OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Mar 9th 2006, 9:42 am
#61
Concierge
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,392
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Originally Posted by Matthew Udall
I’ve been participating in groups for years, and I believe mine was the first post to ever mention looking at DCF as an option. Back then, none of the net-tarios knew it existed, but they did run with it once I brought it to their attention. And of course, that’s a good thing.
I believe if you did a search of the AVUMB newsgroup on google for 1998 you will find postings from "starwind". I do believe that is her name. She did a DCF from Canada before it was eliminated in 1997 and told us of her experience in 1998. The reason I remember it is simply because we lost that option by only a few months and had to apply for the Fiancee Visa in March of 1998 instead.
Rete
Mar 9th 2006, 11:10 am
#62
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 863
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Originally Posted by Folinskyinla
Hi:
Not a violation of "right" but a violation of "duty." LIRR [via its employees] was negligent in its actions. However, did the duty of due care extend to Mrs. Palsgraf? BTW, if memory serves me correct, the majority "Cardozo" approach said "no" and the dissenting "Andrews" approach said "yes." Although the law likes to parse things in a very analytical fashion. that can be difficult at times. I rember Palsgraf as being somewhat fuzzy as being whether it was a "proximate cause" case or a "duty" case.
I also remember A.P. Herbert's comment in "The Uncommon Law" on the "reasonable man" standard -- a truly boring person who doesn't really exist. Although, Mr. Herbert noted that there was no mention in tort law of the "reasonable woman."
Not a violation of "right" but a violation of "duty." LIRR [via its employees] was negligent in its actions. However, did the duty of due care extend to Mrs. Palsgraf? BTW, if memory serves me correct, the majority "Cardozo" approach said "no" and the dissenting "Andrews" approach said "yes." Although the law likes to parse things in a very analytical fashion. that can be difficult at times. I rember Palsgraf as being somewhat fuzzy as being whether it was a "proximate cause" case or a "duty" case.
I also remember A.P. Herbert's comment in "The Uncommon Law" on the "reasonable man" standard -- a truly boring person who doesn't really exist. Although, Mr. Herbert noted that there was no mention in tort law of the "reasonable woman."
To bring this into the PL context that we're discussing, had the people that pushed/enabled the passenger onto the train not been "employed" by the railroad, as Matt terms "net-arios", not engaged by a particular passenger to ensure safe passage (not to suggest that net-arios are negligent per se, but simply not employed, mind you), would the violation of duty issue still apply?
Last edited by bionomique; Mar 9th 2006 at 11:12 am.
Mar 9th 2006, 12:46 pm
#63
Account Closed
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 38,865
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Originally Posted by Folinskyinla
... which is a "Community College" [the newer politically correct term for "Junior College"].
I find the new PC term interesting. In Canada, there is (or, at least, there was when I was there) a distinct difference between a college and a university. Almost all colleges were "Community Colleges" and were diploma (read: certificate) granting institutions. Most colleges had 4 year programs (usually in the "trades" milieu), but there were a few with 2 year programs (usually in the "hospitality" milieu)! Universities, OTOH, were all 4 year degree granting institutions. Now, things may have changed, but in my day you could *never* get a degree from a college.
Anyway... we now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
Ian
Mar 9th 2006, 1:16 pm
#64
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Originally Posted by ian-mstm
I've enjoyed this exchange so far... mostly because it doesn't seem to have the emotional turmoil of similar, earlier exchanges!
I find the new PC term interesting. In Canada, there is (or, at least, there was when I was there) a distinct difference between a college and a university. Almost all colleges were "Community Colleges" and were diploma (read: certificate) granting institutions. Most colleges had 4 year programs (usually in the "trades" milieu), but there were a few with 2 year programs (usually in the "hospitality" milieu)! Universities, OTOH, were all 4 year degree granting institutions. Now, things may have changed, but in my day you could *never* get a degree from a college.
Anyway... we now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
Ian
I find the new PC term interesting. In Canada, there is (or, at least, there was when I was there) a distinct difference between a college and a university. Almost all colleges were "Community Colleges" and were diploma (read: certificate) granting institutions. Most colleges had 4 year programs (usually in the "trades" milieu), but there were a few with 2 year programs (usually in the "hospitality" milieu)! Universities, OTOH, were all 4 year degree granting institutions. Now, things may have changed, but in my day you could *never* get a degree from a college.
