From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
Sep 13th 2002, 8:49 pm
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
Who ever thinks everybody on this newsgroup, or a website is a lawyer with a license
and takes what ever information on their screen as 100% correct must be an idiot.
This newsgroup is not some type of hired lawyer's forum. The petitioning for a K1/K3
visa is a relatively simple process, but if you are stupid enough to try solve
complex immigration issues through one or two person's opinion it's your own damn
fault when you fail. Of course in America you can sue and blame the company that sold
you a hat with the superman sign on it and you jumped of a skyscraper to try it out
because they didn't put on the warning "that hat doesn't give you superpowers or the
ability to fly". This type of people have lost something called 'common sense' and
they provide good bussiness to people like M. Udall. On the other hand banning all
sites such as Doc Steen would again be good bussiness for M. Udall since there would
be no valuable information on the internet about this process for people who prefer
to rely on their own abilities rather than the ones of a lawyer.
and takes what ever information on their screen as 100% correct must be an idiot.
This newsgroup is not some type of hired lawyer's forum. The petitioning for a K1/K3
visa is a relatively simple process, but if you are stupid enough to try solve
complex immigration issues through one or two person's opinion it's your own damn
fault when you fail. Of course in America you can sue and blame the company that sold
you a hat with the superman sign on it and you jumped of a skyscraper to try it out
because they didn't put on the warning "that hat doesn't give you superpowers or the
ability to fly". This type of people have lost something called 'common sense' and
they provide good bussiness to people like M. Udall. On the other hand banning all
sites such as Doc Steen would again be good bussiness for M. Udall since there would
be no valuable information on the internet about this process for people who prefer
to rely on their own abilities rather than the ones of a lawyer.
Sep 13th 2002, 9:24 pm
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
[email protected] (MDUdall) wrote in news:[email protected]:
> 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.
In light of last year's attacks absolutely nothing has changed from now to then - the
risk is still there for any and all and the given approaches to entering the country
are no different now to what they were previously. Stating that this is the case is
by no means a risk or even dangerous, it's just a statement of fact.
Given that you said yourself that when you posted you were "affected" by the
anniversary, I would humbly suggest that your comments are an over- reaction and in
point of fact that all that was happening was that you used this as an outlet.
Ultimately, it's clear that you're not going to move from your standpoint and
neither are the others; furthermore, this is evidently something between you and
the other individuals involved and really should never have been brought up
anywhere *but* between you and them until, perhaps, a concrete determination of
what is and isn't permitted/correct had been set down. As it is, almost everything
that's been posted so far has been nothing except personal interpretation and
speculation and to be quite frank, it's really a waste of everyone else's bandwidth
and rather childish to boot.
So please - and not just you, all of you - let it lie. Internecine bickering is no
use to anyone.
--
Targaff
> 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.
In light of last year's attacks absolutely nothing has changed from now to then - the
risk is still there for any and all and the given approaches to entering the country
are no different now to what they were previously. Stating that this is the case is
by no means a risk or even dangerous, it's just a statement of fact.
Given that you said yourself that when you posted you were "affected" by the
anniversary, I would humbly suggest that your comments are an over- reaction and in
point of fact that all that was happening was that you used this as an outlet.
Ultimately, it's clear that you're not going to move from your standpoint and
neither are the others; furthermore, this is evidently something between you and
the other individuals involved and really should never have been brought up
anywhere *but* between you and them until, perhaps, a concrete determination of
what is and isn't permitted/correct had been set down. As it is, almost everything
that's been posted so far has been nothing except personal interpretation and
speculation and to be quite frank, it's really a waste of everyone else's bandwidth
and rather childish to boot.
So please - and not just you, all of you - let it lie. Internecine bickering is no
use to anyone.
--
Targaff
Sep 13th 2002, 10:00 pm
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
Ben,
at no point did I question that Matt Udall has made a valid contribution by pointing
to incorrect information - the fee schedule being a case in point. Yet, so far, that
remains the only _concrete_ example. Your below post implies there must be a plethora
of mistakes on that website, in which case it would be helpful to have some
additional information regarding the obvious errors.
