From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
Sep 13th 2002, 2:43 am
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
I see that someone has reposted a posting I made on Alvena's site yesterday, and I
just wanted to take a few minutes to type up a reply instead of typing in a reply to
many of the individual postings that I see in this group.
First, let me state one thing. I don't hate Alvena! I understand what she does and
why she does it. As far as being an "advisor", I actually think she's a pretty good
one. I actually "like" Alvena, although I've never liked what I perceive as her
deliberate steps taken to teach the world at large how to fool INS officers at the
point of entry. At one time, I even gave her some of my write-ups and other
information to use on her site (although I asked her to take it down after 09/11/01,
and for a few of those items, she actually respected my wishes and took down a few,
but not all of the items as I asked). I posted my article yesterday on the very site
containing what I find to be offending information, not in this news group or other
publicly maintained and linked news groups.
When I read over the postings in this news group today about me, I get the impression
that some of you think I'm simply trying to shut Alvena down for my own personal
gain. Not true. Whether or not she's engaging in the unauthorized practice of the law
is none of my business. I'm not the Kentucky State Bar, nor do I have any compelling
interest in the protection of Kentucky's population in seeing that legal advice is
not given out by people not licensed to do so.
As to the "inaccurate information" theory that I see advanced in some of the
postings: Actually, the reason I believe (and mentioned in "one" place in my posting)
there was some out of date information on the site is because another attorney friend
of mine (who I turned onto Alvena's site) pokes around on her site a bit and has
mentioned to me on many occasions that he's found inaccurate and/or out of date
information on her site. I generally only visit her message board and don't poke
around on her site to read every bit of information there, however right before
typing up this reply (that you are reading) I did go to her K-1 adjustment page, and
I see that she has not updated her chart with the new INS filing fees that came out
last February! So if someone gets an old form with the old fee written in the
instructions, then goes to her page and sees that same fee written there... well what
do you think he or she is going to do? My guess is there is a very real danger the
person will send the wrong fee and their submission will be rejected. This could be
absolutely devastating for someone trying to beat a filing deadline; only to find out
they missed the cutoff due to sending in the incorrect fee. Again, I've not read
every bit of information on her site so I can't give you a comprehensive list of
inaccurate information. Perhaps some of you can spot some and bring it to her
attention. You would be doing the immigration community a favor by doing so.
Again, when I look at my posting of yesterday, I see that I wrote about what I was
feeling at that time. Remember, I wrote and posted this on 09/11/02, the 1-year
anniversary of the heinous terrorist attack on our country, by people who somehow got
into the country past the INS officers at the POE. To me, the only real problem I
have with the site is the information on the "Tourist Adjustment" page, "entry risks"
page (but again, of course I don't know about all of the information on her site, but
this is one area of information I'm aware of and have a problem with). To me, even
with the disclaimer, I see this information as tips and instructions, given to the
world at large, about how to fool an INS officer at a point of entry as to one's true
intentions upon entry. Sure, innocent fiancée couples who might want to bypass the
fiancée visa process and who might not pose any sort of security risk for the country
will be reading the information, but that information (plus private postings on news
groups and message boards) giving tips how to fool INS officers at the point of entry
can be read by "anybody" on the planet with a computer, including the "bad guys".
There is no way to limit that to an innocent lovesick fiancée couple (unless that
advice is given in the privacy of a two party conversation or a private e-mail).
That same page, on 09/11/01 had the heading that said something to the effect of,
"Here is a list of recommendations...." and the list went on to instruct how to fool
the INS officer at the POE. On 09/12/01, I did write Alvena an e-mail voicing my
strong displeasure about her instructions to the world at large and that in my
opinion, doing so now, post 09/11/01 was ghastly. She did reply that she did not
think her site did any such thing, but within a matter of hours she then changed the
heading to say, "This is not a recommendation...". The heading is the only thing that
changed, however the tips are still there for the world to see.
To post those "tips" to the world at large before 09/11/01 was reckless in my
opinion, but continuing to do so after 09/11/01 is, in my opinion, appalling. If you
don't have a problem with someone telling people how to fool INS officers at the
point of entry, why not? (And I'm not being sarcastic here... I really want to know
what your thoughts are).
Now I was a little surprised that Alvena removed the thread on her site where I
voiced my opinion! There were also a couple of other replies, one from the other
attorney voicing his thoughts on her "tips" page, one from another guy who happened
to agree, and one from another guy who said he was given legal advice from Alvena and
was almost severely damaged by following it. I've asked him to send me a write up
about his experience for my records. Its not that I'm going to do anything with it,
but I am curious about what happened to him.
So to sum it up, I like Alvena, she can dispense all of the legal advice she wants as
its not my job to come down on her for doing so (although I can tell you that every
state and pretty much every AILA chapter is on the look out for UPL... and the States
and AILA being on the lookout for UPL has been going on for years), I hope she feels
better soon (according to her post, she's a little under the weather now), and I just
wish she would change her page to stop instructing the world at large how to fool INS
officers at the POE. After all, don't "you" want them to be able to do their jobs?
Regards, Matthew Udall Attorney
just wanted to take a few minutes to type up a reply instead of typing in a reply to
many of the individual postings that I see in this group.
First, let me state one thing. I don't hate Alvena! I understand what she does and
why she does it. As far as being an "advisor", I actually think she's a pretty good
one. I actually "like" Alvena, although I've never liked what I perceive as her
deliberate steps taken to teach the world at large how to fool INS officers at the
point of entry. At one time, I even gave her some of my write-ups and other
information to use on her site (although I asked her to take it down after 09/11/01,
and for a few of those items, she actually respected my wishes and took down a few,
but not all of the items as I asked). I posted my article yesterday on the very site
containing what I find to be offending information, not in this news group or other
publicly maintained and linked news groups.
When I read over the postings in this news group today about me, I get the impression
that some of you think I'm simply trying to shut Alvena down for my own personal
gain. Not true. Whether or not she's engaging in the unauthorized practice of the law
is none of my business. I'm not the Kentucky State Bar, nor do I have any compelling
interest in the protection of Kentucky's population in seeing that legal advice is
not given out by people not licensed to do so.
As to the "inaccurate information" theory that I see advanced in some of the
postings: Actually, the reason I believe (and mentioned in "one" place in my posting)
there was some out of date information on the site is because another attorney friend
of mine (who I turned onto Alvena's site) pokes around on her site a bit and has
mentioned to me on many occasions that he's found inaccurate and/or out of date
information on her site. I generally only visit her message board and don't poke
around on her site to read every bit of information there, however right before
typing up this reply (that you are reading) I did go to her K-1 adjustment page, and
I see that she has not updated her chart with the new INS filing fees that came out
last February! So if someone gets an old form with the old fee written in the
instructions, then goes to her page and sees that same fee written there... well what
do you think he or she is going to do? My guess is there is a very real danger the
person will send the wrong fee and their submission will be rejected. This could be
absolutely devastating for someone trying to beat a filing deadline; only to find out
they missed the cutoff due to sending in the incorrect fee. Again, I've not read
every bit of information on her site so I can't give you a comprehensive list of
inaccurate information. Perhaps some of you can spot some and bring it to her
attention. You would be doing the immigration community a favor by doing so.
