JEff

Matt,

Wish I could find the article, but the refernce to it that I can see in
Mr.F's post is insufficient.

Anyway, it's your comment that stimulates me to make a few of my own.
I agree that there are dangers posed by net-tarios as well as by
notorios. The same danger posed by less than conciencious, less than
experienced, attornies. They might be wrong sometimes.

A significant component of danger is expectations. Where one has high
expectations, the danger lies in those expectations not being met.
Expectations of attornies is high given their training and their
testing before being allowed to practice as attornies. With relatively
few exceptions, the expectations are justified and are met by the legal
profession. An attorny may be wrong or make a mistake once in a while,
but they've been carefully vetted so it should happen only rarely.

The danger in notorios is the expectations, fostered by the notorios
either implicitly or explicitly, that they can do the job just as well
as an attorney can when they do not have the training to do so or the
testing to confirm whether or not they can do so. They have not been
vetted, they are more likely to be wrong or to make mistakes than
attornies. And they take money for what they do, contributing to the
appearance of professionalism and adding a monetary element to the
injury that may result from the lack of it, as well as creating a
business relationship such as an attorney has with a client.

Like the notarios, the net-tarios have not been vetted and there is a
high risk of them being wrong.

A difference between net-tarios and notorios is that the net-tario,
rather than claiming to be something they're not, generally are quite
up front about not being a legal professional and they create an
appropriate level of expectation. It is not expected that a net-tario
necessarily knows what they''re talking about, it is expected that one
is taking a risk if one decides to follow a net-tario's advice.

The net-tarios who might be truly dangerous are the ones who try to
talk people into not even considering an attorney.

Is 'caveat emptor' still meaningful in American society? Many people
do seem to feel that whenever a problem arises it's got to be someone
elses fault, and many people correspondingly seem to feel that people
need to be protected from their own foolishness.

Regards, JEff

Matthew Udall wrote:
    > > Hi:
    > >
    > > An interesting link [as a lawyer, I received my paper copy yesterday]:
    > >
    > > 0Resources/California%20Bar%20Journal/March2006&sCatHtmlPath=cbj/2006-
    > > 03_TH_01_Phony-lawyers.html&sCatHtmlTitle=Top%20Headlines
    > >
    > > ...
    > ...
    > Of course, they talk about notorios, and I don't think they are fully
    > aware of the danger posed by net-tarios.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Second try -- disabling the "parse link" option in BE

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_cbj.jsp?sCategoryPath=/Home/Attorney%20Resources/California%20Bar%20Journal/March2006&sCatHtmlPath=cbj/2006-03_TH_01_Phony-lawyers.html&sCatHtmlTitle=Top%20Headlines

If not, go to www.calbar.ca.gov -- as of today, the story is the top link.

JEff

Mr.F,

Thank you!

Regards, JEff

Folinskyinla wrote:
    > Hi:
    > Second try -- disabling the "parse link" option in BE
    > %20Resources/California%20Bar%20Journal/March2006&sCatHtmlPath=cbj/2006-
    > 03_TH_01_Phony-lawyers.html&sCatHtmlTitle=Top%20Headlines
    > If not, go to www.calbar.ca.gov -- as of today, the story is the top
    > link.
    > --
    > Certified Specialist
    > Immigration & Nat. Law
    > Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Matthew Udall

Hi JEff,
Your comments prompt a reply from me as well, and I hope that is OK. After all, this is just a general discussion, I didn’t bring it up and no one is being accused of anything. Hopefully I can answer without worry of a ban. I guess we’ll see.

Well, lets say a particular notario does wonderful work, does it for free, has lots of experience and is very seldom wrong. That still does not make it right, he’s not earned the right to engage in this activity, he’s not regulated by an agency that can discipline him if he breaches one of the rules regulating this activity, and he can cause very real damage to the recipients of the legal advice (Oh, and I'll bet he doesn't carry an insurance policy to at least provide that type of remedy for those he's harmed).