I completely understand that the incorrect filing schedule could prove disasterous to
a lay person. Yet, I would give the average person more credit - I cannot imagine
they would click on the Doc Steen website as the only website on the internet when
researching visas.
On a different note, if I am not mistaken, the same criticism could apply to the INS
website, for they have been late in updating some of their fee information as well.
Just food for thought from a non-attorney.
- Des
at no point did I question that Matt Udall has made a valid contribution by pointing
to incorrect information - the fee schedule being a case in point. Yet, so far, that
remains the only _concrete_ example. Your below post implies there must be a plethora
of mistakes on that website, in which case it would be helpful to have some
additional information regarding the obvious errors.
I completely understand that the incorrect filing schedule could prove disasterous to
a lay person. Yet, I would give the average person more credit - I cannot imagine
they would click on the Doc Steen website as the only website on the internet when
researching visas.
On a different note, if I am not mistaken, the same criticism could apply to the INS
website, for they have been late in updating some of their fee information as well.
Just food for thought from a non-attorney.
- Des
Sep 14th 2002, 1:18 am
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
"MDUdall" wrote in part...
> 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
For the record, I am on Alvenas side. She is a consistent newsgrouper, and her
benefit to the group outweighs everything. I can't even take you seriously enough to
have fun with it anymore, since this latest outburst must be related more to the
position of the planets (or a bad batch of hops) than anything else. From a larger
perspective, this is an irregular cycle, but with the following steps:
1. You appear in the NG.
2. You offer good advice, and relate your personal INS experiences.
3. You get hooked into a side issue that only someone with no self control would
bother with.
4. Nuclear bomb goes off.
5. You go away for awhile.
This has now happened *at least* 3 times, and twice has been made worse with my
own lack of self-control. Chill for awhile. Everyone will forget about it in a
month. Mike
> 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
For the record, I am on Alvenas side. She is a consistent newsgrouper, and her
benefit to the group outweighs everything. I can't even take you seriously enough to
have fun with it anymore, since this latest outburst must be related more to the
position of the planets (or a bad batch of hops) than anything else. From a larger
perspective, this is an irregular cycle, but with the following steps:
1. You appear in the NG.
2. You offer good advice, and relate your personal INS experiences.
3. You get hooked into a side issue that only someone with no self control would
bother with.
4. Nuclear bomb goes off.
5. You go away for awhile.
This has now happened *at least* 3 times, and twice has been made worse with my
own lack of self-control. Chill for awhile. Everyone will forget about it in a
month. Mike
Sep 14th 2002, 10:25 am
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
>On the other hand banning all sites such as Doc Steen would again be good bussiness
>for M. Udall since there would be no valuable information on the internet about this
>process for people who prefer to rely on their own abilities rather than the ones of
>a lawyer.
Hi Marjeta, I'm in the office today to work on a fiancée case, and I thought I'd take
a minute to read over and reply to some of the postings in this thread.
I don't believe I've ever said that "Chuck's" site should be banned or even taken
down. I "did," say that the fees were out of date, and that I wished she (Oops, make
that Chuckey) would stop instructing people to lie, and how to lie to INS officers at
the POE, and that I asked her (I actually asked Alvena this even though apparently it
was Chuckey's site at the time) to remove my writings from his pages. But remove or
ban his site... when did I say that! And Chuckey "is" a lawyer, so the people who
rely on his site "are" relying on a lawyer.
>Who ever thinks everybody on this newsgroup, or a website is a lawyer with a license
>and takes what ever information on their screen as 100% correct must be an idiot.
When did I ever say that people who receive legal advice from non-attorneys "think"
they are dealing with a lawyer? Don't focus on the recipient of the advice, but
instead I would assume that when a state tries to determine if someone's activity
rises to the level of UPL, they would focus on the person "dispensing" the advice.
And I think there is a "big" difference between people reading a book, and "questions
being answered" by those cultivating a reputation as a legal advisor.
Again, I'm not an enforcer of California's UPL rules, so I'm just speculating about
it, however I believe relating your story about what type of visa you received, the
snags you encountered along the way, that sort of thing would (just my guess) not be
UPL. I would think it takes more of a systematic, regular/continuous effort in
advising people how to achieve a government benefit (beyond simply relating your
personal story) to rise to the level of UPL.
