Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL)
May 19th 2001, 11:56 pm
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is a an article published by Nolo Press. They are also being charged with
unauthorized practice of the law, in Texas, for selling these 'self-help' law
packages (wills, for example). I think what they say is perfectly relevant, though.
http://www.tenant.net/Court/nolo/nn132.html
unauthorized practice of the law, in Texas, for selling these 'self-help' law
packages (wills, for example). I think what they say is perfectly relevant, though.
http://www.tenant.net/Court/nolo/nn132.html
May 20th 2001, 2:21 pm
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is great, and I hope Alvena reads it, and maybe considers looking up the case
mentioned at the end.
It does seem the Supreme Court has allowed the type of thing Alvena is doing,
regardless of the State's law.
On Sat, 19 May 2001 16:56:14 -0700, "D. L. McLaughlin"
>
>
>
>
>
mentioned at the end.
It does seem the Supreme Court has allowed the type of thing Alvena is doing,
regardless of the State's law.
On Sat, 19 May 2001 16:56:14 -0700, "D. L. McLaughlin"
>
>
>
>
>
May 20th 2001, 4:00 pm
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Betastar wrote:
>
>
>
>
[usenetquote2]> >This is a an article published by Nolo Press. They are also being charged with[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >unauthorized practice of the law, in Texas, for selling these 'self-help' law[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >packages (wills, for example). I think what they say is perfectly relevant,[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >though. http://www.tenant.net/Court/nolo/nn132.html[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
You can find the case that Nolo mentions at the bottom of their page on the internet
here: http://infoeagle.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/c...peech/fox.html
I am wanting to get as much directive from the Bar Assn as possible. If their
directives appear to exceed free speech, then I may contact the ACLU and see what
they say about this. In my mind, this could serve a far greater purpose, because the
internet opens doors that have never been opened this easily before. Indeed, my Askme
site disclaimed that I was an attorney, and was advertised by the site as a "forum".
Their terms of usage page stated specifically that anyone needing professional
assistance should seek out a professional and that no guarantees of any kind were
made about the validity or reliability of the information on the site.
I think therefore, that these are crucial issues. If someone asks me a question
knowing full well that I am not an attorney and that what I say may not be lawfully
correct, then have I broken a law simply because I told that person what I thought as
a layperson? The case above may interest some of you in this regard.
alvena
>
>
>
>
[usenetquote2]> >This is a an article published by Nolo Press. They are also being charged with[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >unauthorized practice of the law, in Texas, for selling these 'self-help' law[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >packages (wills, for example). I think what they say is perfectly relevant,[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >though. http://www.tenant.net/Court/nolo/nn132.html[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
You can find the case that Nolo mentions at the bottom of their page on the internet
here: http://infoeagle.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/c...peech/fox.html
I am wanting to get as much directive from the Bar Assn as possible. If their
directives appear to exceed free speech, then I may contact the ACLU and see what
they say about this. In my mind, this could serve a far greater purpose, because the
internet opens doors that have never been opened this easily before. Indeed, my Askme
site disclaimed that I was an attorney, and was advertised by the site as a "forum".
Their terms of usage page stated specifically that anyone needing professional
assistance should seek out a professional and that no guarantees of any kind were
made about the validity or reliability of the information on the site.
I think therefore, that these are crucial issues. If someone asks me a question
knowing full well that I am not an attorney and that what I say may not be lawfully
correct, then have I broken a law simply because I told that person what I thought as
a layperson? The case above may interest some of you in this regard.
alvena
May 20th 2001, 4:17 pm
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
me a
>
I say
>
because I
>
>
>
>
A sad state of affiars. It seems that the KY bar interprets "practicing law" broadly,
as any information or advice that touches on an issue of law, and despite any
disclaimers. How paternalistic. As if people could not read disclaimers. Yet, the
real root of the problem is likely an issue of lost revenue for immigration atty's
perhaps even more so, loss of "face" or "integrity." And, I imagine that it's not
just not KY, either.
But what's more frightening to me is that one could be prosecuted (in the extreme
case, but within what Alvena describes above) for stating an opinion or relating an
experience. This is scary shit.
Elaine
me a
>
I say
>
because I
>
>
>
>
A sad state of affiars. It seems that the KY bar interprets "practicing law" broadly,
as any information or advice that touches on an issue of law, and despite any
disclaimers. How paternalistic. As if people could not read disclaimers. Yet, the
real root of the problem is likely an issue of lost revenue for immigration atty's
perhaps even more so, loss of "face" or "integrity." And, I imagine that it's not
just not KY, either.