But what I hear said over and over again as being one of the biggest problems is that since they don’t have as much at stake (nothing or very little to lose) they don’t have the same incentive to do the job right and more often than not simply “Disappear” once their damage is done. They do so to shield themselves from liability for the damages they cause. Well, net-tarios share that same characteristic. They post without using their real names, their real world addresses are unlisted, and as Ray himself pointed out, they can fake ISP addresses so the person they wronged could never seek redress from them for the damages they caused. In fact, I’ll bet a net-tario could probably hide even better than a notario can hide in the “real world” and thus is a bigger threat than the old fashioned notario. Plus, the net-tario’s damages might not be confined to one person or family, but can have long reaching effects and perhaps long term ill effects (archived for the unwary who stumble upon it later).

Plus, how many people did we see all of a sudden start putting disclaimers on their postings once the subject of UPL started coming up. Did they all of a sudden realize they had better try to control the “expectations” of their readers, or was it that they wanted to shield themselves from liability (damages they cause, or liability for UPL in general) just like the notario who is unreachable? I’m sure there is a little of both, but undoubtedly the motivating factor for them to all of a sudden add them is self protection.

You have been around for a while on this and another group, and are you actually trying to tell me that people don’t come to groups like this looking for answers to their immigration law related questions/problems/situations, and do not rely on the advice rendered from those who even state they are not an attorney? I call BS on that one, and if people didn’t come for answers to legal questions and problems, then why would these groups exist in the first place? Plus, I often see people (in the title of their threads) posting questions to a specific prolific hobbyist who quite clearly states she’s not an attorney.

The only time I “ever” hear the “people don’t rely on what non-attorneys tell them”, or the “one would have to be a fool to reply on ng information” is when this topic comes up, and those arguments are always made by those who want to see this dangerous activity continue.

The next argument always given is, “Well, this is just a starting point and these people will now go to an attorney with a little knowledge of what is going to happen”. Again, I call BS on that one. But lets take a quick poll of those reading this reply. How many of you that used sites like this to gain information then went to an attorney for a consultation or for more extensive services? How about you JEff, what did “you” do?

Plus, quite often people say they are grateful to receive advice from net-tarios, and that they are now going to stick around to “give back” the same thing they received (become a net-tario themselves).

If you happen to know that guy Yodrak, ask him what he normally sees on the site he participates in when a “should I use an attorney” question comes up. What does the majority say in response? Do they say, “yeah, get some information and then go to an attorney for a consultation or more extensive services” (or is that only reserved for people with criminal problems, overstays, and other prior problems)?

jeninifer

Matt, et al.,

Do you think that someone would actually come here expecting definite and concrete information? As far as I'm concerned, that's their own stupidity.

I can't imagine how someone could come to BritishExpats for advice and then feel like they have legal recourse if that advice wasn't accurate.

I've looked to the advice of BritishExpats participants for a few years now, but still held the services of an immigration attorney.

Do you feel that some attorneys might feel strongly about this and feel that their "toes are being stepped on" because people can come here and get direction and, in turn, aren't paying for their services?

I'm just throwing some things out there. I think this is a very interesting topic.

Jen

Ray

Jen... have a read
Consumer Welfare
Lawyers argue that licensure protects consumers from unqualified or unscrupulous practitioners, but it is more likely that licensure protects lawyers from competition. Many economists and even some lawyers have assailed licensing laws as special interest legislation that is supported by those who want to restrict competition, not protect the public interest. As Professor Walter Gellhorn of Columbia Law School wrote in the University of Chicago Law Review (1976):

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg20n1c.html

Matthew Udall

Yes, I think this happens all the time. And on another group that Yodrak participates on, quite often you see net-tarios urging others not to hire an attorney. They say one can find all the information they need on the site and don’t waste money on an attorney. Of course, they also fail to mention an attorney with experience is likely not going to make beginner mistakes that could slow down the case, and can go to bat for the client to resolve CIS and/or Consulate screw ups.

You might be right about that, and that person will suffer the same damage whether or not they have any recourse or want it.

It’s sort of like leaving a dangerous instrumentality lying around. If a railroad left an attractive nuisance (something a kid would be attracted to and would want to play on) condition to exist (when safety devices could have been installed to prevent harm) and a child trespasses and gets his hand or foot cut off while playing on the attractive nuisance in the railroad yard, don’t you think the parent would feel they have a right to legal recourse against the railroad?

Glad to hear it. That’s one positive thing a ng can do, supply general info that supplements what a client knows. But I think you are the exception to the general rule. I believe many render advice to be a substitute to legal representation, not a supplement to it.

