Mdudall

Hi Alvena, thanks for your reply. You are correct in that the heading does not
"imply" this, rather is states it quite clearly and no one has to "imply" anything to
understand what you are saying. Couple that with the tips that are clearly written
for people who are currently "outside" the U.S., and your language in red becomes
meaningless. Your not being able to grasp this is surprising, coming from someone who
can apparently read and write the English language.

I know the other attorney posted his thoughts about your tips page on 09/11/02,
however you censored it before I had a chance to read it. Perhaps you can do me the
favor and repost it hear as I'd like to read it myself and is after all, its just
another opinion in this debate. I'm sure he won't mind, or perhaps if he's reading
this, he'll do me the favor of posting his thoughts about your tips page.

I don't mind the fact that my old news group postings are out there for posterity.
The one you linked to was rather old, and I don't think many (if any) people would be
reading it if not for your link. I specifically asked you to remove my writings and
contributions from your pages, so you come up with the link. Again, pretty catty, and
an obvious ploy to disregard my request. Again, I just lived with it.

I did not start this debate in this news group either. Instead I replied to the
controversy stirred up here when someone reposted my posting on a non-public,
privately run message board, where those postings are "not" searchable on google for
all of posterity.

So what have I stated that was not true. You are the webmaster of the site, you are
the one who is in charge of updating it. Even Mike J. has given his opinion that you
have simply done this to try to shield yourself from liability, and this happened
soon after the Kentucky Bar asked you to stop dispensing advice on askme.com. I don't
know why you chose to shut down your site because I read your reports about the KY
Bar and I don't seem to recall you saying they said anything about your site.

Do you get all of your information/writing for the site from Charles Steen, or do you
come up with it yourself? Have you ever received "any" of the written materials from
him? Once you pulled your name off of the site, did Charles Steen come up with all of
the material on his own, or did you simply put his name on your work? You site
clearly contains out of date information (did you fix the fingerprinting fee on the
K-1 AOS page yet). Immediately following the terrorist attack I did send you my
e-mail voicing my strong displeasure about what I perceived to be dangerous tips on
how to fool INS officers at the POE. You then did change the heading from "here is a
list of recommendations" to "this is not a recommendation" language within hours of
receiving my reply (was this just to again try to shield yourself from liability, and
would you have made that change without my sending you my e-mail?). The plain
language on that page... the very title goes to the very essence to an illegal act
that would be committed at the POE, and the tips are clearly written for people who
are currently outside the U.S. and who plan to try to immigrate with a non-immigrant
option. Other than the fact that I assumed you had ads on that page, what have I
stated that is not true?

Just curious.

M.U.

Mdudall

And who "is" "Doc" Steen. Is he a doctor? Is he a Texas attorney using the title of
doctor? Is there such a legal entity (like a corporation) that is truly called "Doc
Steen"? If he legally owns the pages, then there must be a legal entity known as "Doc
Steen", right? And I assume he's ready to accept the responsibility for any damages
caused by the site (disclaimers can only go so far, and as you know, most people who
visit are not from Dallas Texas :-).

So because the government is acting in a certain way to the Saudi's, that justifies
you in being associated with tips published on the site on how to fool INS officers
at the POE? Have you ever heard the saying, two wrongs don't make a right?

Do you focus on the dead terrorists to avoid discussing the fact that your tips can
be used still by current and future ones on how to fool INS officers at the POE?

My opinions only, of course.

Af

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
(MDUdall) wrote:

Matt, I thought you wanted a truce. Obviously that was a farce, as usual.

I know that I'm not going to pervail over your thinking on this, and I choose not to
beat my head against a brick wall.

You think what you want to think. I think what I want to think. I don't have a
problem with that. Diversity of opinions is what makes our country strong and invites
growth, IMHO.

alvena

Mdudall

I'm all for a truce. Really I don't know if truce is even an appropriate word for the
end of a debate (but I am curious as to whether or not you come up with, or came up
with any of the content that is on Doc's pages... but I'll settle with your silence
as the answer).

Again, I hope you start feeling better real soon.

