Sue

Reported posts go to all moderators of the particular forum they moderate.

Noorah101

The notice that we get tells us who reports the bad post.

Rene

Bob

reason why a doctor won't help someone out if they see them collapse on the street and break some ribs to help them out, opens them up to be sued...

Folinskyinla

Hi:

There is "good samaritan" legislation on that. A lot of tort law is based upon experience and often for "policy" reasons. For example, in the earlier discussion of "Palsgraf" -- the Railroad itself did nothing wrong -- however its employees were careless in assisting that man up onto the train and dislodging the package. The "respondeat superior" doctrine is a policy determination in the law to get at "deep pockets" for compensation. [BTW, the "intentional" torts, as opposed to "negligence" are generally NOT subject to respondeat superior].

If things were clear, there would be no litigation on it. It bears repeating that there are NOT "bright lines" in the issues. This is what made Torts one of the few fun classes in law school.

meauxna

Moderator Reply:
"I" know because I read my email, and I am notified of every reported post, with a copy of the reporter's comments.

Meauxna Reply:
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, because you say something, does not make it true, but you seem to have no problem making "untrue" statements about others (surly or otherwise ). It doesn't make them libel, but perhaps you can appreciate that they sting nonetheless.

Matthew Udall

Well, I certainly don’t want to do that and if you point them out to me I’ll be happy to take a look to see what you are referring to and make any corrections necessary.

anti-climacus

Greetings, Matt and Everyone!

The core issues addressed by your simile seem to revolve around collective, organized participation of the laity in high-stakes public interest activities. An analogical argument in the simile supporting your overarching perspective on the issue seems to run along the following lines. In itself, rescue of a drowning person’s life is a high-stakes public interest activity the consistently proper, effective, and harmless performance of which requires training and licensing. As individuals who are periodically caught in a variety of exigency situations, amateurs save other persons’ lives on the beach all the time, often improperly, sometimes ineffectively, and on occasion harmfully. They are encouraged rather than discouraged from doing so. If harm in such efforts is caused, “good Samaritan” laws are frequently called to the rescuers’ rescue. The problems principally arise when a group of individuals—who through their own and other people’s experience have become, or think that they have become, adept at rescuing the drowning—decide to set up their own private Beach Rescue Club (BRC) on the beach, extending, besides specific rescue operations, educational pamphlets and seminars that, with varying degree and frequency, have incomplete and/or erroneous information. Particularly alarming become the actions of the BRC leaders (designated or not) who, though often driven by good intentions, interfere with the work of professional lifeguards—for example, when they set up tents and attract crowds that obstruct the lifeguards’ visual and physical work space or when, in their overeagerness to show their moral helpfulness and legal knowledge, they initiate needless or heedless rescue operations in innocuous or precarious situations respectively, causing at best annoyance and frustration and at worst harm and peril to the beach-goers. The BRC leaders’ commitment to public service and, by many beach-goers’ lights, success in their mission creates an aura of charisma and respect that blinds their sundry devotees and passers-by to the actual and possible dangers their volunteer work periodically involves.

The simile has a strong argument if all of its points are teased out—with due attentiveness to context—in relation to the issues of concern to you which, if distilled of all the concomitant personal acrimony and the like, seem to boil down to this: it is illicit to render SPECIFIC legal advice by settled hobbyists or ‘net-arios’ in online forums. Sometimes, as is also evident in my construal of your simile, your comments seem to entail that you object to the net-arios’ very presence: they should not exist (!period!), because their faithful hovering over the forum creates a dangerous atmosphere of false security for the immigration community, especially for neophytes stumbling upon and—in your implicit description—uncritically and unwarily trusting most things they read from seemingly respected and experienced fellow immigration applicants. If, however, push comes to shove (which is a particularly suitable metaphorical euphemism here), this does not seem to be your real, whole-hearted position. At bottom, what you appear to me to be objecting to—in your clearest, least self-vindicative moments—is occasional lack of self-restraint, discipline, modesty, and circumspection on the part of settled hobbyists that are demanded of them in their public, if volunteer roles, specifically in the context of requests for concrete legal advice, especially with regard to complex immigration issues and intricate personal circumstances. Your overarching objective is thus to push (i.e. challenge, provoke, and stimulate) settled hobbyists, not to shove (i.e. marginalize or ban) them—except in cases of flagrant, persistent abuses. Is this a fair or reductionist interpretation of your basic stance?