Perhaps. And one can certainly do it themselves. However when one comes to a net-tario for legal advice, they are “not” doing it themselves any longer. And lets take it further and say immigration attorneys are driven out of business. Is that going to be good for those who really do want an attorney with experience to help them with their important immigration case?

hcj1440

Just speaking from my own experience here:

We did hire an attorney. It was a large firm specializing in immigration. I had done some preliminary reading on an immigration forum (not this one). I wish I had had the time to do more prior to consulting an attorney.

Why? Because had I hung around on the forum(s) for longer, I probably would have come across the "DCF option" (my husband is from Sweden where that is an option even if the USC did not reside there). That would have been perfect for our situation. My then-fiance/now-husband was here on a L-1B visa and we were both about to quit our jobs and go traveling around the world. We planned to marry afterwards and get his green card. One month before our planned departure, I consulted the attorney we later hired. He advised me that we *must* marry immediately and file for AOS and AP before leaving on our trip. He never mentioned DCF -- I presume because it wouldn't have earned him the hefty fee we paid him. Or perhaps he honestly didn't think of it. DCF would have been much faster and way cheaper for us.

Do I regret hiring an attorney? No.
Do I wish I didn't trust him implicitly? Yes.

Largely because of this experience, I think forums are a valuable resource. They are a great place to learn the basics and get some ideas. The USCIS website is so complex and convoluted that it's really not much help to an immigration "newbie". Forums like this help break that information down to a more easily-digestable level. And for some people, that is enough for them to file successfully on their own. (Maybe I'm too idealistic but I think people *should* be able to do their own taxes and file their own immigration petitions. i.e. that it should not be so complex that even straightforward cases have to be handled by CPAs and attorneys)

I agree with Mr. Udall that people come to forums for information and that many people act on that information. But, I also agree with JEff that people have a lower expectation of the information they receive from a forum than for the information they receive from an attorney or a "notario" claiming to be a qualified professional. When people ask, "do I need an attorney," one of the factors I always name is, "how risk-averse are you?"

JEff

Matt,

I don't mind at all that you're responding. I'm in general agreement
with most of the comments that you added with regard to the notorios,
and I agree that net-tarios have some things in common with the
notorios.

What I don't see you discussing are things that net-tarios do not have
in common with notorios.

I do not believe that net-tarios post disclaimers to shield themselves,
I believe that they do it to emphsize that what they have to say should
not be taken as authoritative but instead should be looked at
critically (as in with a degree of skepticism) and with the [lack of]
qualifications of the source given due consideration before acting on
the information.

I believe that people are responsible for their own decisions and
actions, and that there's a real and significant different between
people who pass themselves off as attornies, right down to the act of
taking money inexchange for the services they provide to the unwitting
'clients', and people who make no pretense of being an attorney and
share what information they have with the understanding that it's not
authoritative information and may even be incorrect information.
(Although I do wonder what people who begin or end their posts with, "I
don't know so please someone correct me if I'm wrong ..." are thinking
when they decide to make the post.)

As for myself, whether it's immigration or any other topic, my MO is
seek information from official sources and at the same time seek out
personal experiences to see how things work in practice as well as in
'theory'. (In regard to the latter, most people who don't really
understand what they're talking about quickly become apparent.)

And I consult with attornies. At one of my former employers, the
company routinely had the Legal Department give training courses on
various aspects of the law that affected the company's business and
business in general. The one thing that still stands out the most in
my mind from those sessions was the attorney's standard closing words,
"we're not giving you this information so that you can handle these
issues on your own, we're giving you the information so that you'll
understand and appreciate why you need to call us."

