Marilou920

I absolutely don't agree with you at all!, If yout hink Alvena have to blame about
giving information about adjustment status for tourist, that is a bunch of baloney.
Everyone could get access from FOREIGN AFFAIRS MANUAL ON THE INTERNET! this was
publish by our federal government. Jesus ! I read it under "fiancee" read everything
to visitors visa. Don't blame Alvena. I think it's jealousy.


    >Subject: Re: Matt Udall's "temper tantrum" toward Alvena From: Shannon
    >[email protected] Date: 9/12/02 11:27 AM Central Daylight Time Message-id:
    ><[email protected]>
    >Here is the text of the post in question. I think it is more a case of strong
    >feelings than anything else. --------------------------------- Quote
    >---------------- MU Alvena's Site and Blood Money Wed Sep 11 19:42:47 2002
    >205.188.209.141
    >I believe Alvena still is the webmaster for this site (according to recent postings
    >in the other news group), although she does not seem to update it anymore and a lot
    >of the information seems to be getting out of date (meaning perhaps dangerous to the
    >immigration community). So why does she keep the site up? My guess is the money she
    >makes due to the advertising that goes on here (but that's just my guess).
    >Perhaps I'm just a little sensitive about this today in light of the fact its the 1
    >year anniversary of the terror attacks and the media coverage I've watched today,
    >however this very site contains information and "tips" on how non-Americans located
    >outside the U.S. can fool immigration officers at the point of entry as to their
    >true intentions upon entry (thus committing an illegal act at the point of entry).
    >On September 12th of last year, I wrote Alvena a rather stern e-mail voicing my
    >strong opinion and displeasure that her actions (pages and personal advise she used
    >to give over and over again in public forums) were being read by "all sorts" of
    >people across the world (the innocent as well as the guilty) and that I personally
    >thought her actions made it harder for INS officers at the point of entry to do
    >their jobs in keeping out those who should not have been let in due to their intent.
    >The heading on her old "Tourist Adjustment" page used to read something to the
    >effect of, "Here is a list of recommendations on how to immigrate to the U.S. with a
    >tourist visa" (I'm paraphrasing here as I don't have her file in front of me where I
    >keep a copy of her pre-9/11 page). Again, her "recommendations" were accessable by
    >anybody on the planet with a computer, who may have been an innocent fiancee who
    >wanted to bypass the proper visa or a terrorist who may have used her "tips" to help
    >him or her enter the United States.
    >I do believe she was not purposefully trying to help the "bad guys" with information
    >on how to fool INS officers at the point of entry, but her intended target audiance
    >is irrelevant and she was definately putting out information to help those she
    >"thought" she was helping on how to fool INS officers at entry as to their true
    >intentions. She had no way to limit her publicly dispensed legal advice (or should I
    >say "illegal" advice) to love sick fiancee's.
    >In my letter to her on 09/12/01, I mentioned that I hoped she was happy now and
    >that her continued advice along these lines, in my opinion, was appalling. She
    >replied back saying her site did no such thing, but then a few hours later she
    >changed the heading on her page to say, "there are NOT recommendations....",
    >although the heading is the only thing that has changed... the tips are still there
    >for the world to read.
    >I'm only guessing here, but since the Kentucky Bar looked at the scope of her
    >activity and decided it amounted to the unlicensed practice of immigration law, and
    >in light of what happened on 09/11/01 and what her pages (and in person advice) did
    >in instructing people how to thwart the INS officer at the POE, I'm not surprised
    >she's keeping a low profile.
    >Personally I think she should be ashamed of herself, and I hope she chokes on her
    >blood money (Like I said, perhaps I'm just a little more sensitive to this issue in
    >light of the media coverage I've been watching today, and I don't expect my opinion
    >will be popular with Alvena's followers/clients).
    >M.U. ]
    >--
    >Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Marilou920

