To Alvena...
May 18th 2001, 12:30 pm
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
I just want you to know you are a most compassionate woman and I think it is very bad
taste for them to make you take down your informational pages. I would much rather
get advice from someone that has "been there" than someone that doesn't give a you
know what if you are AOS approved or not.
I'm just so sorry Alvena
Daisy
taste for them to make you take down your informational pages. I would much rather
get advice from someone that has "been there" than someone that doesn't give a you
know what if you are AOS approved or not.
I'm just so sorry Alvena
Daisy
May 19th 2001, 1:51 am
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
I agree, this should not be happening to Alvena. Someone must have singled her out
for God only knows why because I can't remember Alvena ever seeing Alvena post harsh
comments to any question. Her pages were an invaluable tool for us when were were
filing our I129f and she took the time to give personal support via email. I will
truely miss her postings. I hope that there is a way to get around this and get the
pages back up "If that is what Alvena wants" and if she wishes to leave alone it then
we should leave it alone. No one can complain she didn't give her fair share of help
here, she probably gave mine and a few others fair share of help around here. I wish
alvena the best, Karryl
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
for God only knows why because I can't remember Alvena ever seeing Alvena post harsh
comments to any question. Her pages were an invaluable tool for us when were were
filing our I129f and she took the time to give personal support via email. I will
truely miss her postings. I hope that there is a way to get around this and get the
pages back up "If that is what Alvena wants" and if she wishes to leave alone it then
we should leave it alone. No one can complain she didn't give her fair share of help
here, she probably gave mine and a few others fair share of help around here. I wish
alvena the best, Karryl
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
May 19th 2001, 2:35 am
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thank you Thank you for your wonderful site....glad I have it saved. It has truly
made this whole process smooth and easy to follow. All the best to you.
made this whole process smooth and easy to follow. All the best to you.
May 19th 2001, 4:26 pm
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
>
>
>
My God, what kind of an asinine comment is that? Do you even know what a "free
country" is? It doesn't mean that people are free to do whatever the hell they
please. It means people are free to elect their leaders who will then decide what the
laws are in this country.
Now, what does the bar association need to be sued for? If the law says that doing
this or that is the unlawful practice of law, then so be it. Do you think the law is
unconstitutional? On what basis - freedom of speech? Freedom of speech doesn't give
you the right to call 911 and say there's a fire when there isn't. It doesn't give
you the right to threaten the President. It doesn't give you the right to publish or
post someone else's copyrighted work. It doesn't give you the right to reveal
classified military secrets. And hey, guess what, it also doesn't give you the right
to publish legal advice if you're not a lawyer!
Now, Alvena's pages were not all legal advice. I know and she knows and everyone
knows that many of her pages contained content which can't even remotely be construed
as legal advice. However, when a web page says "well, the law says this, so if you're
in that situation, you should do this", well, that's probably crossing the line. I
mean, if that's not legal advice, what the hell is? The KY bar told her to stop, but
it didn't tell her that her entire web page was illegal. She just chose to pull
everything for her own safety. I don't think anyone can blame her for that.
At some point, when she gets more legal clarification, Alvena will decide what to do
with her pages. I do hope she will put much of her non-legal content back online. But
of course, that's up to her.
In the mean time, if you really want to *help*, I'd suggest trying to find some
specific text/information/cases/definitions of what truly does and does not
constitute the unauthorized practice of law in various states. I mean *real*
information, not just any idiot layman's opinion. Once this information is clarified
and reaffirmed, I'm confident we'll being seeing compliant K-1/Immigration web pages
back online in no time.
Paulgani
>
>
>
My God, what kind of an asinine comment is that? Do you even know what a "free
country" is? It doesn't mean that people are free to do whatever the hell they
please. It means people are free to elect their leaders who will then decide what the
laws are in this country.
Now, what does the bar association need to be sued for? If the law says that doing
this or that is the unlawful practice of law, then so be it. Do you think the law is
unconstitutional? On what basis - freedom of speech? Freedom of speech doesn't give
you the right to call 911 and say there's a fire when there isn't. It doesn't give
you the right to threaten the President. It doesn't give you the right to publish or
post someone else's copyrighted work. It doesn't give you the right to reveal
classified military secrets. And hey, guess what, it also doesn't give you the right
to publish legal advice if you're not a lawyer!
Now, Alvena's pages were not all legal advice. I know and she knows and everyone
knows that many of her pages contained content which can't even remotely be construed
as legal advice. However, when a web page says "well, the law says this, so if you're
in that situation, you should do this", well, that's probably crossing the line. I
mean, if that's not legal advice, what the hell is? The KY bar told her to stop, but
it didn't tell her that her entire web page was illegal. She just chose to pull
everything for her own safety. I don't think anyone can blame her for that.