M.U.

Washington

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
(MDUdall) wrote:

    > And who "is" "Doc" Steen. Is he a doctor? Is he a Texas attorney using the title of
    > doctor? Is there such a legal entity (like a corporation) that is truly called "Doc
    > Steen"? If he legally owns the pages, then there must be a legal entity known as
    > "Doc Steen", right? And I assume he's ready to accept the responsibility for any
    > damages caused by the site (disclaimers can only go so far, and as you know, most
    > people who visit are not from Dallas Texas :-).
Doc Steen is an attorney who also happens to be a Ph.D. You can find his vita here:
http://www.docsteen.com/steen.htm I
frankly have a rather high opinion of him and of his knowledge of the law. Perhaps
you would have a more fruitful and rewarding discussion by contacting him directly.
There is contact info on the site. alvena
--
Washington
=================

Af

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (MDUdall)
wrote: Regarding exactly who Doc Steen is:

You can find his vita here:
http://www.docsteen.com/steen.htm
Perhaps you would have a more fruitful discussion by contacting him directly. I think
it is located on the site.

alvena

Mdudall

Thanks for the reply Alvena. It looks like the debate is winding down to an end, and
as a gesture of goodwill I'd like to help you, Chuck and the immigration community by
pointing out a couple of easy fixes you can make.

On your K-1 AOS page, I see you removed the incorrect filing fees for the I-485 and
I-765 on your chart. While I applaud your effort spent in deleting this information
that has been incorrect for the past 7 months, I wanted to remind you to please don't
forget to change (or delete) the fee amount you have listed for fingerprinting, as
the fee is actually $50.00 and not $25.00.

Also, on the same K-1 AOS, then advanced parole page, you might want to change the
fee information you give for the I-131 from $95.00 to $110.00. It'd be a shame to
only partially fix the fees on the site. I don't know if your site has any
information about I-751's and the fees for that, the actual fee for that filing is
$145.00, and these filings can be rather time sensitive so please make sure you fix
that fee "if" you happen to have the old fee somewhere on your page.

As a return favor, may I please ask that you remove the link on your Tourist
Adjustment, entry risks page, that points to my old posting that appears in the
Google archive. If someone stumbles across my old posting on their own, that is one
thing, however I did ask you to remove my writings from your site a year ago, and I'd
appreciate it if you would comply with my wishes. Linking my writings to your site is
the same thing, or close enough in my book. I would appreciate it very much. Thanks.

I'm sure Chuck can supply you with alternative legal analysis to post on "his" site,
and now that I think about it, I don't recall giving him permission to use any of my
writings that were still on your site at a time when he first "bought" your site. Did
"you" give him my permission to use the material, or perhaps assumed the permission I
gave to you transferred to him? Again, thanks.

Matt

Rete

I'm going to add my 2 cents to this post. I've known Alvena's postings and helpfulness through the AVUMB NG since its beginnings in late 1997/early 1998. We went through the process of the K-1 only months apart from each other. She took the issue of assisting people to the extreme by researching INS laws and learning web designing so that she could help those who didn't have a clue about INS and the ins and outs of completing forms, etc. Whereas Alvena and I have not always seen eye to eye on things, I have always admired her willingness to give of yourself in assisting others. And to this day, I consider her an "on-line" friend.

As for Matt, he offered his help in 2001 when Jim and I questioned the status he received at the time of his stamping of the I-551 in his passport after our AOS approval. His letter to NYC INS brought about an explanation of the status and for that Jim and I thanked him then and thank him yet again. However, I have issues with some of Matt's posts and attitudes just as I had over the years with Alvena.