    >Subject: Re: Matt Udall's "temper tantrum" toward Alvena From: peter d'souza
    >[email protected] Date: 9/12/02 2:32 PM Central Daylight Time Message-id:
    ><[email protected]>
    >Alvena's site is the most comprehensive source of info on immigration to USA via
    >marriage. The info is superbly well presented. Thousands of people have saved tons
    >of money by getting all the info they need through her website thereby avoiding the
    >need to hire immigration lawyers. No wonder udall cannot bear it . After all ,
    >udall is only interested in fleecing clients through outrageous attorney fees.
    >udall uses this forum only for cheap publicity, subtle spamming as obvious from his
    >other posts. As for the crap udall uttered about terrorists using Alvena's advice on
    >getting into the States ask urself this : should air travel be permanently stopped
    >just so that other skyscrapers remain safe? Common sense says no.Likewise should
    >thousands of innocent people be denied access to Alvena's website just so that no
    >potential terrorist misuses the info? The truth is apparent: greedy attorneys will
    >do anything to harm genuinely helpful people like Alvena simply to increase thier
    >own billings. The best way to deal with such shitholes is to not even acknowledge
    >they exist for if left alone shit gradually rots away and then disappears up its own
    >ass. Lick that.
    >--
    >Posted via http://britishexpats.com
I don't care about those lawyers. I learn to research thing at foriegn affairs
manual. I read this at Doc steen site and it tremedously help me just reading
it. Alvena too. Why udall have so much time on message board, I expect him to be busy
at his office not here.

Grinch

"Marilou920" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

    > I don't care about those lawyers. I learn to research thing at foriegn
affairs
    > manual. I read this at Doc steen site and it tremedously help me just
reading
    > it. Alvena too. Why udall have so much time on message board, I expect him to be
    > busy
at
    > his office not here.


You might want to invest in some English lessons rather than spending time posting
bullshit on here.

Grinch

Mrtravel

Marilou920 wrote:
    > >
    > Why this people don't leave others alone. I agree with you about Alvena and Doc
    > Steen, they are both good people and give free help.

I didn't say they were bad people. If the information is KNOWN to be wrong, then it
should be there, disclaimer or no disclaimer. A disclaimer is for when you aren't
sure of content. If you are sure it is wrong, then you don't disclaim it, you change
or remove it. There is no point in having the website up if you know it contains
errors that could cause problems. So, while Matt might be wrong about the motives of
the site owner, it doesn't mean the existance of bad info shouldn't be questioned.
After all, if bad info is posted to this newsgroup, it is immediately responded to.

Paulgani

I manage a lot of servers, and am constantly searching for various technical
documents and references on the internet. There are FAQs on every possible subject,
concept, software revision, standard, etc... that you can think of. Many of them are
outdated. That's perfectly fine with me - I would rather that the information BE
there, as opposed to pulled off the net the second someone thinks it is not the most
current information. Now, it's true, in the wrong hands, applying say, a 2 year old
patch to a current version of software could be disasterous. But I'm not an idiot -
and I take possibly outdated information for what it's worth - i.e. a starting point
to learn about the concept, or patch, or whatever I'm seeking.

I fear the day that someone will one day be held liable for outdated information
posted on the Internet. Imagine the resources that would be suddenly be unavailable
to all, as sites everywhere pulled information that they just thought might be a bit
outdated ? What if Google was sued for some newsgroup post that someone made 10
years ago which Google archived? As far as I'm concerned, if a piece of information
is correct AT THE TIME IT WAS POSTED, it should remain available forever. Of course,
if you know something is wrong, you shouldn't post it in the first place, unless of
course you've made it clear that you're just posting your opinion or being satirical
or whatever.

I vote that all information can and should remain available on the Internet, outdated
or not. Perhaps it would be a good idea for the maintainer of the site to comment
that they know some information is outdated. But pulling the information would be a
very bad idea.

