Paul

It's a request at this stage.

He made a complaint and cited libel as the reason. That's a serious allegation and to prevent further problems, the best solution is for him not to post anymore.

I have neither the time nor inclination to get involved in some jumped up libel case.

meauxna

Could it be that very few newbies stop by this group anymore? Once the FAQ was moved and other sites became better containers of more information than just a discussion group can offer, new people started going elsewhere and those discussion groups got more newbie traffic. This group is quite good at policing itself (it even trickles over to the non-immigration portions of the board).

Other groups, with higher traffic and a wider mix of people are taking the bulk of K-1/marriage newbie posters now. Since Matt singled me out and mischaracterized my participation elsewhere, I'll explain my "advice" as consisting primarily of correcting bad information with references to official sites where posters can read about it themselves, explanations that include my own experience, translating obscure language to the everyday, and a lot goof-off posts like where to buy Marmite for less than $5/4oz or how to shop for car insurance. I repeat a lot of things I've learned here (with more credence to info from you and Matt) and mainly strive to encourage people.

I had a bit of an 'ah ha' when thinking about you yesterday. It occured to me that your viewpoint is skewed by your profession---well, obviously it is, but I mean in the sense of the troubled cases you deal with. I like the saying "When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
If someone has any immigration history, I think it's a good idea for them to consult with an attorney and I generally say so.
Those of us on the other side of this discussion look through our own prism, that of the 1040EZ type filer. I used this group to help me translate the INS lingo into something that made sense to me, made my decision on which way to file and read resources like crazy. Our case turned out great, thanks to the resources of this group and its related websites and my tenacity in researching. I think that most average people are like I was---we did not even consider that we might need a lawyer for what we were doing, and I think for other couples without obvious complications (criminal or medical problems) there should be no question of someone saying "I-130 is for spouses" being PL, U or otherwise, no matter how many times they say it. To me it (the above statement) is a fact, not advice or an opinion. I did not consider asking questions about forms 'legal questions' and never thought I was getting "legal advice" from this or any group---I was getting leads to follow up on. Some were good, some stunk.
I have never said so, but a lawyer could not have done anything for me, in my case, but cost me money that I would've rather spent elsewhere and more importantly, time that I did not want to waste.
Now, had I been a different type of person, or had less available time, a lawyer could've been of use, but I'll bet I would not have been advised to file the way I did, and my result would be quite different than what it is. I seriously doubt that, had the fear, confusion, or 'you must get "real" legal assistance' bug bit me back when, my husband might just now be completing his AOS instead of waiting for his Oath ceremony.

Thanks to *other* people drilling it home, the 10-foot pole topic is quickly trounced at every site I've looked at. People who are going through a K or IV process aren't too eager to let someone else skip though (and maybe they don't want others to have trouble in their future) and are quick to say that it's not legal (in fact, many tend to say that *any* AOS is a no-no and tell a F, J, H or other to file for a K and go home!).
You and Matt can be proud of your drilling on that subject because you two posted to the grandmother discussion group on this topic, and that info propagated out across the net. But keep in mind that it propagated through people posting about it---you need an army of helpful minions to get the good word out---these groups serve your purpose.

Bob

I think I need to know...cos it's well pricey around here

scrubbedexpat099

Amusingly Lawyers seem to have no problem in suggesting this course of action.

I think the negativity both here and elsewhere is principally down to the perception of queue jumping.

JEff

Hello Mr.F,

Both you and Matt have been valuable contributors to AVUM-B, and one of
Matt's most valuable contributions was introducing you to the group.
Matt has also been a valuable contributor to other groups.

I appreciate and enjoy your approach to participation, and I think that
most if not all participants who see your posts would agree.

The discouraging thing that this thread exemplifies is that Matt's
somewhat different approach makes him controversial and sometimes
vilified. Much of the good that he has done he has also undone. The
internet self-help communicty loses a lot when they shut their ears to
him, and he deals his own concerns a blow with an approach that doesn't
resonate with the community.

