Rete

Enough Already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have voiced your opinion over the last 7 years.

There is absolutely nothing that is being accomplished by your continually pontification of the evils of UPL other than scaring off some people who are seeking assistance.

You are not going to close down the AVUMB newsgroup. You are not going to be able to get the Usenet to shut down any of the various immigration newsgroup currently in existence.

Nor are you going to make me leave the AVUMB newsgroup or stop me from participating. I use BE only as a means to access the AVUMB group.

So enough already, Messrs. Udall and Folinsky.

Give it and yourself a rest, Mr. Udall, before you give yourself a heart attack.

Matthew Udall

The two typical disclaimers you mentioned are already there to attempt to shift liability away from those not authorized to engage in this high stakes activity (and your rewriting of the third disclaimer would fit into both of the disclaimers you mentioned).

But the rules regulating PL are there to protect the public. Maybe the rules regulating PL should be shifted so they no longer protect the public and instead protect those who engage in PL.

anti-climacus

All three are meant to serve as BOTH disclaimers and caveat emptors!

Matthew Udall

[And I would appreciate a retraction from you with your accusations about what you perceive to be my involvement with other websites. Thanks.

Rete

A deletion was made, although I stand by my words.

meauxna

Just because Matt Udall says something is so is not enough to make it true.

I see this is a popular technique. Then, when the misinformation is not challenged, it becomes accepted as fact.
<shrug> I don't subscribe to it & when I'm maligned, won't play the game of 'That's not true!! <insert stampy feet>'.

Rete

Hey let's keep the boy happy. After all I am a moderator here and I should have posted my facts from Google. My error ... my correction.

meauxna

OMG, & LOL, he *reported* that post?
Uh, how long does one have to be on the internet to ...oh, never mind.
How apropos my previous post turned out to be!

Paul

Unbelievable! You report that post for being libelous, yet you are happy to go around accusing every man, woman and their dog of breaking some non-existant law!

I really think it's time you stopped posting through this site.

Folinskyinla

Hi Paul:

Be nice. I've noted that in response to some of Matt's comments where he does NOT identify a person in question, there will be a response that "**I** am the person you are referring to."

And please note the OP in this string. A real case. Those of us in the "immigration trenches" have to deal with the fall-out of UPL which is incompetetent and dangerous day-in and day-out. I will admit to getting murderous rage at some people for the time I've had to tell some mighty fine people that "I could have done something earlier, but because of what was done by the person you trusted, your case is now hopeless."

And before people complain that attorneys are worried about the finances of this -- the damage is often done by people who charge MORE -- but they tell people what they WANT to hear. It may be that "net-tarios" don't charge, but the damage they can do can be just as real.

scrubbedexpat099

I somehow knew this thread would end up in tears.

fatbrit

IMO, there is no link between the article cited in the OP and the claimed UPL occurring in this ng. In fact, despite repeated requests to cite similar UPL cases that have been successfully prosecuted, none have been brought to light. They are simply chalk and cheese. Your buddy sees UPL everywhere but really has produced nothing to back up his case except incessantly repeating it to all and sundry. This does not make it fact and seems to be irritating many people who use this ng.

JEff

Matt,

I haven't suggested that only long-time or experienced posters should
be allowed to post, nor have I suggesed that new participants should
not be allowed to post. I have pointed out that the newest, short-time
participants are typically the largest source of misinformation and
inappropriate information.

I have asked you why what you define as UPL on newsgroups is the
villian when it's the most accurate of the information available in
such venues, aside from the ocassional attorney participant but those
are few and far between. I have yet to hear an answer other than that
they are sometimes wrong. Yet my observation is that they are far more
often right than wrong while the non-hobbyists are more often wrong
than right.

I am still wondering why, if your objective is to minimize
misinformation or inappropriate information so as to avoid injury to
the public, you criticize the internet providers of usually good
information but have no objection to the internet providers of usually
bad information.

Whether or not advice crosses your line or anyone else's line into the
arena of PL, the danger of newsgroups doesn't come from the advice
being UPL or non-PL, the danger comes from advice that's bad advice.

My solution, and that of most of the hobbyists, is to counter bad
advice with good advice which often includes advice to seek
professional legal counsel - even when there are hoardes of
non-hoobyists advising that attornies are an unnecessary scourge.