Paulgani

"mrtravel" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > I didn't say they were bad people. If the information is KNOWN to be wrong, then it
    > should be there, disclaimer or no disclaimer. A disclaimer is for when you aren't
    > sure of content. If you are sure it is wrong, then you don't disclaim it, you
    > change or remove it. There is no point in having the website up if you know it
    > contains errors that could cause problems. So, while Matt might be wrong about the
    > motives of the site owner, it doesn't mean the existance of bad info shouldn't be
    > questioned. After all, if bad info is posted to this newsgroup, it is immediately
    > responded to.

Mrtravel

paulgani wrote:
    > I manage a lot of servers, and am constantly searching for various technical
    > documents and references on the internet. There are FAQs on every possible
    > subject, concept, software revision, standard, etc... that you can think of. Many
    > of them are outdated. That's perfectly fine with me - I would rather that the
    > information BE there, as opposed to pulled off the net the second someone thinks it
    > is not the most current information.

If the information is incorrect and the webmaster knows it is incorrect, why keep it
there? Changing a file on a website should be quite easy. I search quite often for
information on the internet.and understand that some sites are no longer updated.
However, that doesn't excuse their existance, especially one that is pointed to quite
often from this newsgroup. It isn't like it is a rarely hit site. While people might
accuse Matt of complaining about the competition, might it also be said that owner of
a website with false legal information is helping immigration lawyers by getting them
clients that end up with serious problems due to bad information.

Someone actually thought Matt was charging outrageous prices... Compared to other
prices mentioned in this newsgroup, his charges seem reasonable for attorney fees.
If you expect attorney fees to be "cheap", then you don't understand the efffort,
lost income during extra schooling, and money spent for school and building a
practice. I know that Matt has helped quite a few people. And, so has the web site
in question. So, if people disgree with that site, then let them. But don't bring
that fight here....

Paulgani

"mrtravel" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > If the information is incorrect and the webmaster knows it is incorrect, why keep
    > it there? Changing a file on a website should be quite easy. I search quite often
    > for information on the internet.and understand that some sites are no longer
    > updated. However, that doesn't excuse their existance, especially one that is
    > pointed to quite often from this newsgroup. It isn't like it is a rarely hit site.

The posting of incorrect information is quite different than letting once correct
information become outdated. You have obviously never maintained a web site if you
think it is not an extremely time consuming process. Web pages, old and new, are an
invaluable information resource to the world. Web pages no are different than
libraries. Should libraries pull books that have obviously become outdated? Should
newspapers pull archives of stories that are no longer true? Should we never refer
to any publications that are outdated? That's just totally and completely
ridiculous. Perhaps the Bible should be recalled, or at the very least, no longer
published, because science has obviously debunked the theory of creationism. Heck,
we wouldn't want that dangerous, outdated information poisoning the minds of future
generations!

Look at this newsgroup. Immigration laws and rules change every week. Should the K-1
FAQ be removed if the maintainer doesn't have time to update it anymore? Of course
not. Yes, some of the information may become outdated, but it would still be an
invaluable starting point for those in need of such information. And one day, when
the K-1 visa no longer even exists because every country's borders have become free
and open, the page will still be an invaluable historical reference.

Paulgani

Grinch

"paulgani" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > I manage a lot of servers, and am constantly searching for various
technical
    > documents and references on the internet. There are FAQs on every
possible
    > subject, concept, software revision, standard, etc... that you can think
of.
    > Many of them are outdated. That's perfectly fine with me - I would rather that the
    > information BE there, as opposed to pulled off the net the second someone thinks it
    > is not the most current information. Now, it's true, in the wrong hands, applying
    > say, a 2 year old patch to a current version of software could be disasterous. But
    > I'm not an idiot - and I take possibly outdated information for what it's worth -
    > i.e. a starting point to learn about the concept, or patch, or whatever I'm
    > seeking.

I think there is a huge difference in configuring a server than to playing the
immigration game. I recall a few years ago it was considered the most heineious crime
in this group to even think of coming to the US on a tourist visa but I am very close
friends with someone who did just that with no issues! Had he taken the advice
offered in this forum at the time he would never have done it. Just as the advice in
this forum changes so should any web site that gives immigration advice. The abuse
from certain people Matt took was unwarranted.

