Squire

In article , Matthew Udall
writes
    >Originally posted by Peaquod
    >Originally posted by Peaquod
    >Originally posted by Peaquod
    >Originally posted by Peaquod
    >Originally posted by Peaquod
    >Originally posted by Peaquod
    >Originally posted by Peaquod
    >Originally posted by Peaquod
    >Originally posted by Peaquod
    >Originally posted by Peaquod

I'm just curious Matt as to why every paragraph that you quoted here is
preceded by an individual attribution instead of just a single
attribution at the top of the page. This seems to be a pattern that has
evolved in your postings over the past 48 hours or so.

The usual netiquette is to make the attribution once only at the top of
the page and let the client newsreader indent each quoted line with an
angle right bracket ">". If a posting replies to more than one preceding
post, again the earlier attribute should be shown once only at the top
of the page and that further person's quoted lines would be indicated by
double chevrons/angle right brackets ">>". The client newsreader will
then often colour the quoted text differently to the currently posted
text and make postings that much easier to read.


--
squire
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. (Groucho)

Nic

*snork* Now, THAT is funny, Squire!

Delighted!

Folinskyinla

Ange:

I beg to disagree on this point -- as an attorney whose practice emphasizes this type of practice, he brings experience in MANY types of these cases. Matt calls me on law all the time, and I, in turn, call him on procedural questions based upon experience.

I've been at this business a lot longer than Matt has and I've learned that the experience in one case does not necessarily show what will happen in another case. [In fact, there is a published precedent decision in the business immigration arena entitled "Matter of Izumi" where one of the arguments posed was "you changed your interpretation because you apporved 96 prior identical applications" and the holding was that just because INS made 96 prior mistakes doesn't mean they have to do it the 97th time].

I've told this story many times, but I'll repeat it again -- as a very young lawyer I filed two I-130's by a father for his identical twin daughters. One I-130 took 21 days, the other 9 months. So my viewpoint is that timelines are essentially worthless.

Just Jenney

I agree with Mr. Folinskyinla here. A lay person who has been through ANY process only once only has knowledge gained from his or her own particular experience. A professional who works with the system itself on a regular basis has the benefit of hands-on experience with multiple applications going through the same process.

We all know that every case, no matter how "simple," is unique. So knowing intricate details about each case is key to understanding the process better. On this NG we can read about each other's cases, but it's impossible to know the full details of each of those cases. However, an immigration lawyer knows his/her clients' cases in depth, and handles them directly, and thus learns from their experiences directly with full scope of knowledge of what actually happened. The clients' cases run the gamut as far as "uniqueness" goes, whereas we're only truly familiar with our own cases. In other words, it's the difference between scraping the surface and getting down to the nitty gritty.

Not only that, but lawyers like Matt Udall and Mr. Folinskyinla are privy to "industry information" that we, the general public, are not. While I've noticed Matt's frequent postings about his visits to service centers, I have yet to come across a lay person's account of having done the same. I honestly don't see how someone can say that that sort of access is irrelevent.

Think about this analogy: Is a person who was treated for cancer and beat it going to know more about treating cancer than doctors and researchers who deal with it on a daily basis with their patients? Of course not. This isn't that much different...

~ Jenney

pepsi

bless. Folinskyinla, wants his own appreciation thread hehe =P

angeles73

F:

Well in your case I have noticed YOU in fact do give concrete facts. You're a little cut and dry about it but you get right down to the point. And if you have to shred a service center to make your point you do, and you list clear examples that everyone can relate to.

What tends to p___ people off about his answers is how he immediately JUMPS if someone attacks INS based on personal circumstances (you can only have personal ones with INS). And sometimes we may mention something on a thread that gets turned into a ping pong match based on something that was assumed incorrectly. I think the PMs are great because if there is a bit of discord on a thread you can send a private message saying " Hey, I undertstand your upset but...." And resolve it in private. Then go BACK to the post edit yourself and that's it. Offer an apology if necessary.

Your styles are definitely different. And I won't say one is better than the other, just that luckily there is a nice variety to choose from and I will just leave it at that.

Regarding the timelines, that's definitely not news. I can assure you I stopped believing those folks that publish them long ago.