If my interpretation is on or near the mark, then I don’t fully understand your opposition to or discontent with CONSPICUOUS, clarificatory disclaimers and caveat emptors (comparable to the format suggested in previous posts) as a possible WORKABLE fundamental strategy for tackling the issue, especially on a LEGAL basis. The workability or enforcement is a critical criterion to be considered: reputable immigration newsgroups and forums serve important public goods (e.g. provision of general immigration information, moral support, experience exchange, links to professional advice, answers to straightforward queries etc.) so they are highly unlikely to be shut down as a whole entity, even in this country; a legal requirement (or a casual admonition, for that matter) that sites, as you suggested informally, allow only participants with real names, addresses or a certain number of visits etc. to post replies is exceedingly impractical (extremely cumbersome if not unmanageable); appointment of formal, outside ‘legal guardians’ over each site smacks, in public perception, of “1984” and thus also appears immune to legislation.

In contrast, a legal requirement that each registered site have the above-mentioned disclaimers/caveat emptors seems much more enforceable and pragmatically effective. And they should be, please note, not in dwarfed script tucked away in the footnotes of the rules’ subsections, but both on TOP of the site in LARGE font with a footnote to a detailed clarification and in a generic signature AUTOMATICALLY attached to EACH post. And the phrasing should serve the purpose of not simply protecting the site owner and the posters (which is what disclaimers do) but cautioning and educating all of the participants (both old-timers and newbies, advisors and advisees) about shared responsibilities they owe to each other (which is what caveat emptors can do). The site, to be sure, may as a result not look as neat and nifty but it might foster a more collegial, accountable environment.

If my interpretation of your position is off the mark, please clarify it and state specific workable, enforceable solutions in its light—both within a legal and an ethical systemic framework. It would also help to know how often, in your personal experience, UPL typically occurrs on this site. For example, how many posts approximately have you seen, say since the beginning of the year or this month, that venture into UPL? Could you provide some concrete but ‘ambiguated’ examples that do not mention names or cite particular posts, assuming you won’t feel comfortable doing the latter task? If you don’t want to give concrete examples, could you at least indicate specific issues where UPL has been especially prevalent on this site during the same period of time? Many people would, I surmise, wish to know answers to these questions to understand the nature and quality of your concern about UPL both on this site and in general.

Please know that my underlying motive is mutual understanding. Sorry for long-windedness. I thought it fun to explicate your position through your simile.

P.S. As an aside, I am also curious about the peripheral issue of legal liability vs. moral responsibility raised in your simile. The difference in the liability judgment under conditions of failure to provide direct personal assistance to the drowning swimmer and of interference, even if indirect, with another person’s assistance makes PRIMA FACIE sense within a legal framework, though it is unsettling morally. An ethicist ascertaining the quality of moral responsibility in the simile would, of course, pose questions about the physical and mental ability of the person to perform a rescue and the existential reaction underlying it. (Existential reaction clarification: If I am able to help, what are my motives for doing it? e. g. concern about legal liability, people’s opinion, or/and moral empathy/duty/virtue, etc. If I am unable to help, what attitude do I take toward the situation? e.g. sadistic pleasure, indifference, regret, guilt, or/and desire to change capacity for rescue etc.) Would these ethical questions be absent in the courtroom had charges been brought against the allegorical person on the beach? Say, our protagonist was an illustrious, much lionized professional surfer who confesses in court that he was in full capacity to assist but did not do so solely because the drowning person was his archrival, a rising star whom he envied and feared to supplant his celebrity status. Is there a case to be made for legal liability here by probing these ostensibly purely ethical questions?

J Moreno

Matthew Udall <member3997@british_expats.com> wrote:

    > Hi A.C.
    > I�m not sure if the concept of caveat emptor really applies fully in
    > certain high stakes activities. Well, I guess it does to a certain
    > extent, but only to a point.

Here's where I think you go wrong -- immigration isn't really high
stakes for most people, and very seldom for people doing so via
marriage.

Worst comes to worst, USC moves there.

If the case has been screwed up, then yeah, you may need an attorney to
help you get what you want, but you don't need one to stay out of jail
or keep from being killed.

--
J. Moreno

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Questions of tort law involve complicated policy considerations -- many of which can be conflicting.

I've just been hired by a couple where they got bad advice and they are now separated -- the State Department has issued strong Travel Advisories on alien spouse's country. To be quite frank, Americans can NOT live safely in that country.

Neither Matt nor I are the UPL police. However, the issues DO exist.