Regards, JEff

Matthew Udall wrote:
    > > Matt,
    > >
    > > ...
    > >
    > > Is 'caveat emptor' still meaningful in American society? Many people
    > > do seem to feel that whenever a problem arises it's got to be someone
    > > elses fault, and many people correspondingly seem to feel that people
    > > need to be protected from their own foolishness.
    > >
    > > Regards, JEff
    > >
    > Hi JEff,
    > Your comments prompt a reply from me as well, and I hope that is OK.
    > ...
    > Well, lets say a particular notario does wonderful work, does it for
    > free, has lots of experience and is very seldom wrong. That still does
    > not make it right, he's not earned the right to engage in this
    > activity, he's not regulated by an agency that can discipline him if
    > he breaches one of the rules regulating this activity, and he can cause
    > very real damage to the recipients of the legal advice (Oh, and I'll bet
    > he doesn't carry an insurance policy to at least provide that type of
    > remedy for those he's harmed).
    > But what I hear said over and over again as being one of the biggest
    > problems is that since they don't have as much at stake (nothing or
    > very little to lose) they don't have the same incentive to do the job
    > right and more often than not simply "Disappear" once their damage
    > is done. They do so to shield themselves from liability for the damages
    > they cause. Well, net-tarios share that same characteristic. They post
    > without using their real names, their real world addresses are unlisted,
    > and as Ray himself pointed out, they can fake ISP addresses so the
    > person they wronged could never seek redress from them for the damages
    > they caused. In fact, I'll bet a net-tario could probably hide even
    > better than a notario can hide in the "real world" and thus is a
    > bigger threat than the old fashioned notario. Plus, the net-tario's
    > damages might not be confined to one person or family, but can have long
    > reaching effects and perhaps long term ill effects (archived for the
    > unwary who stumble upon it later).
    > Plus, how many people did we see all of a sudden start putting
    > disclaimers on their postings once the subject of UPL started coming up.
    > Did they all of a sudden realize they had better try to control the
    > "expectations" of their readers, or was it that they wanted to
    > shield themselves from liability (damages they cause, or liability for
    > UPL in general) just like the notario who is unreachable? I'm sure
    > there is a little of both, but undoubtedly the motivating factor for
    > them to all of a sudden add them is self protection.
    > You have been around for a while on this and another group, and are
    > you actually trying to tell me that people don't come to groups like
    > this looking for answers to their immigration law related
    > questions/problems/situations, and do not rely on the advice rendered
    > from those who even state they are not an attorney? I call BS on that
    > one, and if people didn't come for answers to legal questions and
    > problems, then why would these groups exist in the first place? Plus,
    > I often see people (in the title of their threads) posting questions
    > to a specific prolific hobbyist who quite clearly states she's not
    > an attorney.
    > The only time I "ever" hear the "people don't rely on what
    > non-attorneys tell them", or the "one would have to be a fool to
    > reply on ng information" is when this topic comes up, and those
    > arguments are always made by those who want to see this dangerous
    > activity continue.
    > The next argument always given is, "Well, this is just a starting
    > point and these people will now go to an attorney with a little
    > knowledge of what is going to happen". Again, I call BS on that one.
    > But lets take a quick poll of those reading this reply. How many of you
    > that used sites like this to gain information then went to an attorney
    > for a consultation or for more extensive services? How about you JEff,
    > what did "you" do?
    > If you happen to know that guy Yodrak, ask him what he normally sees on
    > the site he participates in when a "should I use an attorney"
    > question comes up. What does the majority say in response? Do they say,
    > "yeah, get some information and then go to an attorney for a
    > consultation or more extensive services" (or is that only reserved for
    > people with criminal problems, overstays, and other prior problems)?