Ange

Rete

True but carry the analogy a bit further. The cancer patient is able to give first hand support and hand holding to the patient going through surgery, chemo and radiation. They know what emotions the new cancer patient is feeling and the effects of the treatment on their bodies and mind. A doctor or onologist dealing in the diagnosis and treatment, unless they have been there and suffered that, doesn't. While they can be empathetic they cannot be sympathetic. In addition, former cancer patients have researched not only their particular type of cancer but in the days before, during and after, their research will bring them knowledge of treatment of other forms of cancer. Therefore, the new cancer patient needs both people in their lives. One is no more important to the survival and well being of the new cancer patient than the other. The health of the mind is vitally important to the ability of the body to fight disease and help cure itself. I know what I speak of in this regard because I'm a breast cancer survivor who helped start a chatroom on Efnet for just that support of cancer patients and their families. Since 1995 it has been in existence and it is still going strong today on Undernet.

Now as to the marriage-based visa issue of layperson vs. attorney specializing in the field, the above outlined analogy is exactly the same. Just exchange the words cancer patient for visa seeker and doctor for attorney. In the cases of the two resident attorneys who frequent this board, they offer insight into the dealings of the INS and summaries of their past and present cases. They do not, if their posts are looked at closely, offer specific advice on a question posed to them. Just as Matt Udall emphasized on the NG in the beginning, his position is the same here as if he were in a face to face social situation. He cannot give advice on a specific question without incurring repercussions as he is not your or their attorney of record. Unless you have given him some form of monetary exchange, barter or cash, he is not your attorney. (The use of the pronoun ~he~ from this point forward is not person specific.) He may offer advice in the form of recounting of another case in the hopes that you find the similarity to your own. Or in some other fashion impart his knowledge of the workings of the INS and/or US Consulates by other means.

It is the laypeople of the newsgroup who offer a bit more in the way of advice by relating what they have learned through actual experience and the experiences of others. They, such as myself, tend to be more specific in replying to a question and in doing so open ourselves to possible lawsuits instituted by someone who took that advice or by a legal bar association who finds us to be practicing law without a license. That is why it is prudent not to infer any legal standing to your replies and to always let the reader know what your legal status is ... none.

The do-it-yourselfers as Mr. Udall and Mr. F. have taken to calling us, need the layperson to hold their hand, offer support, offer advice based on their experience, etc. if only to help ease their minds during the waiting periods and to assure them that they have completed an application as correctly as possible and to assure them that even if a delay is incurred, there is a possible solution and a light at the end of the tunnel.

The usenet, messageboards and forums are public arenas. They are open to any and all who wish to post. In fighting does nothing but stop productivity. One only has to go to Doc Steen's messageboard to see the lack of response posters are experiencing in their quest for answers. Yes Mr. Udall and Mr. F. post there but like here, their posts are generalizations, as they should be considering their legal positions.

While I had almost been driven from here by fear of reprisals from the legal system, I've decided to continue for as long as I can to offer support in any way I can as a layperson. If I have one suggestion for anyone reading this, it is as a layperson be careful in your posting and unless you are general in your response, do not give advice privately. Is was just this type of communication that was the downfall of another poster here and I would not like to see it happen to anyone else.

Rete

angeles73

I think it would be a good idea for all of us to put something at the end of our messages as you have. A disclosure, if you will. Not only is this a good way to make sure people learn to digest the information given as just " personal accounts" and that they should not be relied upon to make decisions. But I believe this will save many of us a negative experience with a person or persons who seem to have nothing better to do than attack people who want to do good.

I have actually been forewarned but I think if someone is vindictive enough to want to do harm... there is no stopping them. Best be safe than sorry.

Ange

Caro

I just can not understand how somebody would take an information found on the internet as gospel and why some other people raise a fuss about people giving advice in the legal field without a license to practice law (I tought that the people in the US were enjoying a certain freedom of speech...)!

Thanks for staying here with us Rete, you are doing a great job for all of us and at least I (I can not speak for the others) really appreciate your posting here.

Caroline (who added her disclaimer on the bottom...)

Matthew Udall

Hi Rita,
Hey, nice family photo for your posting photo :-).
This is an interesting analogy that you are discussing here. Hope you don't mind if I join in the debate and share some thoughts from my perspective.

