topgooser

I think the way that all these references to the 10ft pole disturb alot of new folk - let them know what you mean ? stop being so secretive and jargon geeks - it's a major ball ache for alot of people who try and get help here.

come on folks, sort yourselves out.

Bob

It's the 10 foot pole for a reason, helping someone out in the situation is conspiracy to the act, whatever it might be.

topgooser

thats a start - alot of people feel alienated by the lack of understanding with this particular term - and therefore seem to back off and go into hiding - I just felt it was time to expose it for the suggestion that it was.

No harm intended - just a statement for people to not to worry about.

Bob

And to elobrate, it's mostly about what people can/can't do on the vwp, and the consequences/success/failures of actions like intent on abusing the vwp by adjusting status on it, showing intent is illegal...helping out or getting involved could lead to a charge of conspiracy...that's why people don't want to talk about or get involved, certainly in a public forum for the world and UCIS to see.

That's the reason pretty much.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

In the last posting on the subject, although I was not detailed, I gave a lot of information on why the question is one that should not be touched with a "ten-foot pole."

There is a large body of law on the various concpets of "misrepresenation," "fraud," "material fact," and "pre-concieved intent" -- relating to defintions and effects. It is such a complicated area of law that CIS and lawyers screw it up all the time. PARTS of that law may seem simple at times, but overall it is quite complicated.

An analogy may be made to the arcane "Rule Against Perpetuities" in real property law. It looks easy on its face and in application it is fiendishly difficult and has tortured centuries of law students. The California Supreme Court once ruled that it was not malpractice for a lawyer to mess up the Rule Against Perpituties becuase THEY didn't really understand it. However, the fact remains that people are hurt when the rule is violated.

I don't have time to go into all the "in and outs" of the 10ft pole. And on top of it, the question involve ethical and criminal issues in giving public advice. Its kind of like giving advice on "abusive" tax shelters -- you just might get nailed.

topgooser

I think this is a great standard for newbies or confused's to go off - so people, overall, if you are treading a fine line, then people on here will have their misgivings helping you out and rightly so.

so beware - the TEN FOOT POLE EXISTS !- and it is more likely to be at least THIRTY FOOT LONG!!!

Thanks folks!

Ray

It all been covered here a 1000 times do a search...

lairdside

Yup.... DDSS, SNAFU.

topgooser

LOL - Thanks for that

Franklin

Ah yes ... that old fruit cake, "Rule Against Perpetuities" ... remember it well. Confused the heck out of most law students!

Folinskyinla

BTW, the CA Supreme Court case is Lucas v. Hamm.

Interesting blog: http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2...petuities.html

Folinskyinla

Here is a wonderful disclaimer:

My detailed professional résumé appears on the website of the firm where I'm "of counsel" and perhaps some other places on the Internet. However:
I'm a lawyer. But not YOUR lawyer!

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER! — a/k/a — "Laying a bulletproof basis for my prospective 'Me no Alamo!' defense if anyone ever sues me about anything having to do with this website!"

In contrast to the résumé linked above and the commerical law firm website of which that résumé is a part, this weblog is not intended to solicit or advise clients, nor for any other commercial purpose. Nor is this weblog in any way connected with my ongoing practice of law.

Any legal opinions or information that I may publish on the BeldarBlog weblog should be considered to be exclusively for purposes of entertainment. No reader of this website should ever rely upon any legal opinions or other information published here — not even just a little bit! If you need legal advice or information that you can rely upon, I strongly recommend that you consult directly — in person preferably, or at a minimum by telephone, and not over the Internet — with a lawyer duly licensed to practice law in the state (or territory or country) where you live.

I'm a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer, okay? I don't even pretend to be as careful in what I may spout off with here as any lawyer must be in advising and representing real clients. I obviously think I'm pretty smart, and I'll do my best to be right and not to mislead or lie; but nothing here should ever be assumed to represent the position of any of my clients, or my firm's clients, or of any other lawyers with whom I may practice.

And please don't send me any confidential information — there's no attorney-client relationship between us and it will not be protected by attorney-client privilege!

Besides: What's any jury going to do as soon as they're told you relied on a weblog from a lawyer who called himself "Beldar"?

CaliforniaBride

Not watching the Super Bowl???

scrubbedexpat099

All over

Now Law and Order.

Funny it should be such an issue here, I get the impression from what I have seen, and who I have spoken to, that if you take legal advice then coming in on a VWP or whatever and marrying is what you are likely to be suggested to do, of course not in writing.

Also seems to be what most do.

Now if the USCIS processed promptly, then all this would be a non issue.

(here on a K1, also initially confused by the 10ft poll)

PS perhaps we should also have a metric version for our younger readers.

bridgecross

I actually WOULD have an issue adding an explanation to the "10 ft pole" reference, as it is not an inside joke, or constricted to this forum, or some obscure jargon for jargon-geeks. It's a common reference to the phrase "I would not touch that with a 10-foot pole". It requires about two synapses to make the connection. If I were required to add a footnote to every idiom I use, my posts would be double in length! If you don't know what I mean when I say "batten down the hatches," you'll be swept off by the storm. So be it :-)