L D Jones

jeninifer wrote:
    >>Hi JEff,
    >>Your comments prompt a reply from me as well, and I hope that is OK.
    >>After all, this is just a general discussion, I didn’t bring it up
    >>and no one is being accused of anything. Hopefully I can answer
    >>without worry of a ban. I guess we’ll see.
    >>Well, lets say a particular notario does wonderful work, does it for
    >>free, has lots of experience and is very seldom wrong. That still does
    >>not make it right, he’s not earned the right to engage in this
    >>activity, he’s not regulated by an agency that can discipline him if
    >>he breaches one of the rules regulating this activity, and he can
    >>cause very real damage to the recipients of the legal advice (Oh, and
    >>I'll bet he doesn't carry an insurance policy to at least provide that
    >>type of remedy for those he's harmed).
    >>But what I hear said over and over again as being one of the biggest
    >>problems is that since they don’t have as much at stake (nothing or
    >>very little to lose) they don’t have the same incentive to do the
    >>job right and more often than not simply “Disappear” once their
    >>damage is done. They do so to shield themselves from liability for the
    >>damages they cause. Well, net-tarios share that same characteristic.
    >>They post without using their real names, their real world addresses
    >>are unlisted, and as Ray himself pointed out, they can fake ISP
    >>addresses so the person they wronged could never seek redress from
    >>them for the damages they caused. In fact, I’ll bet a net-tario
    >>could probably hide even better than a notario can hide in the “real
    >>world” and thus is a bigger threat than the old fashioned notario.
    >>Plus, the net-tario’s damages might not be confined to one person or
    >>family, but can have long reaching effects and perhaps long term ill
    >>effects (archived for the unwary who stumble upon it later).
    >>Plus, how many people did we see all of a sudden start putting
    >>disclaimers on their postings once the subject of UPL started coming
    >>up. Did they all of a sudden realize they had better try to control
    >>the “expectations” of their readers, or was it that they wanted to
    >>shield themselves from liability (damages they cause, or liability for
    >>UPL in general) just like the notario who is unreachable? I’m sure
    >>there is a little of both, but undoubtedly the motivating factor for
    >>them to all of a sudden add them is self protection.
    >>You have been around for a while on this and another group, and are
    >>you actually trying to tell me that people don’t come to groups like
    >>this looking for answers to their immigration law related
    >>questions/problems/situations, and do not rely on the advice rendered
    >>from those who even state they are not an attorney? I call BS on that
    >>one, and if people didn’t come for answers to legal questions and
    >>problems, then why would these groups exist in the first place? Plus,
    >>I often see people (in the title of their threads) posting questions
    >>to a specific prolific hobbyist who quite clearly states she’s not
    >>an attorney.
    >>The only time I “ever” hear the “people don’t rely on what non-
    >>attorneys tell them”, or the “one would have to be a fool to reply
    >>on ng information” is when this topic comes up, and those arguments
    >>are always made by those who want to see this dangerous activity
    >>continue.
    >>The next argument always given is, “Well, this is just a starting
    >>point and these people will now go to an attorney with a little
    >>knowledge of what is going to happen”. Again, I call BS on that one.
    >>But lets take a quick poll of those reading this reply. How many of
    >>you that used sites like this to gain information then went to an
    >>attorney for a consultation or for more extensive services? How about
    >>you JEff, what did “you” do?
    >>If you happen to know that guy Yodrak, ask him what he normally sees
    >>on the site he participates in when a “should I use an attorney”
    >>question comes up. What does the majority say in response? Do they
    >>say, “yeah, get some information and then go to an attorney for a
    >>consultation or more extensive services” (or is that only reserved
    >>for people with criminal problems, overstays, and other prior
    >>problems)?
    >
    >
    > Matt, et al.,
    >
    > Do you think that someone would actually come here expecting definite
    > and concrete information? As far as I'm concerned, that's their own
    > stupidity.
    >
    > I can't imagine how someone could come to BritishExpats for advice and
    > then feel like they have legal recourse if that advice wasn't accurate.
    >
    > I've looked to the advice of BritishExpats participants for a few years
    > now, but still held the services of an immigration attorney.
    >
    > Do you feel that some attorneys might feel strongly about this and feel
    > that their "toes are being stepped on" because people can come here and
    > get direction and, in turn, aren't paying for their services?
    >
    > I'm just throwing some things out there. I think this is a very
    > interesting topic.
    >
    > Jen
    >

I'd like to know if any "net-tario" has actually been charged with "UPL"
and convicted (Not for running or hosting a website but a simple usenet
poster.)

JEff

Ray,

I think that licensing professionals, be they anything from lawyers and
doctors to plumbers, electricians, and beauticians, serves a valid
public interest. Some interest groups may try to bend licensure to
their advantage - be it to protect the profession's business interests
on the one side or to break down barriers to entry on the other side.
But licensure is intended to protect the public from unscrupulous or
unqualified practitioners who the general public reasonably doesn't
have the ability to assess on their own and for the most part that's
what licensure is used for.

I am licensed in my profession, and it's a very broad profession -
perhaps broader (more diverse in specialties) than the legal
profession. I'll take care of a lot of things for myself, including
things beyond my specialty and things that are not covered by my
profession but have been assigned to the realm of other licensed
professions. And I'll share what I know with neighbors, friends,
relatives, and anyone else who asks if I know anything about ... But I
won't handle an issue for them as I would for myself. It's strictly
"here's what I know, if you don't feel comfortable handling it yourself
find someone who's a certified pro."

