Matthew Udall

Yeah, you would think that, but history has shown that some people "do" rely on the postings given in this group (just look at how the 30/60 day rule myth started in this group was picked up and keeps coming back over and over again) and some of those postings (not all) rise to the level of legal advice. Because enough people "do" rely on advice given here (Ask JEff about this… sorry JEff, but this is a handy example) it is "reasonable" to assume many people will rely on information posted here. Some even take it a step further and discourage others from seeking advice from a qualified attorney, and instead encourage them to rely on the postings in this group (You don't need an attorney, but stick around here so I can play attorney with your case).

The danger multiplies when the advice comes from those unlicensed (and I assume, uninsured) individuals who have established reputations for themselves as legal advisors (for example, many used to seek out Rita's advice as she developed such a reputation over the "years" of posing legal advice [and I'm not saying every single one of her postings amounts to legal advice]).

AlphaTrion-TJW

"The consular officer" so the seems to apply more for the use of the
consular office abroad.

Harold

Matthew Udall <member3997@british_expats.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Originally posted by Rete
    > > And therein lies the problem.
    > Most people do not know or understand, perhaps, that the US Consulate is
    > not USCIS and the rules and regulations differ from the USCIS to the US
    > Consulate.
    > >
    > > Rete
    >
    > That is but one of the dangers of
    > people playing attorney on this news group..... who do so because "they
    > can" (they own a computer and have internet access).

Note the original phrasing "I am not an attorney." as well as "A
danger is that you might be accused of visa fraud" and "It is said
that there is a 30/60 day rule."

Perhaps those who are quick to condescend should read more carefully.
Or maybe it just makes them feel good to condemn straw men.

Quotation of the FAM was in response to the statement, without
qualification, that "there is no 30/60 day rule" and the invocation of
"urban myth".

To my admittedly layman's logic the fact that, after entering the
country on a nonimmigrant visa, "(3) Marrying and takes up permanent
residence" could be considered a "violation" by ANY agency might be of
concern to someone, like the poster, who intended just that. Hence, I
mentioned it. It will take more than being pooh-poohed by those whose
butts are not on the line, even a million poohs, to change my opinion.

So sue me.

Which Chief Justice was it who asserted that 98% of lawyers are
incompetent?

Matthew Udall

I've gone back and read the earlier posts again. It was Mrtravelkay who said there was no 30/60 day rule, and it was AlphaTrion-TJW who brought up the "urban myth" language in his reply. I don't believe either of these people are attorneys, let alone attorneys who practice in the area of immigration law.

I assume therefore that you did not have a problem with my reply where I said "nonsense" to your assertion that the 30/60 day rule applies in the context of what a USCIS officer might do in the marriage based AOS context. There "is" such a rule (in the FAM), however you applied it incorrectly.

Again, I don't believe Mrtravelkay or Alpha are attorneys. And since you obviously gave inaccurate advice, are you trying to shift attention away from that by showing that others can make mistakes as well? I'll agree, that nobody is perfect.

AlphaTrion-TJW

Hell if I was an attorney then I'm a pretty bad one considering I only
cleared around 6K fafter taxes last year LOL


--
Toby & Antoinette Woods
~~~ http://www.woodsfamily.cjb.net ~~~

jeffreyhy

Matt,

Yup, I burned someone a while back with incorrect information. Fortunately it was not a severe burn, but it is a good and appropriate example of how people do accept and rely on information provided in newsgroups.

caveat emptor, or something like that.

Regards, JEff

Mtravelkay

Matthew Udall wrote:

    > Originally posted by Harold
    >
    >>Quotation of the FAM was in
    >
    > response to the statement, without
    >
    >>qualification, that "there is no
    >
    > 30/60 day rule" and the invocation of
    >
    >>"urban myth".
    >
    >
    > I've
    > gone back and read the earlier posts again. It was Mrtravelkay who said
    > there was no 30/60 day rule, and it was AlphaTrion-TJW who brought up
    > the "urban myth" language in his reply. I don't believe either of these
    > people are attorneys, let alone attorneys who practice in the area of
    > immigration law.
    >
    > I assume therefore that you did not have a problem
    > with my reply where I said "nonsense" to your assertion that the 30/60
    > day rule applies in the context of what a USCIS officer might do in the
    > marriage based AOS context. There "is" such a rule (in the FAM), however
    > you applied it incorrectly.

Exactly why I said it was nonsense in this case which involves USCIS.
There is no such rule, correct? If someone says there is designated
hitter rule when referring to the NL, and I say "there is no such rule",
must I clarify it by saying "there is no such rule in the NL, but there
is a rule in the AL? (or have they changed this and there is a DH in the
NL now???)

Harold

Actually, I gave no advice and made no assertion regarding the rule.
You read that between the lines, somehow. I'll not speculate as to
motive.

I mentioned that 'it is said' with the intention of pointing out a
possible consideration, i.e. that marrying very quickly after arrival
might not be as wise as waiting for a while. The fact that such a
consideration has actually been codified, by any branch of government
for any purpose, logically and reasonably implies to me that the
appearance of entering with the intention to marry might be mitigated
by delaying the ceremony. Is this inaccurate, or irrelevant, in your
opinion? How would you advise the poster in this regard?

I do feel the word 'nonsense' overstates your case. Inaccuracy and
incorrect application, as you ascribe, are not necessarily
nonsensical; unless, of course, there is no sense involved at all.

Furthermore, it is true that I have been making no distinction between
the comments of laymen and those of lawyers, having been assuming that
this forum is not a venue for dispensing or receiving legal advice. Is
this inaccurate? Are the attorneys herein engaged in providing legal
advice? Do their insurance underwriters know about this?

Lastly, I refreshed my memory: it was former U.S. Chief Justice Warren
E. Burger who said, in the Trial Lawyer's Guide, 1971, that
"Seventy-five percent of all American lawyers are incompetent,
dishonest or both." while it was a survey of judges by U.S. News and
World Report, 1981, that concluded 4% of lawyers are competent. I have
found no survery of lawyers concerning the competence of judges.

Matthew Udall <member3997@british_expats.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Originally posted by Harold
    > > Quotation of the FAM was in
    > response to the statement, without
    > > qualification, that "there is no
    > 30/60 day rule" and the invocation of
    > > "urban myth".
    > >
    >
    > I've
    > gone back and read the earlier posts again. It was Mrtravelkay who said
    > there was no 30/60 day rule, and it was AlphaTrion-TJW who brought up
    > the "urban myth" language in his reply. I don't believe either of these
    > people are attorneys, let alone attorneys who practice in the area of
    > immigration law.
    >
    > I assume therefore that you did not have a problem
    > with my reply where I said "nonsense" to your assertion that the 30/60
    > day rule applies in the context of what a USCIS officer might do in the
    > marriage based AOS context. There "is" such a rule (in the FAM), however
    > you applied it incorrectly.
    >
    > Originally posted by Harold
    >
    > > Which Chief Justice was it who asserted that 98% of lawyers are
    > >
    > incompetent?
    >
    > Again, I don't believe Mrtravelkay or Alpha are
    > attorneys. And since you obviously gave inaccurate advice, are you
    > trying to shift attention away from that by showing that others can make
    > mistakes as well? I'll agree, that nobody is perfect.

Matthew Udall

The FAM is not law. You might think it logical and reasonable to infer that the FAM applies to the USCIS, however its now been pointed out to you that it does not. So yes, your posting was inaccurate and irrelevant.

lpdiver

Caveat Emptor...I think I'll start a used car business and name it Caveat Emptor Used Car Emporium....hehehe