I went into the Doc Steen site once again this evening to read what I have read before on "Entries" and there is nothing I see on there that can be construed as a conduit for terrorists or in-love couples to enter the US with the main thought of defrauding the US government and thereby enter the US illegally. In fact her points 1 and 2 are often voiced by another attorney who posts regularly on the Doc Steen messageboard. And that is, answer only the question asked; don't elaborate. Answer the questions as asked. So Alvena added "don't volunteer information". Isn't that the very same thing as not answering more than what is asked for? If an attorney can say it on a public forum, why can't a lay person. If an attorney can say it and it is not construed as advice for terrorists to fool the agent at the POE, then why would a double standard apply to a lay person? It is not illegal for a foreign visitor to marry a USC and remain in the US to adjust status. The majority of marriage-based adjustments of foreign/USC marriages use just this method. Because she or an attorney puts it in print does not make it a blueprint for terror. Nor does it make it a suggestion to defraud.

As for the issue of one poster getting advice from Alvena that he claims almost cost his then fiancee a five year ban, I can bet my bottom dollar it was brought up by a gentleman who has been known on the Doc Steen messageboard to go on and on and on about his wife being detained and questioned when she was attempting to visit him while they had a K-1 pending. She is Canadian. Any advice Alvena might have given him in this regard that she can visit while a K-1 pending, I am sure was correctly given. I know my Canadian husband visited with an approved I-129F and a K-1 pending in Montreal. I know many of his fellow citizens here on the AVUMB NG have done the same and all without a problem. So if one person has a problem out of several hundreds or thousands, does that make the advice incorrect? Perhaps there is more to that particular story then we know. Perhaps more was said at the POE when questioned then either NG knows about. Or just perhaps, she had an agent that decided to be a hardnose about it. And for whatever reason, unless she was caught in an out and out lie, she would not have been banned; just turned away. But then this particular gentleman might not be the poster that Matt is asking to provide him with e-mails and details of Alvena's past advice to him.

As for the issue of practicing law without a license. There is a line there and I have been privately cautioned by Matt that I had either crossed over that line on more than one occassion or very close to doing so. Did it strike a little fear into my heart that I, too, might be contacted by the state bar association for my answering questions on a public forum. Of course it did. But I have not stopped. Why? Because it is just that, a public forum. I have never claimed to be an attorney. I have never once claimed to have all the answers. I rarely give any advice privately in e-mail because to do so is sucidial for me and the asker of the question. Better to ask on a public forum for then if my answer is incorrect someone with more knowledge can correct my misconception. As a US citizen I can enjoy free speech in my home, place of business and here on a public forum.

Many people who come to this forum for answers either have no clue to INS regulations, or are very naive, or are too frugal or poor to afford an attorney, or are just looking for answers because they don't know how to research, or have researched and are confused. Whereas Alvena would hold their hands and walk them baby step through baby step in the process, I give general answers and advice. But anyone who comes to this forum for answers has to know without being told in bold solid caps that the person answering them are NOT ATTORNEYS. No more than the person answering health questions on a particular disease forum is a doctor or someone answering quesitons on a troubled marriage forum is a licensed marriage counselor.

Matt has brought up the issue of outdated information on the Doc Steen site. If the only thing outdated is the fee schedule than why the cruification of Alvena? Look at the post a few down from here from someone doing an I-751. They think the fee is still $125. Like us, they probably got that fee from the INS themselves. We did in April of this year.

An attorney choses his/her specialty in law. I can sue someone in small claims court without an attorney. People can petition for foreign loved one without an attorney. It is not mandatory. INS has made the laws and regulations available to the general public online. Whereas an attorney may be beneficial to certain people, not every one needs or wants one.

If INS can tell a person over the phone, why doesn't he just come here and marry you, why is it wrong to do just that? If INS allows adjustment of status without a valid fiancee visa, why should someone not avail themselves of this "permission".

Enough already with the fingerpointing, the name calling, the gathering of information, and witch hunt.

Rete a/k/a Rita

Dj

    > As a return favor, may I please ask that you remove the link on your
Tourist
    > Adjustment, entry risks page, that points to my old posting that appears
in the
    > Google archive. If someone stumbles across my old posting on their own,
that is
    > one thing, however I did ask you to remove my writings from your site a
year
    > ago, and I'd appreciate it if you would comply with my wishes. Linking my writings
    > to your site is the same thing, or close enough in my book. I
would
    > appreciate it very much. Thanks.