Again, when I look at my posting of yesterday, I see that I wrote about what I was
feeling at that time. Remember, I wrote and posted this on 09/11/02, the 1-year
anniversary of the heinous terrorist attack on our country, by people who somehow got
into the country past the INS officers at the POE. To me, the only real problem I
have with the site is the information on the "Tourist Adjustment" page, "entry risks"
page (but again, of course I don't know about all of the information on her site, but
this is one area of information I'm aware of and have a problem with). To me, even
with the disclaimer, I see this information as tips and instructions, given to the
world at large, about how to fool an INS officer at a point of entry as to one's true
intentions upon entry. Sure, innocent fiancée couples who might want to bypass the
fiancée visa process and who might not pose any sort of security risk for the country
will be reading the information, but that information (plus private postings on news
groups and message boards) giving tips how to fool INS officers at the point of entry
can be read by "anybody" on the planet with a computer, including the "bad guys".
There is no way to limit that to an innocent lovesick fiancée couple (unless that
advice is given in the privacy of a two party conversation or a private e-mail).
That same page, on 09/11/01 had the heading that said something to the effect of,
"Here is a list of recommendations...." and the list went on to instruct how to fool
the INS officer at the POE. On 09/12/01, I did write Alvena an e-mail voicing my
strong displeasure about her instructions to the world at large and that in my
opinion, doing so now, post 09/11/01 was ghastly. She did reply that she did not
think her site did any such thing, but within a matter of hours she then changed the
heading to say, "This is not a recommendation...". The heading is the only thing that
changed, however the tips are still there for the world to see.
To post those "tips" to the world at large before 09/11/01 was reckless in my
opinion, but continuing to do so after 09/11/01 is, in my opinion, appalling. If you
don't have a problem with someone telling people how to fool INS officers at the
point of entry, why not? (And I'm not being sarcastic here... I really want to know
what your thoughts are).
Now I was a little surprised that Alvena removed the thread on her site where I
voiced my opinion! There were also a couple of other replies, one from the other
attorney voicing his thoughts on her "tips" page, one from another guy who happened
to agree, and one from another guy who said he was given legal advice from Alvena and
was almost severely damaged by following it. I've asked him to send me a write up
about his experience for my records. Its not that I'm going to do anything with it,
but I am curious about what happened to him.
So to sum it up, I like Alvena, she can dispense all of the legal advice she wants as
its not my job to come down on her for doing so (although I can tell you that every
state and pretty much every AILA chapter is on the look out for UPL... and the States
and AILA being on the lookout for UPL has been going on for years), I hope she feels
better soon (according to her post, she's a little under the weather now), and I just
wish she would change her page to stop instructing the world at large how to fool INS
officers at the POE. After all, don't "you" want them to be able to do their jobs?
Regards, Matthew Udall Attorney
Sep 13th 2002, 9:17 am
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
Dear Matt,
I have been following the discussion about Alvena's website these last couple of
days. Please take the following simply as food for thought, nothing else.
1. First, in response to your letter, it would be helpful to have some more concrete
examples of the "incorrect information" given on the webpage. It is my personal
opinion that most people will be very receptive to constructive criticism, and
follow up on it, if pointed to the exact location of misinformation.
2. As for your strong emotions on the subject of terrorism, I am sure we all share
the feeling that we want a safer world for ourselves and our children.
If you look at the activities of AlQuaeda, however, it will become apparent that they
have sources of funding that go well beyond the means of the average person. It is
simply impossible to plan and set up such an operation without the requisite cash -
not everyone can afford to take flying lessons, and live comfortably in Florida
without earnings from a regular job. These terrorists had the backing of a large
underground organization that is very well-funded. The freezing of several futures
and options accounts at the NY stock exchange after the attacks are testimony to
their financial savviness (if the owners are de facto linked to AlQuaeda, which is
still under investigation as I understand).
In my opinion, terrorists that act on the scale of Sept 11 can certainly afford one
or two consultations with an immigrantion attorney on how to change their visas from
tourists to students of a flight school. As meticulously planned as that attack was,
they surly did not leave any of these details to coincidence, and I cannot imagine
that they would have fully relied on the information of the internet.
If I remember correctly, two of the terrorists even got approved for their student
visas 6 months after the fact by INS - how should an INS officer at the point of
entry have caught their intentions?
- Des
[email protected] (MDUdall) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> I see that someone has reposted a posting I made on Alvena's site yesterday, and I
> just wanted to take a few minutes to type up a reply instead of typing in a reply
> to many of the individual postings that I see in this group.
> First, let me state one thing. I don't hate Alvena! I understand what she does and
> why she does it. As far as being an "advisor", I actually think she's a pretty good
> one. I actually "like" Alvena, although I've never liked what I perceive as her
> deliberate steps taken to teach the world at large how to fool INS officers at the
> point of entry. At one time, I even gave her some of my write-ups and other
> information to use on her site (although I asked her to take it down after
> 09/11/01, and for a few of those items, she actually respected my wishes and took
> down a few, but not all of the items as I asked). I posted my article yesterday on
> the very site containing what I find to be offending information, not in this news
> group or other publicly maintained and linked news groups.
> When I read over the postings in this news group today about me, I get the
> impression that some of you think I'm simply trying to shut Alvena down for my own
> personal gain. Not true. Whether or not she's engaging in the unauthorized practice
> of the law is none of my business. I'm not the Kentucky State Bar, nor do I have
> any compelling interest in the protection of Kentucky's population in seeing that
> legal advice is not given out by people not licensed to do so.
> As to the "inaccurate information" theory that I see advanced in some of the
> postings: Actually, the reason I believe (and mentioned in "one" place in my
> posting) there was some out of date information on the site is because another
> attorney friend of mine (who I turned onto Alvena's site) pokes around on her site
> a bit and has mentioned to me on many occasions that he's found inaccurate and/or
> out of date information on her site. I generally only visit her message board and
> don't poke around on her site to read every bit of information there, however right
> before typing up this reply (that you are reading) I did go to her K-1 adjustment
> page, and I see that she has not updated her chart with the new INS filing fees
> that came out last February! So if someone gets an old form with the old fee
> written in the instructions, then goes to her page and sees that same fee written
> there... well what do you think he or she is going to do? My guess is there is a
> very real danger the person will send the wrong fee and their submission will be
> rejected. This could be absolutely devastating for someone trying to beat a filing
> deadline; only to find out they missed the cutoff due to sending in the incorrect
> fee. Again, I've not read every bit of information on her site so I can't give you
> a comprehensive list of inaccurate information. Perhaps some of you can spot some
> and bring it to her attention. You would be doing the immigration community a favor
> by doing so.
> Again, when I look at my posting of yesterday, I see that I wrote about what I was
> feeling at that time. Remember, I wrote and posted this on 09/11/02, the 1-year
> anniversary of the heinous terrorist attack on our country, by people who somehow
> got into the country past the INS officers at the POE. To me, the only real problem
> I have with the site is the information on the "Tourist Adjustment" page, "entry
> risks" page (but again, of course I don't know about all of the information on her
> site, but this is one area of information I'm aware of and have a problem with). To
> me, even with the disclaimer, I see this information as tips and instructions,
> given to the world at large, about how to fool an INS officer at a point of entry
> as to one's true intentions upon entry. Sure, innocent fiancée couples who might
> want to bypass the fiancée visa process and who might not pose any sort of security
> risk for the country will be reading the information, but that information (plus
> private postings on news groups and message boards) giving tips how to fool INS
> officers at the point of entry can be read by "anybody" on the planet with a
> computer, including the "bad guys". There is no way to limit that to an innocent
> lovesick fiancée couple (unless that advice is given in the privacy of a two party
> conversation or a private e-mail).