Anyway... we now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
Ian
Whats in a name? One of my daughters graduated from "Porter College" of "University of California Santa Cruz." Other daughter is neither a "college" or "university" graduate -- she graduated from an "Institute of Technology" and is engaged in graduate studies at another "Institute of Technology." Yours truly attended one of the California State "Colleges" which were renamed as "Universities" just before I graduated. My bachelor's degree has the name of a school I never attended under that name! [My class ring does not match my degree at all]. BTW, my law degree is from a "College of the Law" affiliated with the University of California.
BTW, on the employment end of the immigration shop, we sometimes have to be careful of "degrees" from "colleges" in some countries -- they are really the equivalent of an American high school diploma. On the flip side, some European secondary credentials are the equivalent of a US "community college" "AA degree." And some European certificate programs are three years of training in the field and are considered the equivalent of a US "BS" degree in that they have MORE coursework in the field but do NOT have the "liberal arts" breadth requirements inherent in a US degree.
Last edited by Folinskyinla; Mar 9th 2006 at 1:23 pm.
Mar 9th 2006, 2:59 pm
#65
Junior Showtime
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 3,759
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Frankly I avoid reading the convoluted legalise posted here by the two voluble attorneys. They make extremely dull reading for me and are way over my head frankly. I didnt come to this site expecting bono fide legal advise, I came here and asked questions of people who have been through the same or a similar process. Among those people I number Rete as giving common sense, straightforward and experience based answers. I even enjoy the sarcastic comments of Ian which have been quite helpful on occasion and at worst, amusing.
If it were my decision to make, I would request that accredited attorneys sign off with a disclaimer that the only advise you can be gained here is not to be taken as being given by legal professionals. Just my opinion. It would cover all.
which have been quite helpful on occasion and at worst, amusing.If it were my decision to make, I would request that accredited attorneys sign off with a disclaimer that the only advise you can be gained here is not to be taken as being given by legal professionals. Just my opinion. It would cover all.
Mar 9th 2006, 5:02 pm
#66
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Matt,
These two paragraphs that I've extracted from your post (please let me
know if you feel I've removed important context) exemplify my confusion
over what you would like to accomplish in the internet newsgroups and
discussion groups with regard to UPL.
I take the 2nd paragraph as a summation of what concerns you. It's a
valid concern, I think. So I am confused about the distinction that
you are drawing between the two types of posters identified in the 1st
paragraph.
The occasional posts about personal experience are typically written by
the posters who have the least understanding about the system in which
they are participating. They may know what happened to them, but they
often do not understand why it happened as it did. They tend to draw
incorrect conclusions and linkages from what they experienced (as our
forebears did in thinking that the earth was flat and the sun revolved
around it). They generally cannot properly describe the experience due
to their lack of understanding of the situation (or, very often due to
their lack of a suitable level of English language skills). For the
same reasons, readers often do not properly understand what they read
and often are not be able to identify the key issues and relate them
properly to their own situation.
Also, these are a majority of the people who tell others that using an
attorney is a waste of time. Having stumbled through the fog
themselves and somehow arrived at their destination, they don't
appreciate the role that dumb luck may have played in their success or
how much easier it might have been had they made use of an attorney in
some way.
On the other hand, while the long-time hobbyists (to use your term) do
make mistakes, they are the people who, other than the ocassional
attorney, provide the best information in the online arena. They fill
in the gaps that the ocassional, single-experience posters inevitably
leave, correct the misunderstandings and misrepresentations, and are
quick to correct or debate each other's mistakes. It's the information
that these people provide, and the debates that they engage in, that
alert the newbies and the unwary to the idea that immigration is not
such a simple and straightforward undertaking as the occassional
poster's single experience's might indicate.
It seems to me that the people who you object to the most to are the
very people who could be the most useful to you in addressing your
concerns, the people who can bring you closest to achieving your goal
of protecting the unwary from unnecessary grief, if you were to further
educate them rather than silence them.
In the real world, the unknowing are going to seek knowledge where they
can find it. Short of shutting down the internet, which isn't going to
happen (it's a creation with benefits far exceeding its drawbacks), the
way to fight bad information is to counter it with good information.
Silencing the relatively few but prolific providers of generally good
information while leaving behind the many providers of generally poor
information seems to me to be counter productive to your goal.
Regards, JEff
MDUdall wrote:
> ....
> And I've said it before and I'll say it again. I personally draw a
> distinction between those who occasionally post about what happened in
> their own case vs. those who make it a habit and hobby to do this over
> the span of years (and you can apply this to my medical analogy above
> too).
> ...
> Mentioning the real and obvious dangers of UPL is not protecting the
> hobbyist from himself, it's protecting the unwary immigration community
> from the hobbyist.
These two paragraphs that I've extracted from your post (please let me
know if you feel I've removed important context) exemplify my confusion
over what you would like to accomplish in the internet newsgroups and
discussion groups with regard to UPL.