Regards, JEff

Folinskyinla wrote:
    > Hi JEff:
    > Matt is the person who got me hooked on participating in this NG in the
    > first place. I will be the first to admit that things have approved
    > markedly since 2001 in this arena. I, for one, try to counter bad
    > information with good information when I have it -- however, I am the
    > "information police" and neither is Matt. I'm not at all sure I would
    > have the time and energy to take on Paul Gani's essay as I did in the
    > past. [BTW, I want to make clear that Paul was extremely well
    > intentioned].
    > Neither Matt or I make a nickel off of this. In fact, I make money from
    > "janitorial work" -- so my financial interest is to see the UPL'ers
    > screw up -- they make business for me. My understanding is that Matt is
    > not the glutton for punishment that I am -- he refuses to take on
    > "janitorial work" as cases.
    > My comments on 30/60 were in regards an issue I have interest in and
    > work mighty hard to combat misconceptions -- including among the bar.
    > The discussion of UPL is more general in nature.
    > It will serve its purpose if rather than having the "information police"
    > constantly on guard, the NG becomes self-policing. Shall I mention the
    > "10-foot pole" as an example? I really don't have to repeat my earlier
    > discussions all that often any more.
    > --
    > Certified Specialist
    > Immigration & Nat. Law
    > Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization

anti-climacus

Sounds like the response of a withdrawn, self-preoccupied parent partial to the older, parenting child and unable to think through a constructive approach: "Just, just, just, just... just go to your room!"

anti-climacus

"Mattie! When will you stop pestering your older sister? I warned, you would be grounded for this!"

Bob

When it's your site you've got to keep an eye out for, mock all you like, but it ain't is it.

anti-climacus

Sounds like that other eye-keeper who is guarding us: "A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it" (GWB).

Bob

It's a private website, so don't gab on about free speech...if you want that, use a non private site to access the usenet.

anti-climacus

Sounds like this other monocrat turned topsy-turvy: "Free speech is a bourgeousie prejudice" (Vladimir Ilych Lenin).

My concern, however, is freedom of thought rather than freedom of speech.

Ultra-modern irony: People used to flee into the private to think freely. Nowdays, they tend to do the reverse.

Matthew Udall

Hi A.C.
I’m not sure if the concept of caveat emptor really applies fully in certain high stakes activities. Well, I guess it does to a certain extent, but only to a point.

I’ll grant you that everybody should be cautious when deciding to purchase goods or services. After all, they are likely seeking quality and noone is in a better position to make that judgment call than the person seeking the goods or service.

And yes, this would also include when deciding, for example, which doctor or attorney to hire to perform services. However if someone engages in the high stakes activity (licensed or not) of the practice of law or medicine, I don’t think the concept of caviet emptor excuses or shields them from poor quality services they might provide (plus, in these situations, the person receiving the service is less likely to accurately judge the quality).

So yes, most certainly the buyer (or in this case, the “receiver” since services are not being “sold”) should beware, however that is only half of the story. The person rendering the service should also beware too and strive to offer quality services.

It occurs to me that there is an interesting concept in tort law that seems to be at least “in the ballpark” as far as this discussion is concerned (but granted, analogies are not perfect and only go so far).

Here is the hypothetical example: You are sitting on the beach and out in the waves you hear someone scream for help. It appears they are drowning. You have your boogie board right at your feet, and you can easily run out and render aid to this person who obviously needs help. Nobody else is on the beach, so you are basically this person’s only hope.

You do nothing, and the person drowns. Are you liable? I don’t think so as one is not required to render aid to the other person (and lets assume you don’t know the person drowning… no relationship between you and the person and you are just a civilian, not a life guard). Morally, yes they should help but I’m talking about liability for choosing not to help.

Lets change the hypo a bit: There are a few other people on the beach that hear the cries for help, but you are by far and away the person closest to the drowning person and are in the best position to render help. You see other people start running towards the shore to help, but you wave them off and yell to them, “Don’t worry, I’ve got this under control!”. So they stop running and turn around and go back to what they were doing. You grab your boogie board and run into the surf. When you get to the person who is drowning, you climb up onto the boogie board and pull out your waterproof video camera and start filming as you know this will be great footage (of a person drowning) to post on your website.

[If you don’t like the filming part of the hypo, let’s instead say it turns out the person with the boogie board can’t actually swim either, and thus can’t render aid….. or if you don’t buy that example then lets say the person with the boogie board does something negligent when rendering aid that causes harm to the person they are trying to help].

Liable? I think a good argument could be made that when someone takes affirmative action/steps in order to help someone, that person then owes them a duty to do it properly. I think this concept applies to the activity that seems to be the subject of this thread.

Matthew Udall

Thank you for the deletion (not sure why you deleted my post though), and in the future please refrain from making similar comments about me that are not true. I'd appreciate that very much.

Matthew Udall

Yes, I did. It contained comments about me that were not ture. She's deleted her comments, and I've said thank you to her for that.

But I am curious how "you" knew I hit the report button.

Matthew Udall

No need to worry. She’s done the right thing and corrected the mistake. And even if she hadn’t, this would not have been a liable case (I’ve got better things to do). The statement was libelous in that it was untrue and surely that violates one of the rules about conduct on the site, however the correction has been made. And for that, I extend a sincere “thank you” to the party involved.