> That same page, on 09/11/01 had the heading that said something to the effect of,
> "Here is a list of recommendations...." and the list went on to instruct how to
> fool the INS officer at the POE. On 09/12/01, I did write Alvena an e-mail voicing
> my strong displeasure about her instructions to the world at large and that in my
> opinion, doing so now, post 09/11/01 was ghastly. She did reply that she did not
> think her site did any such thing, but within a matter of hours she then changed
> the heading to say, "This is not a recommendation...". The heading is the only
> thing that changed, however the tips are still there for the world to see.
> To post those "tips" to the world at large before 09/11/01 was reckless in my
> opinion, but continuing to do so after 09/11/01 is, in my opinion, appalling. If
> you don't have a problem with someone telling people how to fool INS officers at
> the point of entry, why not? (And I'm not being sarcastic here... I really want to
> know what your thoughts are).
> Now I was a little surprised that Alvena removed the thread on her site where I
> voiced my opinion! There were also a couple of other replies, one from the other
> attorney voicing his thoughts on her "tips" page, one from another guy who happened
> to agree, and one from another guy who said he was given legal advice from Alvena
> and was almost severely damaged by following it. I've asked him to send me a write
> up about his experience for my records. Its not that I'm going to do anything with
> it, but I am curious about what happened to him.
> So to sum it up, I like Alvena, she can dispense all of the legal advice she wants
> as its not my job to come down on her for doing so (although I can tell you that
> every state and pretty much every AILA chapter is on the look out for UPL... and
> the States and AILA being on the lookout for UPL has been going on for years), I
> hope she feels better soon (according to her post, she's a little under the weather
> now), and I just wish she would change her page to stop instructing the world at
> large how to fool INS officers at the POE. After all, don't "you" want them to be
> able to do their jobs?
> Regards, Matthew Udall Attorney
I have been following the discussion about Alvena's website these last couple of
days. Please take the following simply as food for thought, nothing else.
1. First, in response to your letter, it would be helpful to have some more concrete
examples of the "incorrect information" given on the webpage. It is my personal
opinion that most people will be very receptive to constructive criticism, and
follow up on it, if pointed to the exact location of misinformation.
2. As for your strong emotions on the subject of terrorism, I am sure we all share
the feeling that we want a safer world for ourselves and our children.
If you look at the activities of AlQuaeda, however, it will become apparent that they
have sources of funding that go well beyond the means of the average person. It is
simply impossible to plan and set up such an operation without the requisite cash -
not everyone can afford to take flying lessons, and live comfortably in Florida
without earnings from a regular job. These terrorists had the backing of a large
underground organization that is very well-funded. The freezing of several futures
and options accounts at the NY stock exchange after the attacks are testimony to
their financial savviness (if the owners are de facto linked to AlQuaeda, which is
still under investigation as I understand).
In my opinion, terrorists that act on the scale of Sept 11 can certainly afford one
or two consultations with an immigrantion attorney on how to change their visas from
tourists to students of a flight school. As meticulously planned as that attack was,
they surly did not leave any of these details to coincidence, and I cannot imagine
that they would have fully relied on the information of the internet.
If I remember correctly, two of the terrorists even got approved for their student
visas 6 months after the fact by INS - how should an INS officer at the point of
entry have caught their intentions?
- Des
[email protected] (MDUdall) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> I see that someone has reposted a posting I made on Alvena's site yesterday, and I
> just wanted to take a few minutes to type up a reply instead of typing in a reply
> to many of the individual postings that I see in this group.
> First, let me state one thing. I don't hate Alvena! I understand what she does and
> why she does it. As far as being an "advisor", I actually think she's a pretty good
> one. I actually "like" Alvena, although I've never liked what I perceive as her
> deliberate steps taken to teach the world at large how to fool INS officers at the
> point of entry. At one time, I even gave her some of my write-ups and other
> information to use on her site (although I asked her to take it down after
> 09/11/01, and for a few of those items, she actually respected my wishes and took
> down a few, but not all of the items as I asked). I posted my article yesterday on
> the very site containing what I find to be offending information, not in this news
> group or other publicly maintained and linked news groups.
> When I read over the postings in this news group today about me, I get the
> impression that some of you think I'm simply trying to shut Alvena down for my own
> personal gain. Not true. Whether or not she's engaging in the unauthorized practice
> of the law is none of my business. I'm not the Kentucky State Bar, nor do I have
> any compelling interest in the protection of Kentucky's population in seeing that
> legal advice is not given out by people not licensed to do so.
> As to the "inaccurate information" theory that I see advanced in some of the
> postings: Actually, the reason I believe (and mentioned in "one" place in my
> posting) there was some out of date information on the site is because another
> attorney friend of mine (who I turned onto Alvena's site) pokes around on her site
> a bit and has mentioned to me on many occasions that he's found inaccurate and/or
> out of date information on her site. I generally only visit her message board and
> don't poke around on her site to read every bit of information there, however right
> before typing up this reply (that you are reading) I did go to her K-1 adjustment
> page, and I see that she has not updated her chart with the new INS filing fees
> that came out last February! So if someone gets an old form with the old fee
> written in the instructions, then goes to her page and sees that same fee written
> there... well what do you think he or she is going to do? My guess is there is a
> very real danger the person will send the wrong fee and their submission will be
> rejected. This could be absolutely devastating for someone trying to beat a filing
> deadline; only to find out they missed the cutoff due to sending in the incorrect
> fee. Again, I've not read every bit of information on her site so I can't give you
> a comprehensive list of inaccurate information. Perhaps some of you can spot some
> and bring it to her attention. You would be doing the immigration community a favor
> by doing so.
> Again, when I look at my posting of yesterday, I see that I wrote about what I was
> feeling at that time. Remember, I wrote and posted this on 09/11/02, the 1-year
> anniversary of the heinous terrorist attack on our country, by people who somehow
> got into the country past the INS officers at the POE. To me, the only real problem
> I have with the site is the information on the "Tourist Adjustment" page, "entry
> risks" page (but again, of course I don't know about all of the information on her
> site, but this is one area of information I'm aware of and have a problem with). To
> me, even with the disclaimer, I see this information as tips and instructions,
> given to the world at large, about how to fool an INS officer at a point of entry
> as to one's true intentions upon entry. Sure, innocent fiancée couples who might
> want to bypass the fiancée visa process and who might not pose any sort of security
> risk for the country will be reading the information, but that information (plus
> private postings on news groups and message boards) giving tips how to fool INS
> officers at the point of entry can be read by "anybody" on the planet with a
> computer, including the "bad guys". There is no way to limit that to an innocent
> lovesick fiancée couple (unless that advice is given in the privacy of a two party
> conversation or a private e-mail).
> That same page, on 09/11/01 had the heading that said something to the effect of,
> "Here is a list of recommendations...." and the list went on to instruct how to
> fool the INS officer at the POE. On 09/12/01, I did write Alvena an e-mail voicing
> my strong displeasure about her instructions to the world at large and that in my
> opinion, doing so now, post 09/11/01 was ghastly. She did reply that she did not
> think her site did any such thing, but within a matter of hours she then changed
> the heading to say, "This is not a recommendation...". The heading is the only
> thing that changed, however the tips are still there for the world to see.
> To post those "tips" to the world at large before 09/11/01 was reckless in my
> opinion, but continuing to do so after 09/11/01 is, in my opinion, appalling. If
> you don't have a problem with someone telling people how to fool INS officers at
> the point of entry, why not? (And I'm not being sarcastic here... I really want to
> know what your thoughts are).