I take the 2nd paragraph as a summation of what concerns you. It's a
valid concern, I think. So I am confused about the distinction that
you are drawing between the two types of posters identified in the 1st
paragraph.
The occasional posts about personal experience are typically written by
the posters who have the least understanding about the system in which
they are participating. They may know what happened to them, but they
often do not understand why it happened as it did. They tend to draw
incorrect conclusions and linkages from what they experienced (as our
forebears did in thinking that the earth was flat and the sun revolved
around it). They generally cannot properly describe the experience due
to their lack of understanding of the situation (or, very often due to
their lack of a suitable level of English language skills). For the
same reasons, readers often do not properly understand what they read
and often are not be able to identify the key issues and relate them
properly to their own situation.
Also, these are a majority of the people who tell others that using an
attorney is a waste of time. Having stumbled through the fog
themselves and somehow arrived at their destination, they don't
appreciate the role that dumb luck may have played in their success or
how much easier it might have been had they made use of an attorney in
some way.
On the other hand, while the long-time hobbyists (to use your term) do
make mistakes, they are the people who, other than the ocassional
attorney, provide the best information in the online arena. They fill
in the gaps that the ocassional, single-experience posters inevitably
leave, correct the misunderstandings and misrepresentations, and are
quick to correct or debate each other's mistakes. It's the information
that these people provide, and the debates that they engage in, that
alert the newbies and the unwary to the idea that immigration is not
such a simple and straightforward undertaking as the occassional
poster's single experience's might indicate.
It seems to me that the people who you object to the most to are the
very people who could be the most useful to you in addressing your
concerns, the people who can bring you closest to achieving your goal
of protecting the unwary from unnecessary grief, if you were to further
educate them rather than silence them.
In the real world, the unknowing are going to seek knowledge where they
can find it. Short of shutting down the internet, which isn't going to
happen (it's a creation with benefits far exceeding its drawbacks), the
way to fight bad information is to counter it with good information.
Silencing the relatively few but prolific providers of generally good
information while leaving behind the many providers of generally poor
information seems to me to be counter productive to your goal.
Regards, JEff
MDUdall wrote:
> ....
> And I've said it before and I'll say it again. I personally draw a
> distinction between those who occasionally post about what happened in
> their own case vs. those who make it a habit and hobby to do this over
> the span of years (and you can apply this to my medical analogy above
> too).
> ...
> Mentioning the real and obvious dangers of UPL is not protecting the
> hobbyist from himself, it's protecting the unwary immigration community
> from the hobbyist.
Mar 9th 2006, 8:13 pm
#67
Concierge
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,392
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Originally Posted by Matthew Udall
I didn't mean anything by saying junior college. Just going from memory and I recall that it wasn't law school.
By the way Rita, you first posted about this in January 05. Are you still attending? I thought these courses were only a few weeks long.
By the way Rita, you first posted about this in January 05. Are you still attending? I thought these courses were only a few weeks long.
No, the classes are for a full semster. I took this spring off i.e., January through May is the length of the term, and will start the last class in the fall.
If you were using them towards your graduate degree each class is worth three credits.
And yes, I plan on working in a non-profit organization assisting immigrants. I will be doing so on a volunteer basis for the Irish Community Center here in my city and/or New York City and will continue doing such (god willing) after retirement on a part-time basis where I relocate.
Last edited by Rete; Mar 9th 2006 at 8:16 pm.
Mar 9th 2006, 11:23 pm
#68
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Originally Posted by JEff
Matt,
The occasional posts about personal experience are typically written by
the posters who have the least understanding about the system in which
they are participating. They may know what happened to them, but they
often do not understand why it happened as it did. They tend to draw
incorrect conclusions and linkages from what they experienced (as our
forebears did in thinking that the earth was flat and the sun revolved
around it). They generally cannot properly describe the experience due
to their lack of understanding of the situation (or, very often due to
their lack of a suitable level of English language skills). For the
same reasons, readers often do not properly understand what they read
and often are not be able to identify the key issues and relate them
properly to their own situation.
Also, these are a majority of the people who tell others that using an
attorney is a waste of time. Having stumbled through the fog
themselves and somehow arrived at their destination, they don't
appreciate the role that dumb luck may have played in their success or
how much easier it might have been had they made use of an attorney in
some way.
