Go Back  British Expats > Living & Moving Abroad > USA > Marriage Based Visas
Reload this Page >

Question for the lawyers on marriage fraud

Wikiposts

Question for the lawyers on marriage fraud

Thread Tools
 
Old Mar 8th 2003, 1:43 am
  #16  
Newyorkinsq
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Question for the lawyers on marriage fraud

    >Hey sorry I sounded so crazy there, just trying to help.

David
No hard feelings then; but a heads up - including the words "Stop bugging
everyone .... I suggest you drop it right now." in an attempt at helping
someone is unlikely to leave them feeling particularly grateful.
 
Old Mar 8th 2003, 2:13 am
  #17  
Newyorkinsq
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Question for the lawyers on marriage fraud

I said
    >> Can I take it, from the somewhat oblique nature of your
    >> response...

You wrote
    >I did not make an "oblique answer." I simply didn't answer the
    >question at all.

Since you seem to delight in pettiness I'll indulge your foible by pointing out
that I never uttered the words you quoted and therefore impliedly assign to me
(all in the cause of a contradiction of someone simply asking for help with a
serious problem, I might add). You certainly made a "response", as I said, in
that your post followed mine which initiated the thread, and quoted it in its
entirety.

Further my awareness that you did not answer the question at all was amply
illustrated in the rest of my post ("no lawyer would actually answer it without
payment?") - which you will note asked if the question could be reframed in a
way that you *would* answer it.

When next you choose to indulge your fixation on always being right, I gently
encourage that you ought to take a little more care to first find someone who
is wrong, and then address the point of that wrongness. Instead it seems you
just invent words for other people and then gleefully contradict them - picking
holes in people's posts on Usenet is like shooting fish in a barrel. But you
seem the kind of person who enjoys such sport and yet lacks the ability.

From the tone of your responses I can at least infer with some certainty that
if you knew much of anything specific in answer to my question - e.g. of a case
involving a prosecution on the lines I mentioned - you would not have missed
this opportunity of parading such knowledge. In that highly limited sense your
assistance has been of help.

    
 
Old Mar 8th 2003, 2:24 am
  #18  
Account Closed
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Folinskyinla is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: Totally OT but fun

Originally posted by Dekka's Angel
/agree re Palzgraf.

"Burger King" was in 1986 and addressed the federal rule on personal jurisdiction for folks "in transit". My CivPro teacher made us suffer for a week. She was new.

The "Flopper" case, however, is classic Cardozo (Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Company, 250 N.Y. 479 (1929)), on assumption of risk. I'm giggling again just thinking about it. I recommend it when you're having "one of those days". =)
Don't remember Murphy at all. I DO remember Peeveyhouse v Peabody Coal on the measure of damages for breach of contract. My contracts professor had retired from University of Cincinatti Law and was outraged at that case -- and he briefed it himself in very dramatic fashion. In fact, a classmate of mine went back the next year and taped the lecture.

In talking to people at alumni functions, it makes me sad that "The 65 Club" of law professors is really no more -- I caught the tail end of something fantastic.
Folinskyinla is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Manage Preferences Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Your Privacy Choices -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.