also, access to knowledge have let the cat out of the bag. Would it not be easier to state that it's not UPL if you: a) don't falsely claim to be a lawyer; and b) don't receive financial remuneration for your work on it. Because you sure as hell ain't gonna stop it and then at least you'd have something to work from to go after the plainly fraudulent.

I'm afraid seeking the help of others is a human affliction, and I personally do not like dictating to people from whom they should seek their inspiration or crutch. If they want a lawyer as their guide, fine. If they want a group of cyber-friends, also fine. It is not necessary to tell them whom they should choose for their journey. They are adults and can make their own choices.

On the error front, I believe there are probably very few errors on a board that are not corrected by other contributors somewhere down the line. One of the advantages of using it for advice is you get a dozen people looking it over rather than just the attorney or paralegal. And the latter make plenty of mistakes, too!

Matthew Udall

Do you honesty think access to knowledge only came about due to the internet?

I recall reading a case recently that discussed disclaimers used by people to let others know that the person rendering legal advice was not an attorney. I believe they found that telling someone “hey, I’m not an attorney” coupled with rendering of legal advice was just as dangerous, if not more so (don’t have that in front of me to give you the exact language) and that the use of disclaimers added an additional bad element to the activity (again, don’t have it in front of me to double check to see if they couched this as a deceptive practice). Plus I don’t think one need to be paid in order for legal advice to be legal advice. People do this for a variety of reasons (payment comes in different forms). Feelings of good will, cultivating an audience and reputation as a legal advisor, heck even advertising dollars (if one owns a UPL board that brings in advertising dollars) can all be motivations for UPL.

This seems to be a common thing when the discussion of UPL comes up. “Seeking” advice is not UPL, it’s the “rendering” of legal advice that is UPL. The states dictate this.

So, if an attorney somewhere makes a mistake (and that attorney is probably insured to at least provide some sort of remedy to the client if that is warranted) then the states should just do away with the licensing and regulation of attorneys? I see, lets reduce the practiced of law down to the least common denominator. Of course, that will go counter to the states interest in protecting their citizens from those who just want to play attorney. Maybe you are right, and maybe you should go to United Airlines and apply to become one of their pilots. After all, some licensed pilots in the past have made mistakes that have hurt some passengers (and you can make it clear to them that you are not a licensed airline pilot, and that you will work for free).

But I do see a glimmer of logic in the proposition that at least on usenet linked boards, there is a wider audience to help spot the incorrect legal advice rendered by UPL’ers. Not so for some UPL boards that are not linked to usenet. Perhaps that is why I see some members of a certain non-usenet linked UPL board coming to this group to troll for information given by attorneys to take back to their board to recycle to others (reminds me of that game kids play where the first kid in the line whispers something to the next kid who in turn whispers it to the next one. This goes on down the line, and usually the information whispered to the last kid is different from what the first kid had given).

fatbrit

Yes – when my wife did her bachelor’s a half-dozen years or so back in a country that was just coming out of the dark ages in terms of modern technology, we would spend hours going through little cards in the rather magnificent Baroque library looking for the material she needed. We would then fill out a little form and post it in a rather ornate box in the room to return a day later and find perhaps half her selection available to check out. When she recently completed her master’s, she never visited a library once. It is the free and accessible dissemination of knowledge. It certainly didn’t start it, but it sure has accelerated it.

You live in the dark ages on this one, as I’ve told you before. The world has moved on. Do try to move with it!


Funny, as I said to your colleague recently, I always thought power the power to dictate was derived from the people in our sort of societies. Seemed to fluster him somewhat and produced both a typo and dropped article in his reply. Tried to look for some subtle meaning in the dropped article (since he’s quite an intelligent bod and likes an aura of crypticness about him), but afraid I couldn’t find any. Anyway, if you’ve forgotten your civics 101, there’s a nice refresher at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Monty_P...the_Holy_Grail. Scroll down as far as Arthur and Dennis (Constitutional Peasant) to start your reading.


My toilet has broken. Instead of coughing up the cash to pay the exorbitant fees of a licensed plumber, I have several choices: I can do it myself; I can call my mate John who’s pretty handy and see if he’ll help me out this weekend; I can drive down Home Depot’s parking lot and negotiate with one of the skillful chappies who hang around under the shade of the Palo Verde there for their temporary services. Of all these methods, only one gives me the right to sue the bastard if it all goes tits up. But me myself makes the choice of which one I am going to use. And I live with the consequences.

Brings back memories for me, too! When I taught English to foreigners in a previous life, used to use the Chinese Whispers for an occasional lesson. I’d place one misfit at the board with a pen and line the others up down the corridor, where I would dictate in whispers to the last one on the line. They had to pass it along the line for the misfit to write it on the board. Many variations were indeed possible, both in the method of dictation and management of the line. Of course, the story dictated was somewhat garbled by the time it arrived at the board. So there next task was to sort it out into a readable and grammatically correct text while I had a smoke on the balcony.
So I do agree with the pitfall you describe.

scrubbedexpat099

Professional Indemnity insurance is there to protect the lawyer against his/her legal liability, there is no intent to provide a benefit to a person who believes they have suffered from poor advice.

And you are going to need a very strong case/funds to even consider taking it to court.

Ray

Matt ..I was reader earlier about Baughman & Wang Immigration Attorneys
in your neck of the woods .. seems they did something about UPL in a more practical way and aimed at the people who actually caused damage ...
Instead of going on about it here... which to my mind ..is really hurting your reputation.. why not follow their lead, with something really constructive ...