On the other hand, while the long-time hobbyists (to use your term) do
make mistakes, they are the people who, other than the ocassional
attorney, provide the best information in the online arena. They fill
in the gaps that the ocassional, single-experience posters inevitably
leave, correct the misunderstandings and misrepresentations, and are
quick to correct or debate each other's mistakes. It's the information
that these people provide, and the debates that they engage in, that
alert the newbies and the unwary to the idea that immigration is not
such a simple and straightforward undertaking as the occassional
poster's single experience's might indicate.
It seems to me that the people who you object to the most to are the
very people who could be the most useful to you in addressing your
concerns, the people who can bring you closest to achieving your goal
of protecting the unwary from unnecessary grief, if you were to further
educate them rather than silence them.
The occasional posts about personal experience are typically written by
the posters who have the least understanding about the system in which
they are participating. They may know what happened to them, but they
often do not understand why it happened as it did. They tend to draw
incorrect conclusions and linkages from what they experienced (as our
forebears did in thinking that the earth was flat and the sun revolved
around it). They generally cannot properly describe the experience due
to their lack of understanding of the situation (or, very often due to
their lack of a suitable level of English language skills). For the
same reasons, readers often do not properly understand what they read
and often are not be able to identify the key issues and relate them
properly to their own situation.
Also, these are a majority of the people who tell others that using an
attorney is a waste of time. Having stumbled through the fog
themselves and somehow arrived at their destination, they don't
appreciate the role that dumb luck may have played in their success or
how much easier it might have been had they made use of an attorney in
some way.
On the other hand, while the long-time hobbyists (to use your term) do
make mistakes, they are the people who, other than the ocassional
attorney, provide the best information in the online arena. They fill
in the gaps that the ocassional, single-experience posters inevitably
leave, correct the misunderstandings and misrepresentations, and are
quick to correct or debate each other's mistakes. It's the information
that these people provide, and the debates that they engage in, that
alert the newbies and the unwary to the idea that immigration is not
such a simple and straightforward undertaking as the occassional
poster's single experience's might indicate.
It seems to me that the people who you object to the most to are the
very people who could be the most useful to you in addressing your
concerns, the people who can bring you closest to achieving your goal
of protecting the unwary from unnecessary grief, if you were to further
educate them rather than silence them.
I know some quite competent legal assistants. Some would have made pretty decent attorneys. But they are far and few between and I have NOT seen their ilk on the net.
My law school training did NOT include immigration law -- but I don't think I would have been able to figure it out absent my legal training.
I agree -- the goal is to get out good information.
Mar 10th 2006, 3:13 am
#69
Concierge
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,392
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Originally Posted by Folinskyinla
Hi:
I know some quite competent legal assistants. Some would have made pretty decent attorneys. But they are far and few between and I have NOT seen their ilk on the net.
My law school training did NOT include immigration law -- but I don't think I would have been able to figure it out absent my legal training.
I agree -- the goal is to get out good information.
I know some quite competent legal assistants. Some would have made pretty decent attorneys. But they are far and few between and I have NOT seen their ilk on the net.
My law school training did NOT include immigration law -- but I don't think I would have been able to figure it out absent my legal training.
I agree -- the goal is to get out good information.
I agree, as well --- the goal is to get out good information.
However, neither you nor Mr. Udall have at any point during this thread nor in any threads on the same subject have told the general reading public what you want to have happen to accomplish your true goal ... stop UPL.
In one instance you are horrified at the misinformation that appears on the AVUMB newsgroup. That was the "reason" why you were asked to participate. In yet another instance you are preaching about the issue of UPL and how many of the posters are crossing the line in your viewpoint and your interpretation of the UPL guidelines for the State of California and/or Texas (since the issue of UPL differs from state to state). And then again you are telling us that no one on the net meets your standards of a legal assistant and/or attorney and thus are not qualified to dispense any information on immigration whatsoever.
So what would you have the AVUMB newsgroup do. Petition to have the newsgroup closed down. Have us all take our questions to private e-mail where the issue of UPL and incorrect and dangerous information can be dispensed without the hope of it being corrected?
Do you think that should include the other two Usenet immigration forums on US immigration and that of the Canadian immigration as well as any other forum dealing with US posters aiding and abetting hopeful immigrants?
Do you both feel that by doing the above that your business will increase and perhaps your offices will grow and prosper and require you to take on partners and associates?
As you said, your law degree did NOT include immigration studies. So you learned it in some manner from someone and through trial and error.
Why take away the opportunity for others to learn as you have done or to learn period. The world of immigration and its rules and regulations are convoluted and attorneys have a difficult time dealing with it. I don't believe that the laypeople on these forums are looking to take the place of attorneys. I know I'm not. But I do want to learn here and in a teaching environment.