And I'll say it again, I did not post my original posting of 09/11/02 in "this"
newsgroup, but because someone else did, I've had to waste my time responding to it.
And my original posting was about what I perceived as dangerous tips meant to fool
INS officers at the POE, "not" about UPL. I could care less about any UPL by Alvena,
and apparently the advice to "lie to INS officers at the POE" has absolutely nothing
to do with her. She's made it quite clear, and has "proof" to back it up, that "A
Licensed Attorney" in Texas, who does not even practice immigration law, is the
culprit advising people to lie to federal officials, and "he's" the one keeping out
of date fee information on "his" site. Now "that", I "do" have a big, big problem
with (an officer of the court advising people to lie to federal officials). I think
he's playing with fire.
Have a nice weekend.
Regards, Matthew Udall
>for M. Udall since there would be no valuable information on the internet about this
>process for people who prefer to rely on their own abilities rather than the ones of
>a lawyer.
Hi Marjeta, I'm in the office today to work on a fiancée case, and I thought I'd take
a minute to read over and reply to some of the postings in this thread.
I don't believe I've ever said that "Chuck's" site should be banned or even taken
down. I "did," say that the fees were out of date, and that I wished she (Oops, make
that Chuckey) would stop instructing people to lie, and how to lie to INS officers at
the POE, and that I asked her (I actually asked Alvena this even though apparently it
was Chuckey's site at the time) to remove my writings from his pages. But remove or
ban his site... when did I say that! And Chuckey "is" a lawyer, so the people who
rely on his site "are" relying on a lawyer.
>Who ever thinks everybody on this newsgroup, or a website is a lawyer with a license
>and takes what ever information on their screen as 100% correct must be an idiot.
When did I ever say that people who receive legal advice from non-attorneys "think"
they are dealing with a lawyer? Don't focus on the recipient of the advice, but
instead I would assume that when a state tries to determine if someone's activity
rises to the level of UPL, they would focus on the person "dispensing" the advice.
And I think there is a "big" difference between people reading a book, and "questions
being answered" by those cultivating a reputation as a legal advisor.
Again, I'm not an enforcer of California's UPL rules, so I'm just speculating about
it, however I believe relating your story about what type of visa you received, the
snags you encountered along the way, that sort of thing would (just my guess) not be
UPL. I would think it takes more of a systematic, regular/continuous effort in
advising people how to achieve a government benefit (beyond simply relating your
personal story) to rise to the level of UPL.
And I'll say it again, I did not post my original posting of 09/11/02 in "this"
newsgroup, but because someone else did, I've had to waste my time responding to it.
And my original posting was about what I perceived as dangerous tips meant to fool
INS officers at the POE, "not" about UPL. I could care less about any UPL by Alvena,
and apparently the advice to "lie to INS officers at the POE" has absolutely nothing
to do with her. She's made it quite clear, and has "proof" to back it up, that "A
Licensed Attorney" in Texas, who does not even practice immigration law, is the
culprit advising people to lie to federal officials, and "he's" the one keeping out
of date fee information on "his" site. Now "that", I "do" have a big, big problem
with (an officer of the court advising people to lie to federal officials). I think
he's playing with fire.
Have a nice weekend.
Regards, Matthew Udall
Sep 14th 2002, 10:46 am
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
Good afternoon Alvena, Hope you are feeling well today.
I see that you did go back and deleted the incorrect fingerprinting fee on Check's
fee chart on his page. I also noticed Chuck's disclaimer stating Chuck's pages are
not being updated (probably a good idea to include this disclaimer), however since
it does not seem to take you too long to fix the fees listed on your page, I thought
you might want to fix a couple of other ones I noticed are still listed (of course,
that's up to Chuck if he wants you to fix this incorrect information, however since
he seems interested in helping the immigration community he might want to think
about it).
Here is how he can find the incorrect fee information.
He should go to his index page, then hit his "AOS: K1/K2" button. Then he should
select his "Advanced Parole" button. There he will find his incorrect fee
information, as the correct fee for an I-131 is currently $110.00, not $95.00
Then he should go back to his index page, then hit his "Remove Conditions" button.