Regards, JEff

Matthew Udall wrote:
    > Each post (legal advice rendered to another in regards to that other
    > person's specific legal questions/problems) is different, but I
    > suppose I can see the logic in what you are saying.
    > As Rita herself points out, some of these long time posters have learned
    > through "trial and error" in their prior legal advice rendered.
    > If the new members are the ones most likely to give inaccurate and
    > dangerous advice, then why are they allowed to do so? Using this logic,
    > only the most seasoned experienced posters should be the ones rendering
    > legal advice. Maybe the posting number (count) helps a newbie determine
    > which person's advice is more likely to be accurate. Maybe a special
    > status like Moderator helps them make that determination.
    > But denying new members the opportunity to post occasional what happened
    > in their own case seems contrary to what I often read as to the general
    > purpose of news groups. From what I've read, it is to facilitate the
    > sharing of information that people found out through their own ordeals
    > with the CIS and Consulate (and please keep in mind my own personal
    > distinction between the occasional poster and the habitual participant).
    > I don't read that the purpose is to facilitate the long term rendering
    > of legal advice over the span of years by those whose case is long over
    > and who render legal advice about situations that never came up in their
    > own case. But this is actually what has happens, and after a certain
    > point (as Mr. F said, it's not a sharp line) the PL line is crossed.
    > The last line of the paragraph above sounds like you are advocating the
    > elimination of news group participation from the occasional poster. And
    > you are correct, the rendering of legal advice is a high stakes
    > activity and the danger of inaccurate advice is just as real regardless
    > of whom it comes from. That's probably why the states regulate this
    > activity and require certain requirements be met before someone is
    > authorized to do so.
    > I replied privately to another news group friend yesterday who asked
    > what could be done to reduce the danger of bad advice received by the
    > recipient. Maybe you can come up with some ideas too. Here are a few
    > of my ideas:
    > Require all participants to post under their real names and have them
    > register their actual address with the site owners (and it must be
    > verified for accuracy before they can begin posting). Net-tarios hide
    > behind fake identity and as Ray pointed out, IPS address can be faked
    > too. By requiring true identities to be used, that might discourage
    > posters to encourage others to lie during the process. Also when
    > inaccurate legal advice is rendered and relied upon to the detriment of
    > the recipient, the injured recipient could get the contact information
    > from the owners and then bring legal proceedings against the person who
    > harmed them (of course, when warranted... if not warranted then they
    > would not win anyway).
    > Limit the rendering of legal advice to those authorized to do so. By
    > allowing "anybody" to render legal advice, this "is"
    > authorization by the site owners for anybody to engage in this high
    > stakes activity.
    > How about limiting replies to what actually happened in "their own"
    > case (from the POV of the person posting the reply). After all, this is
    > the information that they will be most familiar with and more likely to
    > be correct.
    > How about limiting the ability to "reply" to those who only have
    > visited the site for X amount of times (I'm sure the owners could set
    > it up so a counter will tabulate how many times a person logs into the
    > site). They can post a question immediately (not limited), but when it
    > comes to replying, they have to have visited the site a certain amount
    > of time (or perhaps a certain amount of days, weeks go by) before they
    > are enabled to reply to others. Once they hit that specification, then
    > they are more likely to post accurate information. And to prevent the
    > prolific hobbyist situation from happening to the extreme (UPL), perhaps
    > put in a cut off point. Once they make a certain amount of replies,
    > their ability to reply further is disabled.
    > How about requiring others to always ask follow up questions
    > "before" posting a reply. That seems to be a big problem in news
    > groups and is often the source of incorrect legal advice rendered.
    > Do you have any ideas?
    > Insurance is there to provide a monetary form of relief to the client in
    > case the attorney screws up. In the situation where the person relied on
    > a hobbyist's inaccurate legal advice that caused separation from their
    > K-4 child, if warranted that hobbyist's insurance carrier might pay
    > out damages to pay for things resulting from this malpractice (costs
    > directly resulting from the hobbyists malpractice). Now, if that
    > hobbyist had insurance, that might help the hobbyist too in that he
    > might not have to pay this out of his own pocket (but he pays for it by
    > paying his insurance premiums over the years anyway).
    > How about this for another way to reduce the danger of UPL on news
    > groups? The owners take a portion of their advertising revenue and buy
    > an insurance policy to provide this type of relief for damages resulting
    > from those they allow to render legal advice on the site? Seems
    > reasonable to me.

Folinskyinla

Hi JEff:

Matt is the person who got me hooked on participating in this NG in the first place. I will be the first to admit that things have approved markedly since 2001 in this arena. I, for one, try to counter bad information with good information when I have it -- however, I am the "information police" and neither is Matt. I'm not at all sure I would have the time and energy to take on Paul Gani's essay as I did in the past. [BTW, I want to make clear that Paul was extremely well intentioned].

Neither Matt or I make a nickel off of this. In fact, I make money from "janitorial work" -- so my financial interest is to see the UPL'ers screw up -- they make business for me. My understanding is that Matt is not the glutton for punishment that I am -- he refuses to take on "janitorial work" as cases.

My comments on 30/60 were in regards an issue I have interest in and work mighty hard to combat misconceptions -- including among the bar. The discussion of UPL is more general in nature.

It will serve its purpose if rather than having the "information police" constantly on guard, the NG becomes self-policing. Shall I mention the "10-foot pole" as an example? I really don't have to repeat my earlier discussions all that often any more.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Not asking for explanation, just clarification -- is this a ban?