As far as "one is no more important to the survival... than the other".... I agree that having a support group is likely a very comforting thing to someone going through cancer treatments. I've never been diagnosed with cancer (just knocked on some wood after typing that), but my sister Sara was diagnosed with cancer quite a number of years ago. She had a very bad Lymphoma (sp?) that had spread throughout her chest cavity, was wrapped around her spine and I think around her heart (going from memory here). Her prospects were not good at all. She underwent both cemo “and� radiation, and even though those treatments just about killed her, she survived and has been cancer free for I believe around 10 years (actually, I think its been even longer than that now). She is also a nurse, and I know she had a very good support group around her (not to mention family) during her ordeal and treatment, however without the treatment, I don't believe she would still be alive even though she had a wonderful support group.

My Father was a medical doctor, and practiced general medicine in central California. Every once in a while, he would have to go to court to get a judge to force a parent to administer medicine to a child (some people have religious beliefs that prevent them from taking any sort of medicine). Now those same people might have a wonderful support group for the sick child, and the child might even feel that forgoing medical treatment is seen favorably in the eyes of God (how's that for a support group), however without the medial treatment (and without divine intervention) the child would not survive.

So while I happen to agree with the notion that the doctor and support group are “both� important, I don't see them as being “equally� important. If the patient would not survive without medical treatment, then I think receiving that treatment is more important than having a support group (but again, having a support group “is� important even though in my opinion, not “as� important [having the support group by itself is not going to cure the problem]).

OK, the doctor examines the patient and goes over medical history and comes up with a recommend course of treatment. The immigration attorney examines the client’s facts, situation and history and comes up with a recommend course of action (and I’m talking about where there actually is an attorney client relationship here, not the situation you describe below where an attorney might offer general information but is “not� acting as someone’s attorney).

The doctor actually renders the treatment and submits that treatment to the “place that will process that treatment�… namely the physical body of the patient. The attorney actually puts together the client’s submission and submits that to the “place that will process that submission�… namely an INS office or Consulate.

Now here is where I see the analogy starting to get a little fuzzy.

Hopefully both courses of action (medical and legal) will yield positive results… the cancer is eliminated / a petition is approved and a visa is issued.

If the INS and/or Consulate screws up, the attorney, the client’s political representative or the do-it-yourselfer himself or herself can contact the INS or Consulate and make them aware of the situation and discuss the problem. This will usually lead to an easy fix. The INS and Consulate can be reasoned with in a rational manner, and there is case precedent, and the INS and Consulate rules and regulations that will come into play. I believe with an immigration case, the odds of a successful outcome are quite high even though some problems might have to be overcome before reaching that conclusion.

But unlike the immigration situation where the “treatment� or case is processed by a “third party� (the INS and Consulate), with cancer it’s the patient’s body itself that processes the treatment. If the body does not respond to the treatment, the doctor can’t write it a letter or call it to reason with it, argue medical precedent, or even in a worst case situation call in the political representative to try to persuade the body to respond to the treatment and eliminate the cancer. Cancer can spread to other parts of the body, whereas an immigration petition and visa application are pretty much contained. I’m no doctor, but I think the odds of a successful outcome in the average cancer case is less than in the average immigration case.

This is an interesting analogy. Too bad I was not thinking about this Saturday night as I had an opportunity to talk to a rather famous Doctor and could have brought up this theoretical discussion with him.

You may recall one of my replies on Saturday where I mentioned I was leaving the office at 5 PM and was thinking about picking up a Christmas tree. I actually ended up staying until around 8 PM due to the fact that I typed up and posted a reply to Ange before departing. Since I ended up leaving the office later than I planned, I decided not to get my tree that night after all, and instead I went over to my local Blockbuster Video place to rent a DVD (ended up renting the new Star Wars). The line was very long (around a 10 minute wait) and as I got in at the end of the line, I noticed the guy standing in line right in front of me looked like “Doctor Drew� (he participates in some talk shows on the radio, and a show on MTV [don’t know if the MTV show is on any more]). Since I had time to kill, I worked up the nerve to say, “pardon me, but are you Dr. Drew?�. He told me that yes, it was he. He was actually a very nice, normal person. We discussed some movies (he had one of the Austin Powers movies on video, and a foreign film that I had not heard of before on DVD), he mentioned the fact that for around 10 years his career kept him so busy that he missed pretty much everything (movies) from that decade, the quality of movies that are suitable for young kids, that sort of thing. I also asked him questions about his private practice (I was curious whether or not he had one in addition to his “on-air� duties). I’m sure he and I could have had an interesting discussion using your analogy, had I been thinking of it at the time.