I can tell you two stories of two attorneys who are immigration attorneys and who work for the Irish Center here on a volunteer basis. One told her "client" that her son could not apply for a US Passport based on his having resident status and his parents' naturalization because he only have an I-551 stamp in his passport. She told the "client" that the stamp means nothing and he needs the actual card to prove he qualifies. Wrong!
The second attorney in from the same center had told the same "client" earlier in her son's journey to get his residency that after a five year wait there was absolutely nothing she or the client could do but wait for the CIS to get around to processing her son's petition. Wrong!
Yes, I told her to make an Infopass appointment and go in person and see what the problem was and if that didn't work, then to call Nita Lowey's office and have her immigration laision look into the problem.
She did both things and within 3 months the kid had an appointment for his interview.
I suggested to her on the I-551 issue to take the passport, her son, her marriage certificate, his birth certificate, her identification and go to the US Passport Office in White Plains and apply for the kid's US Passport. She did and had no problems whatsoever.
I don't consider any of that advice as UPL. Why? Because it is simple logic and was offered as a suggestion as in "what can it hurt to try this". The "client" is my hairdresser.
If both of you wish to stop what you preceive to be UPL then I humbly suggest that you report the AVUMB newsgroup to the proper authorities and have it shut down if the proper authorities feel it is warranted.
If you don't wish to do that, then I suggest that the issue be put to bed and if and when you feel that someone has overstepped your perception of what constitutes UPL, then you call that to their attention in a quiet and dignified manner.
You are not going to stop people from asking questions and giving answers. Just as people discuss their diseases and what worked for them, that is the nature of people. We are inquisitive and have the world at our fingertips with the wide usage of the internet. While your viewpoints are appreciated by some, it is only that your viewpoints. It is not going to stop people from exploring and discovering answers wherever they can find them. And it certainly will not stop people from offering to lend hand it at all possible. That, too, is human nature at its finest.
Rete
Mar 10th 2006, 1:36 pm
#70
Junior Showtime
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 3,759
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Originally Posted by Rete
I agree, as well --- the goal is to get out good information.
However, neither you nor Mr. Udall have at any point during this thread nor in any threads on the same subject have told the general reading public what you want to have happen to accomplish your true goal ... stop UPL.
In one instance you are horrified at the misinformation that appears on the AVUMB newsgroup. That was the "reason" why you were asked to participate. In yet another instance you are preaching about the issue of UPL and how many of the posters are crossing the line in your viewpoint and your interpretation of the UPL guidelines for the State of California and/or Texas (since the issue of UPL differs from state to state). And then again you are telling us that no one on the net meets your standards of a legal assistant and/or attorney and thus are not qualified to dispense any information on immigration whatsoever.
So what would you have the AVUMB newsgroup do. Petition to have the newsgroup closed down. Have us all take our questions to private e-mail where the issue of UPL and incorrect and dangerous information can be dispensed without the hope of it being corrected?
Do you think that should include the other two Usenet immigration forums on US immigration and that of the Canadian immigration as well as any other forum dealing with US posters aiding and abetting hopeful immigrants?
Do you both feel that by doing the above that your business will increase and perhaps your offices will grow and prosper and require you to take on partners and associates?
As you said, your law degree did NOT include immigration studies. So you learned it in some manner from someone and through trial and error.
Why take away the opportunity for others to learn as you have done or to learn period. The world of immigration and its rules and regulations are convoluted and attorneys have a difficult time dealing with it. I don't believe that the laypeople on these forums are looking to take the place of attorneys. I know I'm not. But I do want to learn here and in a teaching environment.
I can tell you two stories of two attorneys who are immigration attorneys and who work for the Irish Center here on a volunteer basis. One told her "client" that her son could not apply for a US Passport based on his having resident status and his parents' naturalization because he only have an I-551 stamp in his passport. She told the "client" that the stamp means nothing and he needs the actual card to prove he qualifies. Wrong!
The second attorney in from the same center had told the same "client" earlier in her son's journey to get his residency that after a five year wait there was absolutely nothing she or the client could do but wait for the CIS to get around to processing her son's petition. Wrong!
Yes, I told her to make an Infopass appointment and go in person and see what the problem was and if that didn't work, then to call Nita Lowey's office and have her immigration laision look into the problem.
She did both things and within 3 months the kid had an appointment for his interview.
I suggested to her on the I-551 issue to take the passport, her son, her marriage certificate, his birth certificate, her identification and go to the US Passport Office in White Plains and apply for the kid's US Passport. She did and had no problems whatsoever.
I don't consider any of that advice as UPL. Why? Because it is simple logic and was offered as a suggestion as in "what can it hurt to try this". The "client" is my hairdresser.