Then he should select his "Filing Petition" button. On that page he will see in the
1st paragraph below the bullet points the incorrect filing fee for the I-751. He'll
also find it again in the very last sentence on that same page. The actual I-751
filing fee is currently $145.00.
Thanks Chuck and Alvena.
M.U.
>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.
I see that you did go back and deleted the incorrect fingerprinting fee on Check's
fee chart on his page. I also noticed Chuck's disclaimer stating Chuck's pages are
not being updated (probably a good idea to include this disclaimer), however since
it does not seem to take you too long to fix the fees listed on your page, I thought
you might want to fix a couple of other ones I noticed are still listed (of course,
that's up to Chuck if he wants you to fix this incorrect information, however since
he seems interested in helping the immigration community he might want to think
about it).
Here is how he can find the incorrect fee information.
He should go to his index page, then hit his "AOS: K1/K2" button. Then he should
select his "Advanced Parole" button. There he will find his incorrect fee
information, as the correct fee for an I-131 is currently $110.00, not $95.00
Then he should go back to his index page, then hit his "Remove Conditions" button.
Then he should select his "Filing Petition" button. On that page he will see in the
1st paragraph below the bullet points the incorrect filing fee for the I-751. He'll
also find it again in the very last sentence on that same page. The actual I-751
filing fee is currently $145.00.
Thanks Chuck and Alvena.
M.U.
>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.
Sep 14th 2002, 2:34 pm
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
Des wrote:
> I completely understand that the incorrect filing schedule could prove
> disasterous to a lay person. Yet, I would give the average person more
> credit - I cannot imagine they would click on the Doc Steen website as
> the only website on the internet when researching visas.
> On a different note, if I am not mistaken, the same criticism could
> apply to the INS website, for they have been late in updating some of
> their fee information as wel
Not really. When I contacted them about an error, they corrected it
within a relatively short period of time.
> I completely understand that the incorrect filing schedule could prove
> disasterous to a lay person. Yet, I would give the average person more
> credit - I cannot imagine they would click on the Doc Steen website as
> the only website on the internet when researching visas.
> On a different note, if I am not mistaken, the same criticism could
> apply to the INS website, for they have been late in updating some of
> their fee information as wel
Not really. When I contacted them about an error, they corrected it
within a relatively short period of time.
Sep 14th 2002, 2:54 pm
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
Marjeta wrote:
> Who ever thinks everybody on this newsgroup, or a website is a lawyer
> with a license and takes what ever information on their screen as 100%
> correct must be an idiot. This newsgroup is not some type of hired
> lawyer's forum.
If someone with the ability to change a website with such important
information and is aware the information is not correct, then the
information should be change or removed. Otherwise, what is the point of
the site's existence?
> Who ever thinks everybody on this newsgroup, or a website is a lawyer
> with a license and takes what ever information on their screen as 100%
> correct must be an idiot. This newsgroup is not some type of hired
> lawyer's forum.
If someone with the ability to change a website with such important
information and is aware the information is not correct, then the
information should be change or removed. Otherwise, what is the point of
the site's existence?
Sep 14th 2002, 3:26 pm
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
MDUdall wrote:
> Good afternoon Alvena,
> Hope you are feeling well today.
> I see that you did go back and deleted the incorrect fingerprinting fee on
> Check's fee chart on his page. I also noticed Chuck's disclaimer stating
> Chuck's pages are not being updated (probably a good idea to include this
> disclaimer), however since it does not seem to take you too long to fix the
> fees listed on your page, I thought you might want to fix a couple of other
> ones I noticed are still listed (of course,
Can this be done by simply emailing Alvena?
I don't see a reason to continue the thread requesting specific website
corrections.
> Good afternoon Alvena,
> Hope you are feeling well today.
> I see that you did go back and deleted the incorrect fingerprinting fee on
> Check's fee chart on his page. I also noticed Chuck's disclaimer stating
> Chuck's pages are not being updated (probably a good idea to include this
> disclaimer), however since it does not seem to take you too long to fix the
> fees listed on your page, I thought you might want to fix a couple of other
> ones I noticed are still listed (of course,
Can this be done by simply emailing Alvena?