> Now I was a little surprised that Alvena removed the thread on her site where I
> voiced my opinion! There were also a couple of other replies, one from the other
> attorney voicing his thoughts on her "tips" page, one from another guy who happened
> to agree, and one from another guy who said he was given legal advice from Alvena
> and was almost severely damaged by following it. I've asked him to send me a write
> up about his experience for my records. Its not that I'm going to do anything with
> it, but I am curious about what happened to him.
> So to sum it up, I like Alvena, she can dispense all of the legal advice she wants
> as its not my job to come down on her for doing so (although I can tell you that
> every state and pretty much every AILA chapter is on the look out for UPL... and
> the States and AILA being on the lookout for UPL has been going on for years), I
> hope she feels better soon (according to her post, she's a little under the weather
> now), and I just wish she would change her page to stop instructing the world at
> large how to fool INS officers at the POE. After all, don't "you" want them to be
> able to do their jobs?
> Regards, Matthew Udall Attorney
Sep 13th 2002, 12:17 pm
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
Matt, I have a great deal of respect for you and your advice to this NG and to many
individuals. However I must disagree with you on this action, first if you read the
disclaimer it states that some or all the info may be wrong and to not rely solely on
the info found on their page. Secondly I am surprised that you bought into the
hysteria that there is a terrorist under every bed. The info the page gives out would
be of little use to a terrorist trying to enter America. With the money and resources
they have why would they rely on her webpage to enter America. From what I have seen
and read all the terrorist had a tourist visa or student visa which are given at the
consulate and Alvena's page does not tell you how to "MISINFORM" the consulate in
order to get a tourist visa. As an example would you want someone to shut down a
site that teaches the art of archery because someone may learn how to shot a bow and
then shoots her husband? So I ask you not to blame the messenger for someone else
poor behavior. Dennis
individuals. However I must disagree with you on this action, first if you read the
disclaimer it states that some or all the info may be wrong and to not rely solely on
the info found on their page. Secondly I am surprised that you bought into the
hysteria that there is a terrorist under every bed. The info the page gives out would
be of little use to a terrorist trying to enter America. With the money and resources
they have why would they rely on her webpage to enter America. From what I have seen
and read all the terrorist had a tourist visa or student visa which are given at the
consulate and Alvena's page does not tell you how to "MISINFORM" the consulate in
order to get a tourist visa. As an example would you want someone to shut down a
site that teaches the art of archery because someone may learn how to shot a bow and
then shoots her husband? So I ask you not to blame the messenger for someone else
poor behavior. Dennis
Sep 13th 2002, 12:25 pm
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
"Des" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] m...
> Dear Matt,
> I have been following the discussion about Alvena's website these last couple of
> days. Please take the following simply as food for thought, nothing else.
> 1. First, in response to your letter, it would be helpful to have some more
> concrete examples of the "incorrect information" given on the webpage. It is my
> personal opinion that most people will be very receptive to constructive
> criticism, and follow up on it, if pointed to the exact location of
> misinformation.
Maybe you could provide a name an address so Matt could send you a bill for the time
you wish him to spend correcting that entire web site.
His example about filing fees is proof enough his point is valid....... that
misinformation alone will cost people weeks of time in filing with the incorrect fee,
and then the turn around of refiling.....
Ben
> Dear Matt,
> I have been following the discussion about Alvena's website these last couple of
> days. Please take the following simply as food for thought, nothing else.
> 1. First, in response to your letter, it would be helpful to have some more
> concrete examples of the "incorrect information" given on the webpage. It is my
> personal opinion that most people will be very receptive to constructive
> criticism, and follow up on it, if pointed to the exact location of
> misinformation.
Maybe you could provide a name an address so Matt could send you a bill for the time
you wish him to spend correcting that entire web site.
His example about filing fees is proof enough his point is valid....... that
misinformation alone will cost people weeks of time in filing with the incorrect fee,
and then the turn around of refiling.....
Ben
Sep 13th 2002, 2:05 pm
#5
Forum Regular
Joined: Jul 2002
Location: Garden City, Singapore
Posts: 79
Re: From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
Matt:
Much as I respect you for your professionalism and your occasional aid in this NG, and as one who has neither communicated with Alvena or have gained in any way (yet) from her info-site, I have to disagree with you on your stance.
It is not right to equate 911 to 'illegal' entries with info from any website, any source, much less that of supposedl;y-Alvena's.
If you are not yet aware, most of the 911 heinous perpetrators entered USA legally and legitimately, without lying or needing to lie. And, add to that, they lived and breathed and mingled within/around your fellow citizen's backyards for some period of time.
No offense meant. But, quit being so paranoic. Freedom of speech, Freedom of Press, indeed, Freedom in a way of life, should be upheld.
The evils of this world will always have a way and a means to do evil. By reacting the way you did, I think you are handing 'victory' to the very same group of perpetrators of 911 by 'not living life as a USC has always lived'.
May God Bless America, the world community, and those who are grieving lost loved ones.
Much as I respect you for your professionalism and your occasional aid in this NG, and as one who has neither communicated with Alvena or have gained in any way (yet) from her info-site, I have to disagree with you on your stance.
It is not right to equate 911 to 'illegal' entries with info from any website, any source, much less that of supposedl;y-Alvena's.
If you are not yet aware, most of the 911 heinous perpetrators entered USA legally and legitimately, without lying or needing to lie. And, add to that, they lived and breathed and mingled within/around your fellow citizen's backyards for some period of time.
No offense meant. But, quit being so paranoic. Freedom of speech, Freedom of Press, indeed, Freedom in a way of life, should be upheld.
The evils of this world will always have a way and a means to do evil. By reacting the way you did, I think you are handing 'victory' to the very same group of perpetrators of 911 by 'not living life as a USC has always lived'.
May God Bless America, the world community, and those who are grieving lost loved ones.
Sep 13th 2002, 2:14 pm
#6
Forum Regular
Joined: Jul 2002
Location: Garden City, Singapore
Posts: 79
Re: From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
As an add on:
That website in question is, as I understand from postings here, no longer under 'ownership' of Alvena. But is 'kept available' by virtue of Doc Steen.
There are so many out there crying out for help with such bureaucracy as is required by the INS. And, as I've indicated before in this NG, such bureaucracy is 'a necessary evil' and in itself is a good enough way to ensure minimum 'illegal/fradulent/what-have-you' from obtaining right of stay in USA.
Let there not be further personal attacks or finger-pointings.
Kind regards.
That website in question is, as I understand from postings here, no longer under 'ownership' of Alvena. But is 'kept available' by virtue of Doc Steen.
There are so many out there crying out for help with such bureaucracy as is required by the INS. And, as I've indicated before in this NG, such bureaucracy is 'a necessary evil' and in itself is a good enough way to ensure minimum 'illegal/fradulent/what-have-you' from obtaining right of stay in USA.
Let there not be further personal attacks or finger-pointings.
Kind regards.
Sep 13th 2002, 2:28 pm
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
Doesn't the INS maintain their own web site with all the information available..??
Getting the info from the horses mouth should hold more weight with the INS even if
it should prove to be erroneous.. I really think any information, timelines,
procedures, fees, etc. should be suspect if it occurred before 9/11/01.. Obviously
everything has changed since then.. It used to be so easy (if all your ducks were in
a row) to go through the process compared to the delays and red tape now in effect..