At the same time, several lawyers in different specialties where I've
called on lawyers have told me that I'm the easiest case they've ever
had to handle. Not everyone is or should be an informed micro-manager,
but everyone should be informed enough about a service they're seeking
that they can inteligently select an appropriate service provider.
This where net-tories can provide value, if used properly by the people
seeking information.

And people who chose to use a professinoal service provider should be
able to expect that if a service provider claims to have essential
qualifications those qualifications are documented and can be verified.
This is where licensure can provide value.

Regards, JEff

Ray wrote:
    > Jen... have a read
    > Consumer Welfare
    > Lawyers argue that licensure protects consumers from unqualified or
    > unscrupulous practitioners, but it is more likely that licensure
    > protects lawyers from competition. Many economists and even some lawyers
    > have assailed licensing laws as special interest legislation that is
    > supported by those who want to restrict competition, not protect the
    > public interest. As Professor Walter Gellhorn of Columbia Law School
    > wrote in the University of Chicago Law Review (1976):
    >
    > http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg20n1c.html

Matthew Udall

Actually, for me DCF cases are more difficult (logistically) and are more stressful. While I try to always submit a well-documented AOS, if it gets kicked back at least the couple are not put in as bad of a situation where I’ve instead put together a package and sent a U.S. citizen half way around the world to try to file something at a Consulate. But that’s just me I guess (and I’ve done a fair amount of DCF work).

I’ve been participating in groups for years, and I believe mine was the first post to ever mention looking at DCF as an option. Back then, none of the net-tarios knew it existed, but they did run with it once I brought it to their attention. And of course, that’s a good thing.

Maybe the attorney’s advice was based on unknown (to us) factors you shared with the attorney. Maybe he was concerned how you would meet the I-864 requirement if you were living outside the U.S. and with no job in the U.S. Who knows why he gave the advice he gave based on your unique facts and/or goals. None of us were there to hear the conversation.

Folinskyinla

Hi Ray:

Excellent article. Much of which supports which Matt and I have been saying. Remember that both Matt and I are members of the California Bar -- which is noted with favor by Professor Gelhorn. California long ago moved to the "conveyancing" model in Engalnd.

Also note the following:

"In California there has been a de facto move away from the lawyer monopoly. The California bar has stopped taking action under the state’s UPL statutes against unlicensed practitioners, for example, those offering divorce and other services in low-income neighborhoods. So far there has been no outbreak of customer complaints about unlicensed practitioners providing low-quality service."

My original link was for the fact that there HAS developed a problem since this article was written and California has now moved against it.

Thank you for posting the link -- it is independent confirmation of what Matt and I are talking about.

Matthew Udall

That’s nice in “theory” but I don’t think that is what happens in practice. Again, look at all of the answers to “should I hire an attorney” questions to see the mindset of the majority. Plus, we have some net-tarios that have gained reputations as legal advisors. Heck, one even brags about taking an immigration class in junior college and even thought that would qualify her to represent people in immigration court! (until set straight by another member).

Hey, I like that!

rete648

I wanted to reply to Mr. Folinsky's thread in a manner in which I will
be viewed only as a participant and not as a "moderator" for a site
that is a portal to this Usenet newsgroup, alt.visa.us.marriage-based.


While I fully understand and accept the issue of Unauthorized Practice
of Law "UPL" and do believe that there are people in the US who are
participating in this practice as a career and/or as a method to gain
monetarily reward. i.e. notarios, I do not feel that those
participating in this particular forum, alt.visa.us.marriage-based
"AVUMB", or that all or a majority of participants of most privately
owned websites can be said to be UPLers.

No one here on the AVUMB newsgroup accepts money or gifts for their
participation. The fact that some, such as myself, have been around
for years does not make us hobbyists nor UPLers. I certainly do not
concern it a hobby. My knitting is a hobby. When I create gift
baskets for housewarmings and holidays that is a hobby. Just as brewing
beer is your hobby.

There are several immigration forums on the Usenet beside AVUMB, i.e.
alt.visa.us, misc.usa.immigration and they have several long time
participants on them who are sought out for advice. Some even have
extensive home pages detailing various immigration processes and they
are not attorneys. Yet, why is it that on those two forums, which by
the way are homes to several US attorneys as well, is the issue of UPL
not rearing its ugly head and why aren't people like Kevin Keene or
Rich Wales being raked over the coals and strong armed to curtail their
participation because they are obviously held in high regard by the
newsgroup community and their words are treated as gospel?