J Moreno

In article <140320062027029026%[email protected]>,
J Moreno <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Matthew Udall <member3997@british_expats.com> wrote:
    >
    > > Hi A.C.
    > > I�m not sure if the concept of caveat emptor really applies fully in
    > > certain high stakes activities. Well, I guess it does to a certain
    > > extent, but only to a point.
    >
    > Here's where I think you go wrong -- immigration isn't really high
    > stakes for most people, and very seldom for people doing so via
    > marriage.

Also, I never got an answer as to what crime a officer commits if they
deny an adjustment of status petition, when the petition is approvable.

If they are NOT committing a crime, then it's not a matter of law (IMO)
and lawyers are just advocates for ones side, and anyone that can help
you argue your case is good.

--
J. Moreno

Matthew Udall

I can tell you why I haven’t replied. A few reasons actually. First, some days are busier than others and I didn’t have much time to participate on the day you posted. Second, while I’ve been informed that it is permissible for me to participate in this discussion (that I didn’t start in the first place) I don’t want to anger anybody and I’m just one participant (others will reply if they have an answer for you). And finally, most importantly, I don’t understand your question or how an officer doing his job relates in any way to the subject of the danger of PL. But again, I’m only one participant in this discussion, so maybe others will have some sort of answer for you (if they understand what it is you are asking, or the logic behind the concern/question).

Matthew Udall

Oh, but I can tell you that when cases are denied at the interview, quite often a person will then have an opportunity to have the case looked at one more time before a judge.

J Moreno

In article <[email protected]> ,
Matthew Udall <member3997@british_expats.com> wrote:

    > > J Moreno <[email protected]> wrote:
-snip-
    > > Also, I never got an answer as to what crime a officer commits if they
    > > deny an adjustment of status petition, when the petition is
    > > approvable.
    > >
    > > If they are NOT committing a crime, then it's not a matter of law
    > > (IMO) and lawyers are just advocates for ones side, and anyone that
    > > can help you argue your case is good.
    >
    > Oh, but I can tell you that when cases are denied at the interview,
    > quite often a person will then have an opportunity to have the case
    > looked at one more time before a judge.

At which time it becomes a legal matter.

To give an analogy -- I'd never consider it PL to tell someone what
steps and forms they had to take/fill out to get married, but if they
were in court and the validity of the marriage was an issue, telling
them all they had to do was take in a this or that document would be.

When you're going through the "normal" steps of immigration, it's just
administrative steps -- while they may have legal consequences and
implications, just about everything does.

--
J. Moreno

J Moreno

In article <[email protected]> ,
Matthew Udall <member3997@british_expats.com> wrote:

    > > J Moreno <[email protected]> wrote:
-snip-> >
    > > Also, I never got an answer as to what crime a officer commits if
    > > they deny an adjustment of status petition, when the petition is
    > > approvable.
    > >
    > > If they are NOT committing a crime, then it's not a matter of law
    > > (IMO) and lawyers are just advocates for ones side, and anyone that
    > > can help you argue your case is good.
    > >
    >
    > I can tell you why I haven't replied. A few reasons actually. First,
    > some days are busier than others and I didn't have much time to
    > participate on the day you posted.

Hey, I understand about that and wasn't making an accusation, just
giving a reminder...

    > Second, while I've been informed that it is permissible for me to
    > participate in this discussion (that I didn't start in the first
    > place) I don't want to anger anybody and I'm just one participant
    > (others will reply if they have an answer for you).

I say get a decent newsreader and forget about "permissible" (although
not about good manners).

    > And finally, most importantly, I don't understand your question
    > or how an officer doing his job relates in any way to the subject of the
    > danger of PL. But again, I'm only one participant in this discussion,
    > so maybe others will have some sort of answer for you (if they
    > understand what it is you are asking, or the logic behind the
    > concern/question).

Because I don't think it's practicing law, if the people you are
dealing with are supposed to be "guided" by the law, and not bound by
it. If they aren't breaking the law when they deny you because you
remind them of their ex or something, then arguing the "law" is just
that..."arguing".

Put it another way -- lawyers are for technicalities, not
personalities. And while the technicalities are important, they aren't
the deciding factor before you get in front of a judge.

--
J. Moreno

Matthew Udall

I appreciate your opinion and thanks for sharing it. And I’m sure that you are as aware as I; that your and my opinions don’t really matter when it comes to “what is, and what isn’t”. I can tell you however that I’ve seen the issue of “what is and what isn’t” addressed a few times in materials from different states and they seem to have an opinion that differs from yours.