There's an old saying - "YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR." If you want to rely on free
advice, even from strangers with hearts of gold and only mean the very best for you,
fine, but don't complain about the results.. Get the information for yourself and use
the free advice as a guideline to help you along the way.. If you're unable to do
the ground work hire an attorney to do it for you.. It's gonna cost you money but if
the lawyer screws it up, you have some recourse.. Just my .02 cents worth.. I've
finished the process now, good luck to all.. The procedure isn't all that difficult,
providing there are no extenuating circumstances to throw up red flags with the INS..
Give them what they want when they want it and in the order they want it in..
Nuff said..
Ed (US/Can)
"Ben Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
earthlink.net...
> "Des" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] m...
> > Dear Matt,
> >
> > I have been following the discussion about Alvena's website these last couple of
> > days. Please take the following simply as food for thought, nothing else.
> >
> > 1. First, in response to your letter, it would be helpful to have some more
> > concrete examples of the "incorrect information" given on the webpage. It is
> > my personal opinion that most people will be very receptive to constructive
> > criticism, and follow up on it, if pointed to the exact location of
> > misinformation.
> Maybe you could provide a name an address so Matt could send you a bill
for
> the time you wish him to spend correcting that entire web site.
> His example about filing fees is proof enough his point is valid.......
that
> misinformation alone will cost people weeks of time in filing with the incorrect
> fee, and then the turn around of refiling.....
> Ben
Getting the info from the horses mouth should hold more weight with the INS even if
it should prove to be erroneous.. I really think any information, timelines,
procedures, fees, etc. should be suspect if it occurred before 9/11/01.. Obviously
everything has changed since then.. It used to be so easy (if all your ducks were in
a row) to go through the process compared to the delays and red tape now in effect..
There's an old saying - "YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR." If you want to rely on free
advice, even from strangers with hearts of gold and only mean the very best for you,
fine, but don't complain about the results.. Get the information for yourself and use
the free advice as a guideline to help you along the way.. If you're unable to do
the ground work hire an attorney to do it for you.. It's gonna cost you money but if
the lawyer screws it up, you have some recourse.. Just my .02 cents worth.. I've
finished the process now, good luck to all.. The procedure isn't all that difficult,
providing there are no extenuating circumstances to throw up red flags with the INS..
Give them what they want when they want it and in the order they want it in..
Nuff said..
Ed (US/Can)
"Ben Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
earthlink.net...
> "Des" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] m...
> > Dear Matt,
> >
> > I have been following the discussion about Alvena's website these last couple of
> > days. Please take the following simply as food for thought, nothing else.
> >
> > 1. First, in response to your letter, it would be helpful to have some more
> > concrete examples of the "incorrect information" given on the webpage. It is
> > my personal opinion that most people will be very receptive to constructive
> > criticism, and follow up on it, if pointed to the exact location of
> > misinformation.
> Maybe you could provide a name an address so Matt could send you a bill
for
> the time you wish him to spend correcting that entire web site.
> His example about filing fees is proof enough his point is valid.......
that
> misinformation alone will cost people weeks of time in filing with the incorrect
> fee, and then the turn around of refiling.....
> Ben
Sep 13th 2002, 2:31 pm
#8
Banned
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,933
Re: From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
Originally posted by gardencity:
If you are not yet aware, most of the 911 heinous perpetrators entered USA legally and legitimately, without lying or needing to lie. And, add to that, they lived and breathed and mingled within/around your fellow citizen's backyards for some period of time.
No offense meant. But, quit being so paranoic. Freedom of speech, Freedom of Press, indeed, Freedom in a way of life, should be upheld.
The evils of this world will always have a way and a means to do evil.
If you are not yet aware, most of the 911 heinous perpetrators entered USA legally and legitimately, without lying or needing to lie. And, add to that, they lived and breathed and mingled within/around your fellow citizen's backyards for some period of time.
No offense meant. But, quit being so paranoic. Freedom of speech, Freedom of Press, indeed, Freedom in a way of life, should be upheld.
The evils of this world will always have a way and a means to do evil.
And the terrorists themselves are probably better l informed about the loopholes in entering the US than anyone on this newsgroup. After all, illegal activities are a way of life for such people. I think the opinion expressed by Matt Udall is ludicrous, to say the least.
Ranjini
Sep 13th 2002, 4:07 pm
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
"MDUdall" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> pretty good one. I actually "like" Alvena, although I've never liked what
I
> perceive as her deliberate steps taken to teach the world at large how to
fool
> INS officers at the point of entry.
You are such a misleader. I've read and reread the section you have trouble with.
It in no way suggests that this information is or should be used by people intending
to fool POE officials. Rather, it is advice to people intending to make LEGITIMATE
VISITS to avoid trouble at the POE. I certainly see NOTHING wrong with such
information.
People should read the section, and decide for themselves:
http://k1.exit.com/tourist3.html
The VERY first thing on the top is a recommendation NOT to try to enter with the
intent to immigrate. It then follows with commentary that if you do wish to choose
to make a visit, here are ways to avoid trouble at the POE.
> When I read over the postings in this news group today about me, I get the
> impression that some of you think I'm simply trying to shut Alvena down
for my
> own personal gain. Not true. Whether or not she's engaging in the
unauthorized
> practice of the law is none of my business. I'm not the Kentucky State
Bar, nor
> do I have any compelling interest in the protection of Kentucky's
population in
> seeing that legal advice is not given out by people not licensed to do so.
Perhaps you would appear to be more sincere in your declarations if you didn't
constantly mention an incident in which you do not know the outcome. Being
investigated for something, and being charged with a crime are two different things.
Remember, *anyone* can make a complaint to a state bar, and have someone
investigated. Heck, someone could contact the California Bar, and have *you*
investigated. But that means *nothing* unless you were actually charged with
something. How would you like it if someone constantly brought up some incident
involving the California bar for which you were investigated, but they found no
improper conduct? Certainly, you would question the motives of the poster.
> posting) there was some out of date information on the site is because
another
> attorney friend of mine (who I turned onto Alvena's site) pokes around on
her
> site a bit and has mentioned to me on many occasions that he's found
inaccurate
> and/or out of date information on her site. I generally only visit her
message
> board and don't poke around on her site to read every bit of information
there,
> however right before typing up this reply (that you are reading) I did go
to
> her K-1 adjustment page, and I see that she has not updated her chart with
the
> new INS filing fees that came out last February! So if someone gets an old
form
> with the old fee written in the instructions, then goes to her page and
sees
> that same fee written there... well what do you think he or she is going
to do?
> My guess is there is a very real danger the person will send the wrong fee
and
> their submission will be rejected. This could be absolutely devastating
for
It's curious that you seem to have a problem with out of date information on her
site, but have not voiced any objection to the out of date and incorrect information,
on say, the INS web site. Heck, most of the INS forms still print the outdated fees.
Where's your protestations about that? The one sidedness of your commentary clearly
puts to question the motives of the poster. That's a problem you've always had in
this newsgroup.
> Again, when I look at my posting of yesterday, I see that I wrote about
what I
> was feeling at that time. Remember, I wrote and posted this on 09/11/02,
the
> 1-year anniversary of the heinous terrorist attack on our country, by
people
> who somehow got into the country past the INS officers at the POE. To me,
the
Oh please. How are you different from the reactionaries who believe we should simply
ban all muslims of arab descent from coming to America because of the actions of a
few of their group? Alvena's site is not to be blamed for the terrorist attacks.