But what's more frightening to me is that one could be prosecuted (in the extreme
case, but within what Alvena describes above) for stating an opinion or relating an
experience. This is scary shit.
Elaine
May 20th 2001, 7:06 pm
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is definatley "scary shit"!
If the laws are passed with the intent of providing protection to the = everyday joe,
how come we are the a point in history where the only = people that seem to be
protected are the lawyers? Is it just my = interpretation that most of the
politicians and folks that have a hand = in passing laws seem to have practised law
at some point in their lives? = The notion of the elected official acting upon the
wishes of the = electorate seems to have long since gone down the tube. Now life has
= become a process whereby we spend our time watching our rear ends = because we dont
want to get them sued off! What kind of crap is that?
If the laws are passed with the intent of providing protection to the = everyday joe,
how come we are the a point in history where the only = people that seem to be
protected are the lawyers? Is it just my = interpretation that most of the
politicians and folks that have a hand = in passing laws seem to have practised law
at some point in their lives? = The notion of the elected official acting upon the
wishes of the = electorate seems to have long since gone down the tube. Now life has
= become a process whereby we spend our time watching our rear ends = because we dont
want to get them sued off! What kind of crap is that?
May 20th 2001, 10:51 pm
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
IThank you Alvena,
I know your work on this NG has been most appreciated. I am leaving on Wednesday to
meet my Fiancee for our "church wedding" in a very famous church in Vladimir Russia.
I hope things are resolved in a year or so when we file for ?? what ever the
next step is??
Sincerly,
Michael
>
[usenetquote2]> > This is great, and I hope Alvena reads it, and maybe considers looking up the[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > case mentioned at the end. It does seem the Supreme Court has allowed the type of[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > thing Alvena is doing, regardless of the State's law. On Sat, 19 May 2001[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > 16:56:14 -0700, "D. L. McLaughlin"[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >This is a an article published by Nolo Press. They are also being charged with[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >unauthorized practice of the law, in Texas, for selling these 'self-help' law[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >packages (wills, for example). I think what they say is perfectly relevant,[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >though. http://www.tenant.net/Court/nolo/nn132.html[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I know your work on this NG has been most appreciated. I am leaving on Wednesday to
meet my Fiancee for our "church wedding" in a very famous church in Vladimir Russia.
I hope things are resolved in a year or so when we file for ?? what ever the
next step is??
Sincerly,
Michael
>
[usenetquote2]> > This is great, and I hope Alvena reads it, and maybe considers looking up the[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > case mentioned at the end. It does seem the Supreme Court has allowed the type of[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > thing Alvena is doing, regardless of the State's law. On Sat, 19 May 2001[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > 16:56:14 -0700, "D. L. McLaughlin"[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >This is a an article published by Nolo Press. They are also being charged with[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >unauthorized practice of the law, in Texas, for selling these 'self-help' law[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >packages (wills, for example). I think what they say is perfectly relevant,[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >though. http://www.tenant.net/Court/nolo/nn132.html[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
May 21st 2001, 8:14 pm
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is a PROFOUNDLY GREAT DAY FOR LIBERTY!
Alvena, I salute you! Even though you think I'm mentally ill
[snip]
>
>
Fantastic. You go girl!
>
>
EXACTLY! If this is not challenged, then precedent has been set. Other websites
hosting peer-to-peer discussions will be attacked for various reasons and by various
nefarious means. This needs to be nipped in the bud.
[snip]
>
They are incredibly crucial issues. This strikes at the very core of free-speech
issues on the Internet. You may also consider contacting EFF (the Electronic Frontier
Foundation) http://www.eff.org/ --but what do I know? I'm just a mentally ill
Constitutionalist
>
>
>
Of course not. And this MUST be pursued in the courts. It is a profoundly disturbing
attack on free speech on the Internet, as well as FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY.
>
>
>
Alvena, I salute you! Even though you think I'm mentally ill
[snip]
>
>
Fantastic. You go girl!
>
>
EXACTLY! If this is not challenged, then precedent has been set. Other websites
hosting peer-to-peer discussions will be attacked for various reasons and by various
nefarious means. This needs to be nipped in the bud.
[snip]
>
They are incredibly crucial issues. This strikes at the very core of free-speech
issues on the Internet. You may also consider contacting EFF (the Electronic Frontier
Foundation) http://www.eff.org/ --but what do I know? I'm just a mentally ill
Constitutionalist
>
>
>
Of course not. And this MUST be pursued in the courts. It is a profoundly disturbing
attack on free speech on the Internet, as well as FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY.