If both of you wish to stop what you preceive to be UPL then I humbly suggest that you report the AVUMB newsgroup to the proper authorities and have it shut down if the proper authorities feel it is warranted.
If you don't wish to do that, then I suggest that the issue be put to bed and if and when you feel that someone has overstepped your perception of what constitutes UPL, then you call that to their attention in a quiet and dignified manner.
You are not going to stop people from asking questions and giving answers. Just as people discuss their diseases and what worked for them, that is the nature of people. We are inquisitive and have the world at our fingertips with the wide usage of the internet. While your viewpoints are appreciated by some, it is only that your viewpoints. It is not going to stop people from exploring and discovering answers wherever they can find them. And it certainly will not stop people from offering to lend hand it at all possible. That, too, is human nature at its finest.
Rete
However, neither you nor Mr. Udall have at any point during this thread nor in any threads on the same subject have told the general reading public what you want to have happen to accomplish your true goal ... stop UPL.
In one instance you are horrified at the misinformation that appears on the AVUMB newsgroup. That was the "reason" why you were asked to participate. In yet another instance you are preaching about the issue of UPL and how many of the posters are crossing the line in your viewpoint and your interpretation of the UPL guidelines for the State of California and/or Texas (since the issue of UPL differs from state to state). And then again you are telling us that no one on the net meets your standards of a legal assistant and/or attorney and thus are not qualified to dispense any information on immigration whatsoever.
So what would you have the AVUMB newsgroup do. Petition to have the newsgroup closed down. Have us all take our questions to private e-mail where the issue of UPL and incorrect and dangerous information can be dispensed without the hope of it being corrected?
Do you think that should include the other two Usenet immigration forums on US immigration and that of the Canadian immigration as well as any other forum dealing with US posters aiding and abetting hopeful immigrants?
Do you both feel that by doing the above that your business will increase and perhaps your offices will grow and prosper and require you to take on partners and associates?
As you said, your law degree did NOT include immigration studies. So you learned it in some manner from someone and through trial and error.
Why take away the opportunity for others to learn as you have done or to learn period. The world of immigration and its rules and regulations are convoluted and attorneys have a difficult time dealing with it. I don't believe that the laypeople on these forums are looking to take the place of attorneys. I know I'm not. But I do want to learn here and in a teaching environment.
I can tell you two stories of two attorneys who are immigration attorneys and who work for the Irish Center here on a volunteer basis. One told her "client" that her son could not apply for a US Passport based on his having resident status and his parents' naturalization because he only have an I-551 stamp in his passport. She told the "client" that the stamp means nothing and he needs the actual card to prove he qualifies. Wrong!
The second attorney in from the same center had told the same "client" earlier in her son's journey to get his residency that after a five year wait there was absolutely nothing she or the client could do but wait for the CIS to get around to processing her son's petition. Wrong!
Yes, I told her to make an Infopass appointment and go in person and see what the problem was and if that didn't work, then to call Nita Lowey's office and have her immigration laision look into the problem.
She did both things and within 3 months the kid had an appointment for his interview.
I suggested to her on the I-551 issue to take the passport, her son, her marriage certificate, his birth certificate, her identification and go to the US Passport Office in White Plains and apply for the kid's US Passport. She did and had no problems whatsoever.
I don't consider any of that advice as UPL. Why? Because it is simple logic and was offered as a suggestion as in "what can it hurt to try this". The "client" is my hairdresser.
If both of you wish to stop what you preceive to be UPL then I humbly suggest that you report the AVUMB newsgroup to the proper authorities and have it shut down if the proper authorities feel it is warranted.
If you don't wish to do that, then I suggest that the issue be put to bed and if and when you feel that someone has overstepped your perception of what constitutes UPL, then you call that to their attention in a quiet and dignified manner.
You are not going to stop people from asking questions and giving answers. Just as people discuss their diseases and what worked for them, that is the nature of people. We are inquisitive and have the world at our fingertips with the wide usage of the internet. While your viewpoints are appreciated by some, it is only that your viewpoints. It is not going to stop people from exploring and discovering answers wherever they can find them. And it certainly will not stop people from offering to lend hand it at all possible. That, too, is human nature at its finest.
Rete
Mar 10th 2006, 1:57 pm
#71
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Originally Posted by Rete
I agree, as well --- the goal is to get out good information.
Never said that attorneys are perfect. Also, Matt and I are NOT one person -- we are two different people and we diasgree on many things. We consult with each other when we are scratching our heads on something or other.