You have voiced no objections to the existing (flawed) U.S. visa laws and procedures,
but instead you hammer on a point involving advice to people intending to make
legitimate visits to the U.S.
> groups and message boards) giving tips how to fool INS officers at the
point of
> entry can be read by "anybody" on the planet with a computer, including
the
Again, you are misleading. The site gives no such tips to fool INS officials.
> If you don't have a problem with someone telling people how to fool INS officers at
> the point of entry, why not? (And I'm not being sarcastic
here... I
> really want to know what your thoughts are).
Again, the advice is to assist legitimate visitors from having trouble at the POE.
Using your logic, all information that *may* be helpful to terrorists should be
pulled. Heck, let's pull the FAM and the DOS and Consular web pages. They all give
very specific advice on how to apply for a visa, and the criteria they look for.
Heck, let's destroy all books on nuclear physics. After all, we need to keep such
dangerous information out of the hands of terrorists. To hell with the people who
need the information for LEGITIMATE purposes!
Paulgani
> pretty good one. I actually "like" Alvena, although I've never liked what
I
> perceive as her deliberate steps taken to teach the world at large how to
fool
> INS officers at the point of entry.
You are such a misleader. I've read and reread the section you have trouble with.
It in no way suggests that this information is or should be used by people intending
to fool POE officials. Rather, it is advice to people intending to make LEGITIMATE
VISITS to avoid trouble at the POE. I certainly see NOTHING wrong with such
information.
People should read the section, and decide for themselves:
http://k1.exit.com/tourist3.html
The VERY first thing on the top is a recommendation NOT to try to enter with the
intent to immigrate. It then follows with commentary that if you do wish to choose
to make a visit, here are ways to avoid trouble at the POE.
> When I read over the postings in this news group today about me, I get the
> impression that some of you think I'm simply trying to shut Alvena down
for my
> own personal gain. Not true. Whether or not she's engaging in the
unauthorized
> practice of the law is none of my business. I'm not the Kentucky State
Bar, nor
> do I have any compelling interest in the protection of Kentucky's
population in
> seeing that legal advice is not given out by people not licensed to do so.
Perhaps you would appear to be more sincere in your declarations if you didn't
constantly mention an incident in which you do not know the outcome. Being
investigated for something, and being charged with a crime are two different things.
Remember, *anyone* can make a complaint to a state bar, and have someone
investigated. Heck, someone could contact the California Bar, and have *you*
investigated. But that means *nothing* unless you were actually charged with
something. How would you like it if someone constantly brought up some incident
involving the California bar for which you were investigated, but they found no
improper conduct? Certainly, you would question the motives of the poster.
> posting) there was some out of date information on the site is because
another
> attorney friend of mine (who I turned onto Alvena's site) pokes around on
her
> site a bit and has mentioned to me on many occasions that he's found
inaccurate
> and/or out of date information on her site. I generally only visit her
message
> board and don't poke around on her site to read every bit of information
there,
> however right before typing up this reply (that you are reading) I did go
to
> her K-1 adjustment page, and I see that she has not updated her chart with
the
> new INS filing fees that came out last February! So if someone gets an old
form
> with the old fee written in the instructions, then goes to her page and
sees
> that same fee written there... well what do you think he or she is going
to do?
> My guess is there is a very real danger the person will send the wrong fee
and
> their submission will be rejected. This could be absolutely devastating
for
It's curious that you seem to have a problem with out of date information on her
site, but have not voiced any objection to the out of date and incorrect information,
on say, the INS web site. Heck, most of the INS forms still print the outdated fees.
Where's your protestations about that? The one sidedness of your commentary clearly
puts to question the motives of the poster. That's a problem you've always had in
this newsgroup.
> Again, when I look at my posting of yesterday, I see that I wrote about
what I
> was feeling at that time. Remember, I wrote and posted this on 09/11/02,
the
> 1-year anniversary of the heinous terrorist attack on our country, by
people
> who somehow got into the country past the INS officers at the POE. To me,
the
Oh please. How are you different from the reactionaries who believe we should simply
ban all muslims of arab descent from coming to America because of the actions of a
few of their group? Alvena's site is not to be blamed for the terrorist attacks.
You have voiced no objections to the existing (flawed) U.S. visa laws and procedures,
but instead you hammer on a point involving advice to people intending to make
legitimate visits to the U.S.
> groups and message boards) giving tips how to fool INS officers at the
point of
> entry can be read by "anybody" on the planet with a computer, including
the
Again, you are misleading. The site gives no such tips to fool INS officials.
> If you don't have a problem with someone telling people how to fool INS officers at
> the point of entry, why not? (And I'm not being sarcastic
here... I
> really want to know what your thoughts are).
Again, the advice is to assist legitimate visitors from having trouble at the POE.
Using your logic, all information that *may* be helpful to terrorists should be
pulled. Heck, let's pull the FAM and the DOS and Consular web pages. They all give
very specific advice on how to apply for a visa, and the criteria they look for.
Heck, let's destroy all books on nuclear physics. After all, we need to keep such
dangerous information out of the hands of terrorists. To hell with the people who
need the information for LEGITIMATE purposes!
Paulgani
Sep 13th 2002, 6:01 pm
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
MDUdall wrote:
> (actual verbatin comments omitted due to stated copyright issues)
> Mr. Udall commented that there were some of his materials remaining on the K-1 exit
> site.
Please inform me of whatever is remaining and I will be more than happy to remove it
immediately.
----------
> (actual verbatin comments omitted due to stated copyright issues)
> Mr. Udall commented that the tourist visa pages encourage terrorism.
1. I do not own the site. You are barking up the wrong tree. sir.
2. There is a statement in RED at the top of the tourist pages which reads thusly:
"Note: We do not recommend entrance on a tourist visa or visa waiver at this time. If
your fiance is already in the US, then there is no prohibition on marriage and filing
adjustment of status, according to the law, however attempting entrance for this
purpose is not recommended. If you decide to marry your fiance who is in the US on a
tourist visa be VERY SURE that your relationship is bona fide and not for the sole
purpose of legalizing your fiance's status in the US. We must all exercise caution in
this time of heightened national security and terrroristic threatening."
**Does that sound like the page is encouraging people to enter for marriage on a
tourist visa?
-----------
> (actual verbatin comments omitted due to stated copyright issues)
> Mr. Udall makes comment that AILA is looking for UPL and that I am dispensing legal
> advice.
Please allow me to re-iterate: I do NOT own the site. I am the webmaster for Doc
Steen. Doc Steen owns the site, perfectly legally, and on paper. He is responsible
for the site, it is his property. I can show you a copy any time you want. What part
of that do you not understand, sir?
And in our FWIW column: While the INS website has come a long way in the past few
years, I agree that the INS website could clean up some of it's own errors and
omissions. Were it not for that, there never would have been a need for other sites
in the first place. However, I suspect that it's much quicker and easier to just
cruise over to a newsgroup and attack an individual than it is to implement
constructive changes in the Justice Department.
Alvena My opinions only.
> (actual verbatin comments omitted due to stated copyright issues)
> Mr. Udall commented that there were some of his materials remaining on the K-1 exit
> site.
Please inform me of whatever is remaining and I will be more than happy to remove it
immediately.
----------
> (actual verbatin comments omitted due to stated copyright issues)
> Mr. Udall commented that the tourist visa pages encourage terrorism.