>
>
>
May 21st 2001, 8:17 pm
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Point well taken. But remember, Alvena was NOT threatened with a ***lawsuit.***
She was threatened with ****PROSECUTION.**** She could actually GO TO JAIL for
HELPING people.
This garbage has GOT to be nipped in the bud. It must stop.
This is definatley "scary shit"!
If the laws are passed with the intent of providing protection to the everyday joe,
how come we are the a point in history where the only people that seem to be
protected are the lawyers? Is it just my interpretation that most of the politicians
and folks that have a hand in passing laws seem to have practised law at some point
in their lives? The notion of the elected official acting upon the wishes of the
electorate seems to have long since gone down the tube. Now life has become a process
whereby we spend our time watching our rear ends because we dont want to get them
sued off! What kind of crap is that?
She was threatened with ****PROSECUTION.**** She could actually GO TO JAIL for
HELPING people.
This garbage has GOT to be nipped in the bud. It must stop.
This is definatley "scary shit"!
If the laws are passed with the intent of providing protection to the everyday joe,
how come we are the a point in history where the only people that seem to be
protected are the lawyers? Is it just my interpretation that most of the politicians
and folks that have a hand in passing laws seem to have practised law at some point
in their lives? The notion of the elected official acting upon the wishes of the
electorate seems to have long since gone down the tube. Now life has become a process
whereby we spend our time watching our rear ends because we dont want to get them
sued off! What kind of crap is that?
May 22nd 2001, 4:20 am
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
A better site is direct to the source http://www.nolo.com/texas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
K1 FAQ : http://www.k1faq.com
POE Rolling List : http://www.k1poelist.com
K1 Homepages : http://www.k1homepages.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
K1 FAQ : http://www.k1faq.com
POE Rolling List : http://www.k1poelist.com
K1 Homepages : http://www.k1homepages.com
May 23rd 2001, 5:48 am
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
I recognize and respect your need to do what is necessary to maintain your job and
life. However, I find this chilling. It's not just that you are going - although your
pages will be missed greatly when Eddie and I file for AOS. But the idea of a group
of lawyers shutting down a part of the internet like this is ... well, it's just
horrible. This isn't what I want to bring Eddie to. I know that America has its
faults, but freedom of speech is paramount in our constitution, and it doesn't seem
right that they can stop a person from saying things just because they say that it is
"legal advice". I always KNEW that what I got from the newsgroup and the web pages
wasn't legal advice. It was advice based on that person's experiences, such as I
might get from a friend or neighbor. However valuable that advice, it was not the
advice of a lawyer. I can see that some lawyers might find it threatening if people
start telling others how to wade through the law without having to pay a lawyer. But
the financial security of lawyers does not strike me as a good reason to override the
constitution.
I know you can't "fight city hall", and don't expect you to. You're doing the smart
thing in not fighting this. You don't deserve to be hurt for helping people, and
you've done enough. Even if you win, you will probably lose something. But if you
were able to find a way to fight it that didn't hurt you... it would be a good thing
for the people of America. I know that sounds melodramatic, but...we're talking about
the right to share IDEAS here. Jonathan is already taking down his pages. How long
until the FAQ is gone?
Diane M.
Alvena Ferreira wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
life. However, I find this chilling. It's not just that you are going - although your
pages will be missed greatly when Eddie and I file for AOS. But the idea of a group
of lawyers shutting down a part of the internet like this is ... well, it's just
horrible. This isn't what I want to bring Eddie to. I know that America has its
faults, but freedom of speech is paramount in our constitution, and it doesn't seem
right that they can stop a person from saying things just because they say that it is
"legal advice". I always KNEW that what I got from the newsgroup and the web pages
wasn't legal advice. It was advice based on that person's experiences, such as I
might get from a friend or neighbor. However valuable that advice, it was not the
advice of a lawyer. I can see that some lawyers might find it threatening if people
start telling others how to wade through the law without having to pay a lawyer. But
the financial security of lawyers does not strike me as a good reason to override the
constitution.
I know you can't "fight city hall", and don't expect you to. You're doing the smart
thing in not fighting this. You don't deserve to be hurt for helping people, and
you've done enough. Even if you win, you will probably lose something. But if you
were able to find a way to fight it that didn't hurt you... it would be a good thing
for the people of America. I know that sounds melodramatic, but...we're talking about
the right to share IDEAS here. Jonathan is already taking down his pages. How long
until the FAQ is gone?
Diane M.
Alvena Ferreira wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