That’s right, I try to limit my information to general information that would not normally be available to the average do-it-yourselfer (Although I would “not� call myself a “resident� attorney. In the medical context, a “resident� is a doctor who has agreed to perform specific duties at a hospital [basically an employee], not a volunteer like I am on this news group). If I were to engage in more “traditional� duties that I would normally do for a client, then theoretically I could be held accountable just like I could be for a client (meaning owing a certain duty of care and responsibility to a client). When I’m working for my client, I know them and their facts more that I ever get to know someone on a message board, and I think it would be reckless to try to give advice based on what little information someone chooses to share on a message board. And with client’s, I actually know their names and I have ways to contact them. Not so in the anonymous environment of an internet board.

If only that were true (the money part), then it would not be so risky to post on a board. A person does not need to be paid in order for immigration advice to have been rendered, responsibilities owed when rendering that advice, and potential liabilities incurred for rendering that advice. All of that can be triggered (and an attorney client relationship created) when rendering free advice. While I know this applies to licensed attorneys, I think it would also apply to a non-attorney practicing law without a license if that person’s activities, over time, amounted to the unauthorized practice of the law (especially if that person has “obtained the reputation�, due to their concerted activities over a period of time, as a trusted immigration advisor in the eyes of the person receiving the legal advice).

As a side note to this issue, I don’t think an attempted disclaimer of unauthorized legal practice will work (shield one from liability and perhaps sanctions…perhaps it would… I don’t know and it’s none of my business). Saying all one is doing is rendering information one originally received from a news group or from personal experience does not fit into the issue. We all get information (attorneys and non attorneys alike) from a variety or sources, books, the net, our own experiences, etc., and its not “where we got� the information that is the unauthorized practice of the law, but rather “what someone does� with that information in rendering it to others. To provide another medical analogy, I don’t think someone practicing medicine without a license will avoid penalties for their unlawful medical practice by simply saying, “this is not medical advice or treatment�. I’m reminded of the old saying about looking like, sounding like and acting like a duck. If so, it’s probably a duck (insert attorney or doctor for the word duck).

Like you, I too would hate to see someone “stung� for unauthorized practice (I’m talking about a good natured poster on a board who is not charging a fee for his or her services), and perhaps your advice how to limit liability in this regard will be helpful to others.

Again, attempting to shield oneself from liability might work, and it might not. I’m no authority about that.

You are right though, that the non-attorneys tend to offer advice that more closely fits the type of information that would more clearly fit the definition of “legal advice� to a particular poster’s particular problem. I even see some (not going to point any fingers or name names here) instructing others how to break the law (which an attorney would likely not do in a public forum, and should not even do this in private for that matter), and I often see incomplete or inaccurate advice being given or perpetuated (for example, an I-864 is only binding on a sponsor for 10 years, in and of itself, is not correct). But the beauty of the group is that others will usually step in to remedy inaccurate information given. The news group is a great thing, and I personally enjoy participating. But it can also be a dangerous thing.

I’ve never considered the phrase “do-it-yourselfer� to be something negative since the person is doing their own case without the assistance of an attorney (although I suppose once they start using the assistance of their political representative, they are no longer doing it themselves). Does this phrase (do-it-yourselfer) cause anybody offense? If so, I could certainly phrase it differently (For example, I don’t particularly like the phrase “Alien� and I instead use the term “international fiancée�). How about “self-petitioner�? Or how about “news grouper�?

M.U.

Rete

I will not go into a lengthy discourse with you in regards to anything on this thread. We have not see eye-to-eye in the past on the involvement of laypersons in helping to seeking others in their quest for marriage-based visas and there is no reason why it has to be rehashed in public once again.

As for the analogy of doctor/cancer patient, while I am happy for your sister, the nurse, that her treatment and fight of such a life threatening disease was successful, I realize, again as a layperson who has been there and done that, that your thoughts and emotions are colored by having a father who was a doctor and yourself as an attorney. As you cannot view either perspective of the analogy from strictly a layperson's point of view and show objectivity in doing so, it is indeed pointless to continue a debate.

Whereas I can see the need for doctors, onologists, radiologists, therapists, attorneys, etc., I know that they alone are not the catalyst that will make or break a life. While they are instruments to be used when required, a person can defend themselves regardless of whether the fool is themselves or the bar sanctioned attorney in a court of law.