1. I do not own the site. You are barking up the wrong tree. sir.
2. There is a statement in RED at the top of the tourist pages which reads thusly:
"Note: We do not recommend entrance on a tourist visa or visa waiver at this time. If
your fiance is already in the US, then there is no prohibition on marriage and filing
adjustment of status, according to the law, however attempting entrance for this
purpose is not recommended. If you decide to marry your fiance who is in the US on a
tourist visa be VERY SURE that your relationship is bona fide and not for the sole
purpose of legalizing your fiance's status in the US. We must all exercise caution in
this time of heightened national security and terrroristic threatening."
**Does that sound like the page is encouraging people to enter for marriage on a
tourist visa?
-----------
> (actual verbatin comments omitted due to stated copyright issues)
> Mr. Udall makes comment that AILA is looking for UPL and that I am dispensing legal
> advice.
Please allow me to re-iterate: I do NOT own the site. I am the webmaster for Doc
Steen. Doc Steen owns the site, perfectly legally, and on paper. He is responsible
for the site, it is his property. I can show you a copy any time you want. What part
of that do you not understand, sir?
And in our FWIW column: While the INS website has come a long way in the past few
years, I agree that the INS website could clean up some of it's own errors and
omissions. Were it not for that, there never would have been a need for other sites
in the first place. However, I suspect that it's much quicker and easier to just
cruise over to a newsgroup and attack an individual than it is to implement
constructive changes in the Justice Department.
Alvena My opinions only.
Sep 13th 2002, 7:40 pm
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
I'm curious how would Alvina feel if CIA ceases computers beloinging to 9/11
terrorists, and they find the URL address of Alvina's "tips" page on how to fool the
INS agents. Alvina, would you feel any guilt at that point? What if the goverment
will press charges against you?
George
terrorists, and they find the URL address of Alvina's "tips" page on how to fool the
INS agents. Alvina, would you feel any guilt at that point? What if the goverment
will press charges against you?
George
Sep 13th 2002, 7:58 pm
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
Hi Alvena, I hope you are feeling well today (read in some of the posting that you
are feeling a little under the weather. Hope that passes soon). I thought I'd take a
minute to reply.
As to your question about the comment I made about some of my materials remaining on
your site: On 09/12/01 (or thereabouts), I sent you my e-mail voicing my strong
displeasure in your continuing to post tips to the world at large about how to fool
INS officers at the POE. In that e-mail (or perhaps it was the follow up one) I asked
you to remove any and all of my writings that I had once given permission for you to
use. I checked and shortly there after I noticed that the "one's I checked on" were
indeed removed. Thanks for that.
Then months later I saw a posting from someone talking about the "letter they got
from your site" to send to the local INS offices with pre-AOS-filing questions. I
checked, and there it was, my letter I had once given you permission to use. I again
wrote to you, asking you to remove it (which you did, and thanks again although I
wish you had done that at the outset). I also see that in at least one instance,
where you removed my writings, you instead inserted a "link" to a google page
containing my information "see this old post" ring a bell?. That's a little catty
don't you think, but again, I'm OK with that and did not bother contacting you about
it. If you want to post links to my old postings I suppose I'll just have to live
with that, but that runs both ways too.
As for your statement in red, right "above it" appears the following title for the
page: "Entering the U.S. on a tourist visa or visa waiver, if one has the intent to
marry and file adjustment after entry". How do you reconcile that with your statement
in red? The first statement describes the very essence of an illegal act committed at
the POE. Does Steen know that? And all I see is the tips about how to fool the INS
officers, but nothing describing the risks one takes at the POE for trying to "enter
the U.S. on a tourist visa or visa waiver, if one has the intent to marry and file
adjustment after entry".
Alvena, I propose a truce. I expressed my opinion about what I perceive to be
dangerous tips on your page written to the world at large (the innocent love sick
couples as well as the potential "bad guys"), on how to fool the INS officers at the
POE. That's all. I also did it on the 1-year anniversary of the terror attacks, and
the opinions I expressed are the very same ones I expressed to you in my e-mail of 1
year ago. You obviously don't agree with my take on it, and one year later those tips
remain. I respect everybody else's opinions that don't happen to agree with my take
on it, even yours.
Matthew Udall
are feeling a little under the weather. Hope that passes soon). I thought I'd take a
minute to reply.
As to your question about the comment I made about some of my materials remaining on
your site: On 09/12/01 (or thereabouts), I sent you my e-mail voicing my strong
displeasure in your continuing to post tips to the world at large about how to fool
INS officers at the POE. In that e-mail (or perhaps it was the follow up one) I asked
you to remove any and all of my writings that I had once given permission for you to
use. I checked and shortly there after I noticed that the "one's I checked on" were
indeed removed. Thanks for that.
Then months later I saw a posting from someone talking about the "letter they got
from your site" to send to the local INS offices with pre-AOS-filing questions. I
checked, and there it was, my letter I had once given you permission to use. I again
wrote to you, asking you to remove it (which you did, and thanks again although I
wish you had done that at the outset). I also see that in at least one instance,
where you removed my writings, you instead inserted a "link" to a google page
containing my information "see this old post" ring a bell?. That's a little catty
don't you think, but again, I'm OK with that and did not bother contacting you about
it. If you want to post links to my old postings I suppose I'll just have to live
with that, but that runs both ways too.
As for your statement in red, right "above it" appears the following title for the
page: "Entering the U.S. on a tourist visa or visa waiver, if one has the intent to
marry and file adjustment after entry". How do you reconcile that with your statement
in red? The first statement describes the very essence of an illegal act committed at
the POE. Does Steen know that? And all I see is the tips about how to fool the INS
officers, but nothing describing the risks one takes at the POE for trying to "enter
the U.S. on a tourist visa or visa waiver, if one has the intent to marry and file
adjustment after entry".
Alvena, I propose a truce. I expressed my opinion about what I perceive to be
dangerous tips on your page written to the world at large (the innocent love sick
couples as well as the potential "bad guys"), on how to fool the INS officers at the
POE. That's all. I also did it on the 1-year anniversary of the terror attacks, and
the opinions I expressed are the very same ones I expressed to you in my e-mail of 1
year ago. You obviously don't agree with my take on it, and one year later those tips
remain. I respect everybody else's opinions that don't happen to agree with my take
on it, even yours.
Matthew Udall
Sep 13th 2002, 8:48 pm
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
(MDUdall) wrote:
Re the heading: "Entering the U.S. on a tourist visa or visa waiver, if one has the
intent to marry and file adjustment after entry"
This heading does not imply in any stretch that this is a recommended means of
entry. You are readinig something into it that simply is not there, IMHO. This is
rather surprising, coming from an attorney. Right under the heading in big red
letters it plainly states that this is not recommended. I think the red type makes
it pretty clear.
As far as links to old newsgroup posts goes, if you didn't want the information
preserved for posterity, you should not have said it. If you want old newsgroup posts
removed, I think there is a way you can do it, but you'll have to talk to someone who
knows more about this than I do.
> Alvena, I propose a truce.
That's fine with me, I didn't start this thread, as I recall. But I'm not going to
sit around and have anyone state things about me that are not true, and you can take
that to the bank and draw interest on it.
alvena my opinions only
(MDUdall) wrote:
Re the heading: "Entering the U.S. on a tourist visa or visa waiver, if one has the
intent to marry and file adjustment after entry"
This heading does not imply in any stretch that this is a recommended means of
entry. You are readinig something into it that simply is not there, IMHO. This is
rather surprising, coming from an attorney. Right under the heading in big red
letters it plainly states that this is not recommended. I think the red type makes
it pretty clear.