You may find this link interesting (It is regarding google archives):

NOTE: This does not mean I am getting involved in this "debate" or taking any
sides, I just feel it is a valid, relevant piece of information that you MAY
find helpful.

http://www.google.com/go-
oglegroups/help.html#prevent

DJ

Mdudall

Hey, Thank You DJ!

M.U.

Mdudall

Hi Rita, thanks for your posting. I hope you don't mind if I put in a reply.

    >I went into the Doc Steen site once again this evening to read what I have read
    >before on "Entries" and there is nothing I see on there that can be constued as a
    >conduit for terrorists or in-love couples to enter the US with the main thought of
    >defrauding the US government and thereby enter the US illegally.

First, the focus of my reply on Alvena's (er, sorry, Chuck's) message board was about
tips that I felt were dangerous because I thought they were meant to teach the world
at large (good guys as well as bad, who happen to be outside the U.S.) how to conceal
their intent from an INS officer at the POE. Please focus on that. I'm not trying to
make any judgment call on innocent people wanting to bypass the fiancee process, but
rather my posting was what I preceived as a danger by those future "bad guys" who
might use these tips to get past the INS officer at the POE.

I did mention in "follow up" replies that the truly innocent couple (non-terrorist
or criminal) "could" be turned away from the POE and possibly banned if found to be
trying to immigrate to the U.S. with a non-immigrant option. The act of presenting
ones self at the POE with the intent of immigrating with a non-immigrant option
"is" an illegal act (and I've said that if one get's past the POE, then it usualy
is not a big deal, however the illegal act is a heck of a big deal if they get
snagged at the POE). That is well established, and the first thing on the page in
questions fits that "exact" situation. This isn't a page for actual "visitors" to
help them at the POE, but instead its for people using non-immigrant options to
enter, marry and file AOS.

And again, I don't really care about that anyway and was "not" the focus of my
orginal posting (innocent couples bypassing the proper visa and laws controlling
entry into the U.S.). My focus was on the tips how to fool an INS officer at the POE,
regardless of "who" is using the tips as the page obviously cannot be limited to just
the innocent couple out there reading it.

    >In fact her points 1 and 2 are often voiced by another attorney who posts regularly
    >on the Doc Steen messageboard.

I don't have any problem whatsoever with points 1 and 2.

Lets look at point 3: The title is, "Entering the U.S. on a tourist visa or visa
waiver, if one has intent to marry and file adjustment of status". If someone has
the "intent" to do this, what is the "ample" proof for except to fool the INS
officer at the POE.

Lets look at part of point 4: The title of the page is, "Entering ..... if one has
"intent to marry and file adjusment", but in point 4 it says, "if they ask if you
plan to marry on this entry, state no and leave it at that". In other words, LIE to
the officer at the POE.

Point 5: Remember the title of the page is, "Entering.... if one has "intent to marry
and file adjustment". Point 5 says, if asked the purpose of the visit to say "to
visit a friend" Another lie to the officer at the POE, although I do think that one
is not as bad as one might also have a friend they wanted to visit.

Point 6: Remember, the title is, "Entering... if one has "intent to marry and file
adjustment" which of course means staying in the U.S. Point 6 says that when you are
obviously outside the U.S. plan to change your mind once you enter... huh? Planing to
change your mind once you enter is not changing one's mind at all... its doing what
one planned all along.

Now of course, I'll repeat again, I could care less about innocent couples who want
to take this risk. They can if they want, but these "tips" obviously tell people how
to lie, what to say, etc. all with the objective of getting past our last line of
defense, the INS officer at the POE. In light of 09/11, and future threats I still
think this is dangerous.

Look at the third answer the immigrant says in the example. Remember, the title of
the page is, "Entering .... if one has "intent to marry and file adjustment after
entry". The question asked is "Do you plan to marry your fiancee while you are in
the U.S. on this admission? Alvena's (sorry, Chuck's) suggested answer is, "No, I do
not". Come-on! That's not a lie in order to fool the INS officer at the POE. And
again, when one is sitting outside the U.S. and planning on entering with the
"intent" in the title of the page, and planning to change one's mind after entry is
not changing one's mind at all.