Just as doctors world over are realizing, all the best chemical or radial treatments for cancer will not help if the patient's frame of mind is not set to get well. Would you care to talk with my surgeon about the miracle of a particular herbal potion which I take that has twice eradicated shadows of cancer from my right breast over the last ten years. I was given this formula, not by a doctor, but by a friend whose husband had cancer of the lung and whose use of this shrank the tumor and had kept him healthy. So for myself, I have proved my analogy with the success of my life. While I would never tell someone to rely soley on this formula, I do recommend it but also strongly recommend they follow all courses of treatment as outlined by their doctors and onologist.

If the legal system cannot withstand the threat of a layperson advising someone on the completion of forms or the routine handling of petitions at a particular INS office or US consulate, then the legal system must be in serious trouble and know that for it to look for usurpers on public forums.

I will not reply to any further postings regarding this subject.

Rita

abba48uk

Dear oh dear Matt, do lighten up.

Matthew Udall

Actually, I think we are more in agreement than you might think. I think the news group is a great thing (and have said so pretty consistently while participating in the group). You brought up your concerns about liability, and I expressed some thoughts about those concerns. Like "I said", I too would hate to see a good-hearted non-attorney get stung for participation in a news group (the unauthorized practice of the law when they are not charging a fee to perform their services).

I think I'm viewing the Doctor's discussion from a layperson's point of view due to the fact that I'm not a doctor :-), but I can appreciate the fact that this might color my thinking about it.

To borrow an expression I've seen posted on the group lately, I don't think all doctors, "walk on water", and second opinions (or third, fourth, fifth) can be a good thing too. Not all successful treatment comes from AMA Doctors, and in fact, I take the view that the AMA has historically been too slow in investigating and embracing other forms of treatment that have proved to be successful.

My Dad was of the old school. He graduated from Harvard Medical back after WWII, and at that time, they did not give much instruction to the medical students in the way of "nutrition". Of course, throughout his career, he continued to study and keep up on new developments, however his formal medical school education I'm sure colored his practice.

My Brother Marc followed in his footsteps (typical for the eldest child) and now practices general medicine in the Provo Utah area (and was actually BYU's football and basket ball doc for a number of years in addition to his own practice).

I agree with you that there is a heck of a lot of good treatments that are not yet recognized by the AMA. Since I grew up in an AMA family, I was never exposed to any sort of "herbal" or alternative treatments. But when I married Lisa, she introduced me to the benefits of ecenacia (sp?). Now, when I feel a cold is coming on, I take a couple of ecenacia in the morning (along with vitamin C) and the same at night. That knocks the cold right out and I've not had a cold for years now. I also just started taking Coenzyme Q-10 as there are studies out that it might be beneficial in slowing down the onslaught of Parkinson's disease. Parkinson's has hit the Udall family "very" hard over the years (my Dad died due to complications with his Parkinson's and so did his Mother), so I'm taking it just in case as I stand a pretty good chance of getting it myself one of these years.

The "threat" of the unauthorized practice of the law is not to the legal system, but to the public. Society has decided (I did not make these rules) that there are certain situations or professions, where the stakes are high enough to warrant specific training be given and licenses issued to those who have went through that training. Another aspect that is always overlooked is that attorneys are regulated (held accountable) by their state bars, plus most carry insurance to provide relief to a client just in case the actions of the attorney cause the client damages. Not so for someone practicing law without a license.

But like you, I don't want to rehash this issue again in this thread. I happen to agree with you that the news group is a good thing, and I for one do what I can to offer good information to that group too. Perhaps your advice on how to limit one’s liability in this regard will prove to be beneficial you yourself and others.

M.U.

JuMu

Hehe...

Matthew,

your posts tend to become longer than anything here I want to read..
At least I have started reading it.

Regarding your and Rete's example with the doctor/cancer patient.
Well.. first dealing with the INS to me is more like a sore throat than having cancer.
If it was cancer to me, be sure I would have my OWN doctor. A doctor who knows all the facts and not just the few sentences I type here in my lazyness.
I agree with angel about the freedom of speach, although each of us should really watch what consequences a given advice can have.

Greetings
JuMu

katesuiter1

I've never been offended by the phrase "do-it-yourselfer". I myself am darn proud that we did this ourselves, and we got approved. We worried that we'd left something out, or that our evidence wasn't sufficient, but it was fine.
We may have felt the need to call in congress towards the end, but in effect, we still did it ourselves. We got up off our butts, did something about it, and got what we wanted. Nuff said!!!
Kate. xxxxx