As far as links to old newsgroup posts goes, if you didn't want the information
preserved for posterity, you should not have said it. If you want old newsgroup posts
removed, I think there is a way you can do it, but you'll have to talk to someone who
knows more about this than I do.
> Alvena, I propose a truce.
That's fine with me, I didn't start this thread, as I recall. But I'm not going to
sit around and have anyone state things about me that are not true, and you can take
that to the bank and draw interest on it.
alvena my opinions only
Sep 13th 2002, 8:58 pm
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
In article <[email protected]> , [email protected]
(George F.) wrote:
> I'm curious how would Alvina feel if CIA ceases computers beloinging to 9/11
> terrorists, and they find the URL address of Alvina's "tips" page on how to fool
> the INS agents. Alvina, would you feel any guilt at that point? What if the
> goverment will press charges against you?
1. CIA can advise me of the problem all they want, but I do not own the pages. People
seem to have a problem understanding who the owner of the pages is. How clearly
can I state it? I do NOT own the pages. Legally, Doc Steen owns those pages. If
the CIA wants to prosecute someone, it will not be me. And I can prove that with
legal documents, FWIW.
2. Guilt: If anyone wants to feel guilty, the U.S. State Department should feel guilt
for making all arab visitors have fingerprints EXCEPT for the Saudi's, since
Saudi's were the bulk of the 9/11 terrorists. Now, THAT is what I would call true
GUILT. But do they feel any guilt about this? Evidently not. Evidently the State
Department would like to extend the opportunity for more Saudi's enter and
possibly commit more acts of terrorism, at least their behavior demonstrates
that---because even though 9/11 is past, they still do not require this for the
Saudi's. How's *that* for some *major* guilt?
Further, how many of the 9/11 terrorists entered the US on a fiance or spouse visa,
please tell me that. I don't think any. It looks like to me that if anyone was going
to use this method for terrorism, they certainly had their chance, since the pages
were up long before 9/11 occurred. What I DO think is that even though Atta was a
known person to suspect, he was issued a tourist visa. This is something I continue
to ponder.
Sorry, your attempt failed miserably from where I sit.
alvena my opinions only, of course
(George F.) wrote:
> I'm curious how would Alvina feel if CIA ceases computers beloinging to 9/11
> terrorists, and they find the URL address of Alvina's "tips" page on how to fool
> the INS agents. Alvina, would you feel any guilt at that point? What if the
> goverment will press charges against you?
1. CIA can advise me of the problem all they want, but I do not own the pages. People
seem to have a problem understanding who the owner of the pages is. How clearly
can I state it? I do NOT own the pages. Legally, Doc Steen owns those pages. If
the CIA wants to prosecute someone, it will not be me. And I can prove that with
legal documents, FWIW.
2. Guilt: If anyone wants to feel guilty, the U.S. State Department should feel guilt
for making all arab visitors have fingerprints EXCEPT for the Saudi's, since
Saudi's were the bulk of the 9/11 terrorists. Now, THAT is what I would call true
GUILT. But do they feel any guilt about this? Evidently not. Evidently the State
Department would like to extend the opportunity for more Saudi's enter and
possibly commit more acts of terrorism, at least their behavior demonstrates
that---because even though 9/11 is past, they still do not require this for the
Saudi's. How's *that* for some *major* guilt?
Further, how many of the 9/11 terrorists entered the US on a fiance or spouse visa,
please tell me that. I don't think any. It looks like to me that if anyone was going
to use this method for terrorism, they certainly had their chance, since the pages
were up long before 9/11 occurred. What I DO think is that even though Atta was a
known person to suspect, he was issued a tourist visa. This is something I continue
to ponder.
Sorry, your attempt failed miserably from where I sit.
alvena my opinions only, of course
Sep 13th 2002, 10:22 pm
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
AF wrote:
> In article <[email protected]> , [email protected]
> (George F.) wrote:
> > I'm curious how would Alvina feel if CIA ceases computers beloinging to 9/11
> > terrorists, and they find the URL address of Alvina's "tips" page on how to fool
> > the INS agents. Alvina, would you feel any guilt at that point? What if the
> > goverment will press charges against you?
> >
> 1. CIA can advise me of the problem all they want, but I do not own the pages.
> People seem to have a problem understanding who the owner of the pages is. How
> clearly can I state it? I do NOT own the pages. Legally, Doc Steen owns those
> pages. If the CIA wants to prosecute someone, it will not be me. And I can prove
> that with legal documents, FWIW.
If there was a law violation and you were aware of it, then I don't see how that
would excuse you. Note: I am not saying there was a violation
> 2. Guilt: If anyone wants to feel guilty, the U.S. State Department should feel
> guilt for making all arab visitors have fingerprints EXCEPT for the Saudi's,
> since Saudi's were the bulk of the 9/11 terrorists. Now, THAT is what I would
> call true GUILT. But do they feel any guilt about this? Evidently not. Evidently
> the State Department would like to extend the opportunity for more Saudi's enter
> and possibly commit more acts of terrorism, at least their behavior demonstrates
> that---because even though 9/11 is past, they still do not require this for the
> Saudi's. How's *that* for some *major* guilt?
> Further, how many of the 9/11 terrorists entered the US on a fiance or spouse visa,
> please tell me that. I don't think any. It looks like to me that if anyone was
> going to use this method for terrorism, they certainly had their chance, since the
> pages were up long before 9/11 occurred. What I DO think is that even though Atta
> was a known person to suspect, he was issued a tourist visa. This is something I
> continue to ponder.
> Sorry, your attempt failed miserably from where I sit.
> alvena my opinions only, of course
> In article <[email protected]> , [email protected]
> (George F.) wrote:
> > I'm curious how would Alvina feel if CIA ceases computers beloinging to 9/11
> > terrorists, and they find the URL address of Alvina's "tips" page on how to fool
> > the INS agents. Alvina, would you feel any guilt at that point? What if the
> > goverment will press charges against you?
> >
> 1. CIA can advise me of the problem all they want, but I do not own the pages.
> People seem to have a problem understanding who the owner of the pages is. How
> clearly can I state it? I do NOT own the pages. Legally, Doc Steen owns those
> pages. If the CIA wants to prosecute someone, it will not be me. And I can prove
> that with legal documents, FWIW.
If there was a law violation and you were aware of it, then I don't see how that
would excuse you. Note: I am not saying there was a violation
> 2. Guilt: If anyone wants to feel guilty, the U.S. State Department should feel
> guilt for making all arab visitors have fingerprints EXCEPT for the Saudi's,
> since Saudi's were the bulk of the 9/11 terrorists. Now, THAT is what I would
> call true GUILT. But do they feel any guilt about this? Evidently not. Evidently
> the State Department would like to extend the opportunity for more Saudi's enter
> and possibly commit more acts of terrorism, at least their behavior demonstrates
> that---because even though 9/11 is past, they still do not require this for the
> Saudi's. How's *that* for some *major* guilt?
> Further, how many of the 9/11 terrorists entered the US on a fiance or spouse visa,
> please tell me that. I don't think any. It looks like to me that if anyone was
> going to use this method for terrorism, they certainly had their chance, since the
> pages were up long before 9/11 occurred. What I DO think is that even though Atta
> was a known person to suspect, he was issued a tourist visa. This is something I
> continue to ponder.
> Sorry, your attempt failed miserably from where I sit.
> alvena my opinions only, of course