At some point, when she gets more legal clarification, Alvena will decide what to do
with her pages. I do hope she will put much of her non-legal content back online. But
of course, that's up to her.
In the mean time, if you really want to *help*, I'd suggest trying to find some
specific text/information/cases/definitions of what truly does and does not
constitute the unauthorized practice of law in various states. I mean *real*
information, not just any idiot layman's opinion. Once this information is clarified
and reaffirmed, I'm confident we'll being seeing compliant K-1/Immigration web pages
back online in no time.
Paulgani
May 19th 2001, 4:47 pm
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
For once, I completely and utterly agree with every word of what you said! Now
THERE'S a shocker....
Is this upsetting? Yes. Does that mean it's the end of the world as we know it? No.
In fact, much of what goes on this newsgroup crosses the line, too. (Advising people
to circumvent immigration law by willfully immigrating on a non-immigration visa
comes immediately to mind: if the INS truly "didn't mind" they, would not even ask
you if you had a fiance or spouse in the country on visa application forms). However,
a newsgroup is much harder to stop.
People wanting to sue everyone all the time is exactly why these laws are there. The
laws are designed to PROTECT people from being had by unethical people who pose as
experts when they are not. Alvena is not an unethical person, and she is not in this
for any sort of profit or benefit. However, once someone goes to the bar with a
complaint, my guess is the bar is required to look into it.
Alvena herself has pointed out that the "Askme" pages seemed to be causing the
most trouble.
Stating "The law says such-and-such" is apparently not a problem. Trying to interpret
it apparently is. Regardless, this is Alvena's problem to sort out, not ours. We
should (and have) expressed our sympathy and concern, and offerred help where we can.
Dragging her into some lawsuit against her wishes would not be my idea of the best
way to help. Let the woman handle her own affairs, as she has shown herself quite
competently able to do time and time again.
Beth
----------
in message
[usenetquote2]>> in Federal court.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> This is a "free country?!"[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
THERE'S a shocker....
Is this upsetting? Yes. Does that mean it's the end of the world as we know it? No.
In fact, much of what goes on this newsgroup crosses the line, too. (Advising people
to circumvent immigration law by willfully immigrating on a non-immigration visa
comes immediately to mind: if the INS truly "didn't mind" they, would not even ask
you if you had a fiance or spouse in the country on visa application forms). However,
a newsgroup is much harder to stop.
People wanting to sue everyone all the time is exactly why these laws are there. The
laws are designed to PROTECT people from being had by unethical people who pose as
experts when they are not. Alvena is not an unethical person, and she is not in this
for any sort of profit or benefit. However, once someone goes to the bar with a
complaint, my guess is the bar is required to look into it.
Alvena herself has pointed out that the "Askme" pages seemed to be causing the
most trouble.
Stating "The law says such-and-such" is apparently not a problem. Trying to interpret
it apparently is. Regardless, this is Alvena's problem to sort out, not ours. We
should (and have) expressed our sympathy and concern, and offerred help where we can.
Dragging her into some lawsuit against her wishes would not be my idea of the best
way to help. Let the woman handle her own affairs, as she has shown herself quite
competently able to do time and time again.
Beth
----------
in message
[usenetquote2]>> in Federal court.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> This is a "free country?!"[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
May 19th 2001, 4:59 pm
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
P.S.: Most people are under the general impression that lawyers petitioned for
these laws to benefit their own practices. And this may well be the case: I'd
be interested in seeing the history of the law itself. However, it is just as
likely that the law came into being because someone hung out a shingle saying
"Advice on (state your problem here) At Reasonable Cost" or some such thing,
and someone got into trouble with what turned out to be bad advice, and wrote
their Congressman saying "there should be a law against this!!!" Maybe there
was even a lawsuit which triggered this whole thing. Who knows? But seeing
evil intent where it is not self-evident appears to be a growing trend in
this country.
Beth
these laws to benefit their own practices. And this may well be the case: I'd
be interested in seeing the history of the law itself. However, it is just as
likely that the law came into being because someone hung out a shingle saying
"Advice on (state your problem here) At Reasonable Cost" or some such thing,
and someone got into trouble with what turned out to be bad advice, and wrote
their Congressman saying "there should be a law against this!!!" Maybe there
was even a lawsuit which triggered this whole thing. Who knows? But seeing
evil intent where it is not self-evident appears to be a growing trend in
this country.
Beth