I have chosen to "bump" the old "30/60" essay by Paul Gani. Paul is a wonderful and bright man. He is extremely well meaning. However, he is an example of what Matt refers to as a "hobbyist."
I've mentioned several times that there is not a "bright line" on what is "PL" and what is not. But I think Paul, with all good intentions, crossed that line.
http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=100004
Mar 10th 2006, 2:53 pm
#72
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Quite frightning the basic questions that Lawyers are asking each other on this site:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ImmTalk/
A post from Visajourney yesterday, my wife was told the same thing essentially:
heh... so... the day i found out, and started really researching the visa process... (before i found this resource)... I grabbed the phone book and made an appointment with the only lawyer that dealt with immigration in this area. Met with her today...
Her advice was... for my fiancee to come over on a normal visit, go up to the courthouse and get married, and she would take it from there by filing an adjustment of status
So, i asked her... "umm.. isn't crossing the border with intent to immigrate illegal?"... which my only response was, " i can only advise you not to say that"...
Anyway... needless to say, I wont be spending the 3 grand to retain her =P I supopose it would be hard to catch that it was pre-meditated.. but not worth the risk of permanent separation....
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ImmTalk/
A post from Visajourney yesterday, my wife was told the same thing essentially:
heh... so... the day i found out, and started really researching the visa process... (before i found this resource)... I grabbed the phone book and made an appointment with the only lawyer that dealt with immigration in this area. Met with her today...
Her advice was... for my fiancee to come over on a normal visit, go up to the courthouse and get married, and she would take it from there by filing an adjustment of status
So, i asked her... "umm.. isn't crossing the border with intent to immigrate illegal?"... which my only response was, " i can only advise you not to say that"...
Anyway... needless to say, I wont be spending the 3 grand to retain her =P I supopose it would be hard to catch that it was pre-meditated.. but not worth the risk of permanent separation....
Mar 10th 2006, 3:36 pm
#73
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Originally Posted by Boiler
Quite frightning the basic questions that Lawyers are asking each other on this site:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ImmTalk/
A post from Visajourney yesterday, my wife was told the same thing essentially:
heh... so... the day i found out, and started really researching the visa process... (before i found this resource)... I grabbed the phone book and made an appointment with the only lawyer that dealt with immigration in this area. Met with her today...
Her advice was... for my fiancee to come over on a normal visit, go up to the courthouse and get married, and she would take it from there by filing an adjustment of status
So, i asked her... "umm.. isn't crossing the border with intent to immigrate illegal?"... which my only response was, " i can only advise you not to say that"...
Anyway... needless to say, I wont be spending the 3 grand to retain her =P I supopose it would be hard to catch that it was pre-meditated.. but not worth the risk of permanent separation....
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ImmTalk/
A post from Visajourney yesterday, my wife was told the same thing essentially:
heh... so... the day i found out, and started really researching the visa process... (before i found this resource)... I grabbed the phone book and made an appointment with the only lawyer that dealt with immigration in this area. Met with her today...
Her advice was... for my fiancee to come over on a normal visit, go up to the courthouse and get married, and she would take it from there by filing an adjustment of status
So, i asked her... "umm.. isn't crossing the border with intent to immigrate illegal?"... which my only response was, " i can only advise you not to say that"...
Anyway... needless to say, I wont be spending the 3 grand to retain her =P I supopose it would be hard to catch that it was pre-meditated.. but not worth the risk of permanent separation....
I'm quite familiar with the ImmTalk yahoo group -- I used to be a member. However, it is a quite politicized group over the Middle East -- the "Z-word" can set off flame wars you wouldn't believe and the moderator will purge at the drop of a pin. Most of the knowledgable participants have migrated to the alternative "ImmLog" group. A lot of Immigration Law "Heavy Hitters" participate there to help educate other members of the immigration bar. ImmTalk's loss, I'm afraid.
Mar 10th 2006, 3:39 pm
#74
Concierge
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,392
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Originally Posted by Folinskyinla
Hi:
Never said that attorneys are perfect. Also, Matt and I are NOT one person -- we are two different people and we diasgree on many things. We consult with each other when we are scratching our heads on something or other.
I have chosen to "bump" the old "30/60" essay by Paul Gani. Paul is a wonderful and bright man. He is extremely well meaning. However, he is an example of what Matt refers to as a "hobbyist."
I've mentioned several times that there is not a "bright line" on what is "PL" and what is not. But I think Paul, with all good intentions, crossed that line.
http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=100004
Never said that attorneys are perfect. Also, Matt and I are NOT one person -- we are two different people and we diasgree on many things. We consult with each other when we are scratching our heads on something or other.