I often find that you over reach in your attempt to find an analogy for
UPL, i.e. doctors, pilots, etc. The AVUMB forum is not on the same par
as someone who opens an office and hangs a phony shingle on the wall
proclaiming themselves a doctor and then dispenses medicine and in some
cases performs surgery. Yes, I am a breast cancer survivor and when I
meet someone who is dealing with cancer I urge them to read a
particular website and talk with their doctor about using a special
herbal supplement. I don't consider that practicing medicine without a
license. But this formula helped me and I would hate myself for not
mentioning it to someone with the disease when there is even the
remotest possibility that it might help. Especially since my own
doctor has read the website, the book and checked out the herbs and
says there is nothing in it that can hurt a person and yes it might
possibly help.

The AVUMB forum is a newsgroup frequented by common everyday people who
are dealing with an issue in their lives which they are completely
unfamiliar with. They need direction and somethings answers. They
read the USCIS website get a few clues on what to do and how to do it
but are lost and floundering on a sea of information. Coming to the
AVUMB forum they can be placed on the right track and helped to walk
the yellow brick road as I named it upteem years ago without stumbling
on every brick along the way. And yes, I encourage newbies to seek at
minimum a consultation with an "experienced" immigration attorney well
versed in the process they will be using.

My issue is not with UPL and this newsgroup but UPL and your stance on
it. I appreciate your concern and apparently it has become Mr.
Folinsky's now as well that the general public be guarded and saved
from the evil UPLers. Frankly, however, I don't know or understand why
either of you feel that we, as adults, need you to safeguard us from
ourselves.

As both of you have noted in this thread, the issue of UPL is a fine
line. Its interpretation in regards to newsgroup participants has not
been made by a court. It has been made by you. You are not a court of
law. You are but an instrument of the court and have certain
guidelines that you must follow in order not to be brought up on
charges and/or disbarred. If you fully believed that anyone here on
AVUMB is truly a UPL practioner, then why have you not done your legal
duty and reported the newsgroup and those people to the proper
authorities?

On a more personal level, you have over the eight years I have been a
participant singled me out for repeatedlu for not answering in a manner
your feel is acceptable. Such was the case with the I-864 and the
thought that the financial sponsor is relieved of this burden after the
supportee has worked ten years under social security guidelines. Okay,
I thank you for drumming it into my head but I have failed to see you
single out anyone else who doesn't give the full answer to how long a
sponsor is liability. Again there is the issue that you continue to
harp on...my high profile. You feel that because I have been around so
long that I hold a credibility that places me on a level above the
average person. That is your thoughts on me. One need only stop and
look and think for a minute. The newsgroup sees people come and go
here with the frequency of my changing underclothes. When do these
people get to see that I have a high profile or that my responses are
superior to others? I make mistakes. I know attorneys who make
mistakes. The best part of the forum is that mistakes are in the
public eye and can be corrected almost instanteously while a mistake by
an attorney may go unnoticed until the damage is too sever to be
corrected easily.

I'm sure you are not interested in my thought on you but I'll tell you
one of them. Your issue with the N-400 and UPL. Just the fact that
you have posted in a thread that you believe that anyone who files an
N-400 who has participated in a forum that deals with immigration
should put down that they are guilty of having committed a crime, has
done much to hurt your credibility. You have taken your thoughts on
who is a participating UPLer and fostered it onto them. Just the fact
that you are an attorney has placed you in a position where the average
person will give you credence and with that credence comes a
responsibility. Personally I feel that you have failed your
responsiblity to the members of this forum. You have invoked fear in
many and caused undue stress because of your judgment call.

Perhaps the best course for you, and maybe Mr. Folinsky would join you,
is to open your own website dealing with immigration. You can then
regulate what is posted and how it is replied to.

As for disclaimers, people started using them because you instilled the
fear in them by making them think that those people walking through
this forum are too stupid and naive to know that the replies given here
are not given by attorneys. My disclaimer is in place because it was
said that some states do believe disclaimers are valid. I wanted you
to know that NYS is not one of them.