I don't see a reason to continue the thread requesting specific website
corrections.
Sep 14th 2002, 9:49 pm
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
> Not really. When I contacted them about an error, they corrected it
> within a relatively short period of time.
mrtravel,
just look at Andrew DeFaria's post!
- Des
> within a relatively short period of time.
mrtravel,
just look at Andrew DeFaria's post!
- Des
Sep 15th 2002, 4:36 am
#41
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
[email protected] (Des) wrote in message
news:<[email protected] om>...
> > Not really. When I contacted them about an error, they corrected it
> > within a relatively short period of time.
> mrtravel,
> just look at Andrew DeFaria's post!
> - Des
enough enough about there arguement, both matt and alvena has put alot
of effort into this site and helping people!!!!
news:<[email protected] om>...
> > Not really. When I contacted them about an error, they corrected it
> > within a relatively short period of time.
> mrtravel,
> just look at Andrew DeFaria's post!
> - Des
enough enough about there arguement, both matt and alvena has put alot
of effort into this site and helping people!!!!
Sep 15th 2002, 6:29 am
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
Mike wrote:
> [email protected] (Des) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected] om>...
> > > Not really. When I contacted them about an error, they corrected it
> > > within a relatively short period of time.
> >
> > mrtravel,
> >
> > just look at Andrew DeFaria's post!
> >
> > - Des
> enough enough about there arguement, both matt and alvena has put alot
> of effort into this site and helping people!!!!
It is interesting. We keep seeing post people that have "had enough" or
want the thread to go away. I would like to know how posting followups
achieves this goal. There was never a disagreement about whether they
have helped people. The point is whether information that is damaging to
people should be present on a website.
> [email protected] (Des) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected] om>...
> > > Not really. When I contacted them about an error, they corrected it
> > > within a relatively short period of time.
> >
> > mrtravel,
> >
> > just look at Andrew DeFaria's post!
> >
> > - Des
> enough enough about there arguement, both matt and alvena has put alot
> of effort into this site and helping people!!!!
It is interesting. We keep seeing post people that have "had enough" or
want the thread to go away. I would like to know how posting followups
achieves this goal. There was never a disagreement about whether they
have helped people. The point is whether information that is damaging to
people should be present on a website.
Sep 17th 2002, 3:08 am
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
MDUdall wrote:
> 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.
Anything, taken out of context, can be misconstruded to mean just about
anything. Perhaps the two statements are meant to go together eh?
> 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.
No, to me, the language in red retains it's meaning and the fact that
it's red (and bold IIRC) indicates it's emphasis over whatever else is
on the page.
> Your not being able to grasp this is surprising, coming from someone
> who can apparently read and write the English language.
Ditto.
> 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.
Anything, taken out of context, can be misconstruded to mean just about
anything. Perhaps the two statements are meant to go together eh?
> 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.
No, to me, the language in red retains it's meaning and the fact that
it's red (and bold IIRC) indicates it's emphasis over whatever else is
on the page.
> Your not being able to grasp this is surprising, coming from someone
> who can apparently read and write the English language.
Ditto.
Sep 17th 2002, 3:11 am
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: From M. Udall, reply about the controversy
MDUdall wrote:
> 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?
Oh that was out of left field here. How and why you connected these two
separate and distinct things is beyond me except to say, perhaps, that
you are a lawyer. Alveena's response about the Saudi's and fingerprints
was in response to a totally different topic and has no connection to
"fooling INS officers at the POE". IOW the jury - or at least this
jurist - doesn't buy it!
> Have you ever heard the saying, two wrongs don't make a right?
But 3 lefts do! :-)
> 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?
Oh that was out of left field here. How and why you connected these two
separate and distinct things is beyond me except to say, perhaps, that
you are a lawyer. Alveena's response about the Saudi's and fingerprints
was in response to a totally different topic and has no connection to
"fooling INS officers at the POE". IOW the jury - or at least this
jurist - doesn't buy it!
> Have you ever heard the saying, two wrongs don't make a right?
But 3 lefts do! :-)