I have chosen to "bump" the old "30/60" essay by Paul Gani. Paul is a wonderful and bright man. He is extremely well meaning. However, he is an example of what Matt refers to as a "hobbyist."
I've mentioned several times that there is not a "bright line" on what is "PL" and what is not. But I think Paul, with all good intentions, crossed that line.
http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=100004
I never said attorneys were perfect but the general feeling in reading through threads concerning the issue of attorneys which directly or indirectly imply that an attorney is a requirement to a smooth running and well documented filing is that this is the case. Perhaps I interpretate it differently than you do but that is the way I read it.
As for Paul Gani, you graciously and open-heartedly did the newsgroup a huge favor by dispelling this myth. Was it UPL? In the context of its use in some of his posts, perhaps so. But that is what I am and I believe JEff is trying to make crystal clear to all who are interested in seeing this topic placed in its proper perspective.
A newsgroup, such as AVUMB, is the perfect vehicle for just what you described. Here was an issue that someone latched onto and thought was a legal guideline to be used for overcoming the issue of intent at the POE. By the participation of others who had knowledge over and above his, the myth was debunked and life went on. It need not have been an attorney that debunked the myth. Any person with good investigative skills could have do so but you were the instrument of good will.
I still contend that you cannot and should not do away with the sharing of public information on immigration issues and to do so will drive it underground where the most damage will be caused.
Rete
Mar 10th 2006, 3:58 pm
#75
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Originally Posted by Rete
Without moderator hat on:
I never said attorneys were perfect but the general feeling in reading through threads concerning the issue of attorneys which directly or indirectly imply that an attorney is a requirement to a smooth running and well documented filing is that this is the case. Perhaps I interpretate it differently than you do but that is the way I read it.
As for Paul Gani, you graciously and open-heartedly did the newsgroup a huge favor by dispelling this myth. Was it UPL? In the context of its use in some of his posts, perhaps so. But that is what I am and I believe JEff is trying to make crystal clear to all who are interested in seeing this topic placed in its proper perspective.
A newsgroup, such as AVUMB, is the perfect vehicle for just what you described. Here was an issue that someone latched onto and thought was a legal guideline to be used for overcoming the issue of intent at the POE. By the participation of others who had knowledge over and above his, the myth was debunked and life went on. It need not have been an attorney that debunked the myth. Any person with good investigative skills could have do so but you were the instrument of good will.
I still contend that you cannot and should not do away with the sharing of public information on immigration issues and to do so will drive it underground where the most damage will be caused.
Rete
I never said attorneys were perfect but the general feeling in reading through threads concerning the issue of attorneys which directly or indirectly imply that an attorney is a requirement to a smooth running and well documented filing is that this is the case. Perhaps I interpretate it differently than you do but that is the way I read it.
As for Paul Gani, you graciously and open-heartedly did the newsgroup a huge favor by dispelling this myth. Was it UPL? In the context of its use in some of his posts, perhaps so. But that is what I am and I believe JEff is trying to make crystal clear to all who are interested in seeing this topic placed in its proper perspective.
A newsgroup, such as AVUMB, is the perfect vehicle for just what you described. Here was an issue that someone latched onto and thought was a legal guideline to be used for overcoming the issue of intent at the POE. By the participation of others who had knowledge over and above his, the myth was debunked and life went on. It need not have been an attorney that debunked the myth. Any person with good investigative skills could have do so but you were the instrument of good will.
I still contend that you cannot and should not do away with the sharing of public information on immigration issues and to do so will drive it underground where the most damage will be caused.
Rete
Please note that I'm more concerned about the "PL" part of "UPL" -- the "U" is not in my purview IMHO -- However, the "U" would be in the purview of a state or federal enforcement or prosecutorial agency.
One of the more aggressive states in going against "UPL" has been Florida. In fact, this resulted in the 1963 "Sperry" decision from the US Supreme Court. I went to google "Sperry" with the thought of providing the link to the actual case, but found something more interesting:
http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/PI/...9?OpenDocument
By way of background, Sperry was a NON-attorney licensed to appear before the US Patent Office. He set up his practice in Florida and the Florida Bar went to shut him down.
What Paul was doing WAS "PL" IMHO because he was engaging in a purely legal analysis. It wasn't "investigation" that showed the error of his ways, it was use of my legal training to show that his analysis was wrong. [BTW, it really irritates me when licensed attorneys can't be bothered to engage in some legal analysis].
As I keep saying, the lines are not as "bright" as they could be. If they were, there wouldn't be so much appellate litigation on the matter.
Last edited by Folinskyinla; Mar 10th 2006 at 4:02 pm. Reason: typographical error