There are tips to act casual, have round trip airline tickets, bring certain amounts
of luggage, all to fool the INS officer at the POE as to their true intention. I
would think the "bad guys" might find all of this information usefull. Does the INS
and DOS sites have similar tips?

And again, please, please don't brand me as wailing on her for making these
suggestions to innocent couples (even though some of the blatent advice to lie
relates to that situation), but rather on these just being tips in general, that will
be read by all sorts of people, the good and the bad.

I think publishing tips on how to lie to INS officers is a dangerous idea, whether or
not they come from an attorney or a non attorney. I don't see that as any sort of
"double standard".

    >It is not illegal for a foreign visitor to marry a USC and remain in the US to
    >adjust status.

You are focusing on what happens "after" entry. My focus is on the tips that are
meant to come into play "at" entry.

    >As for the issue of practicing law without a license. There is a line there and I
    >have been privately cautioned by Matt that I had either crossed over that line on
    >more than one occassion or very close to doing so.

I don't care about this issue. You are a news group friend and I'd hate to see you
get stung as I know New York, Texas, and Florida are three states that take a
rather hard line on it. Since you "are" a friend, I'm doing the friendly thing by
warning you.

    >Did it strike a little fear into my heart that I, too, might be contacted by the
    >state bar association for my answering questions on a public forum. Of course it
    >did. But I have not stopped.

Be careful. I know for a fact that most if not all states are on the lookout for
UPL (they always have been) and so too are most if not all of the local chapters
(again, nothing new). The states have an obligation to crack down on it for the
protection of their citizens and AILA feels the same duty is owed to the immigrant
community in general.

Rita, I sent you the article a month or so ago written by an AILA author about UPL.
Did you find it at all informative? Did you notice the very last line the author made
about an obligation to stop UPL whereever it is found? Here in LA, the state bar has
special meetings about every month just on the subject of UPL. I have not gone to one
yet, but they happen in L.A. about every month or so.

Here is a really interesting question: UPL is usually a "criminal offense" in the
state where it occurs. What if an immigrant did it? Would he or she need to check the
box on his or her I-485 saying they have violated a law that they have not been
charged or arrested for? Wonder what would happen at an AOS interview if it came to
light then? Again, just food for thought.

But this is only food for thought, and I don't care about any UPL on your part. I
gave you the warning as a friend, not a potential enforcer (as that's not my job).

Mdudall

Oops, by accident I hit the enter key before I was finished and didn't even have the
chance to read over and spell check first to pick up the typo's in what I typed (I
usually type really fast and therefore have to fix a few typos before hitting the
send button). Oh well, I'll pick it back up here:

    >As a US citizen I can enjoy free speech in my home, place of business and here on a
    >public forum.

The freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but it's not absolute. If people were
truly free to dispense legal advice without a license (and I'm talking about rising
up to certain level of activity), than I don't think Kentucky would have had a
problem with Alvena's activities.

    >Whereas Alvena would hold their hands and walk them baby step through baby step in
    >the process, I give general answers and advice.

And after doing it for a certain amount of time, is probably why the Kentucky Bar had
a problem with her activities. What did the article about UPL have to say about that
sort of activity?

    >But anyone who comes to this forum for answers has to know without being told in
    >bold solid caps that the person answering them are NOT ATTORNEYS.

But if someone cultivates a reputation as a legal advisor, apparently they "can" be
held accountable. If not, no state would have any rules whatsoever about UPL.

And I don't think saying all one is doing is reposting information learned on a news
group will shield one from the danger of being found to be practicing UPL. Heck, we
all learn information from a variety of sources, books, the media, our friends,
general life experiences, palm readers ;-) and perhaps even our
psychic friends, but is what you "do" with that information that is the key factor
(at least that's my guess... again, its not my job to enforce the UPL laws in
California).

    >INS has made the laws and regulations available to the general public online.
    >Whereas an attorney may be beneficial to certain people, not every one needs or
    >wants one.

I agree.

    >If INS can tell a person over the phone, why doesn't he just come here and marry
    >you, why is it wrong to do just that?

The INS officer would have told someone to commit an illegal act at the POE. But they
are not attorneys either, and are often wrong in the advice they give.

    >If INS allows adjustment of status without a valid fiancee visa, why should someone
    >avail themselves of this "permission".

They should file to adjust, but to get to that point they would have had to commit an
illegal act at the POE and run the risk they were snagged at the POE.

Take care Rita, and have a nice weekend.

Regards, Matthew Udall

Rete

Matt

You are getting carried away in your paranoia about the bad guys. They don't need tips on how to get fraudulent visas to enter the US. They have the money and the backing and the knowledge without having to resort to a little site dedicated to marriage based visas. I would be more worried about the large increase of men from dubious alien countries now befriending and marrying USC women and the women who are professing true love after only corresponding with them and perhaps seeing them only once in their own countries. I know that love happens quickly in many cases but I oft times wonder why suddenly are so many posters from Middle Eastern countries where in years past there were so few in the ratio.

Sleepers are here already as our experience on 9/11 showed us and as our government and their captured comrades have told us. A suggestion of dialogue at a POE isn't going to make or break their agenda. That, at least, is my opnion.

As for the UPL issue, that is a witch hunt in my opinion. Rather they go after the sites that offer counseling on immigration issues and completion of forms for fees by people who are not even paralegals. Groups such as these are manned by people who have been there and done that and have experienced all types of problems and ultimate joys of reunion at the hands of INS. To dispense that knowledge is not the unauthorized practice of law but the sharing of first hand knowledge. It is like my telling another cancer victim about my cancer experience and the latest cancer fighting treatments now being offered and suggesting they research treatments and/or ask their doctors about them before deciding on a method of treatment. It doesn't take a doctor to do this but means more coming from another victim and possible survivor than all the cool, calm and detached mutterings from an oncologist who treats the disease but never experienced the emotional aspects of the disease.

For the most part this NG gives valid information based almost completely on experience. That is not practicing law but offering an acquaintance a road to follow that will lead them to the culimation of their dream. If on that road they stumble across a fallen branch blocking their way and I can suggest a possible way to remove the branch without endangering themselves, how is that practicing law. If the ALIA or the Bar Associations believe that the sharing of experience is UPL, then their view is IMHO tainted by greed and not grounded in the desire to protect. I have the right to share my experiences and the experiences of others who are allowing me to share their experiences with others. Even in 2002 the Constitution still is in effect. At least, unlike the media of today, I am not giving out detailed security plans that will enable terrorists to breach that security in their attempt to kill, maime and destroy US citizens and property.

Rete

gardencity

This is YOUR opinion, *simplistic* as it may be, it is still *your* opinion from misinformation/lack of information or simply *tunnel vision* about 911.

If there were any charges to be pressed for any guilt with regard to 911, the US government will have a field day clearing up its own backyards. Although IMHO, nobody would have ever been prepared enough for such *evils* that were planned. No, not even the CIA.

After all, show me how many, if any at all, entered and commited fraud at POE to become perpetrators of 911?

Zilch, Zero.

And, btw, why is Alvena alone being finger-pointed here? The site in question is owned and operated by Doc Steen. Add to that, there are countless other sites with similar helpful info too.


IMHO. Regards.

gardencity

[QUOTE}
---------snip
The INS officer would have told someone to commit an illegal act at the POE. But they
are not attorneys either, and are often wrong in the advice they give.
--------snip
Regards, Matthew Udall
[/QUOTE]

Matt:
If the relevant authority (its reps and webpages) such as the INS is dispensing inaccurate info/advice, is it any wonder why other sources of info are sought out for during research/preparation?

I'd be really really surprised if people like Alvena, Rete and other helpful souls are seen in the light of 'having violated any US law' by sharing their experiences, and imparting experiences of others, on public forums such as this NG.

US would not be *The Freedom State* as the world knows it to be. And *Liberty* would have been carrying that torch in vain.

Just IMHO.

Regards.