Grinch

donahso

I have to agree with Mrtravel. I have owned websites in the past and currently have to maintain a few. My rule of thumb is: 'if you can't keep it current, don't put it up in the first place."

I posted this on another site recently, so I do have the authority to repost it here. It was in response to someone's post about taking the famous, or infamous, SSA memo to get a social security card for a K-1 beneficiary. I quote:

"You mentioned the EM-00154. It's quoted on a few sites, but not the link to it. I found it a few months ago at INS or SSA, but now it is gone from my grasp. The reason I ask is because when I first researched this, the "K-1 is eligible" appeared in EM-00009 that expired in 2000. The EM-00154 that replaced it contained language that it would expire in October or November 2001. At the time, there
was nothing that extended beyond that date.

There is verbiage on the SSA site about K-1 being eligible in their Q&A, but it doesn't give any specific reference to a law, policy or internal procedure that I can find. Maybe when you go back, you can have them look up answer 576. The "The "K-1" symbol on your immigration document means you are the fiancé of a U.S. citizen and are authorized to work."

If anyone has the link to something more 'official', I'd sure
appreciate it."

So, there you have it. I didn't get any reply pointing to an authoritative source other than the Q&A I cited. I would still like to have it.

I'm not picking on Doc Steen's site, this is posted on numerous sites. Most of which are quite outdated.

Message board is different than a web site. Message boards contain all manner of mis/dis/un-information. They are purely opinions (like this one). A web site, on the other hand, should either be maintained or abandoned. IMHO.

-Don H

Paulgani

"Grinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] hlin-
k.net...
    > Just as the advice in this forum changes so should any web site that gives
    > immigration advice.

The advice on this forum changes because the maintainers (all of us) continue to
update it. The old posts (archives) may contain lots of outdated information.
Should it all be removed? How about when no one participates in this newsgroup
anymore, and thus this newsgroup is no longer maintained. Should all of the old
posts be deleted?

Outdated information, if nothing else, is our history. The content of this
newsgroup, and the web pages of all participants should be kept available even long
after we no longer have immigration laws.

Paulgani

rogerpenycate

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paulgani:
I manage a lot of servers, and am constantly searching for various technical
documents and references on the internet. There are FAQs on every possible subject,
concept, software revision, standard, etc... that you can think of. Many of them are
outdated. That's perfectly fine with me - I would rather that the information BE
there, as opposed to pulled off the net the second someone thinks it is not the most
current information. Now, it's true, in the wrong hands, applying say, a 2 year old
patch to a current version of software could be disasterous. But I'm not an idiot -
and I take possibly outdated information for what it's worth - i.e. a starting point
to learn about the concept, or patch, or whatever I'm seeking.

I fear the day that someone will one day be held liable for outdated information
posted on the Internet. Imagine the resources that would be suddenly be unavailable
to all, as sites everywhere pulled information that they just thought might be a bit
outdated ? What if Google was sued for some newsgroup post that someone made 10
years ago which Google archived? As far as I'm concerned, if a piece of information
is correct AT THE TIME IT WAS POSTED, it should remain available forever. Of course,
if you know something is wrong, you shouldn't post it in the first place, unless of
course you've made it clear that you're just posting your opinion or being satirical
or whatever.

I vote that all information can and should remain available on the Internet, outdated
or not. Perhaps it would be a good idea for the maintainer of the site to comment
that they know some information is outdated. But pulling the information would be a
very bad idea.

Paulgani



That may be all very well for you as you know your way around the sites and understand them.
This is not the case with probably 95% of the new posters on
here, many are (as I was) completely baffled by some of the process.
As a poster said earlier, wrong or out-dated information could
be devestating for some folks.
I had a similar problem where I was given conflicting advice
on another site, regarding the Affadavit, I was so confused, and ended up having to go to London and pay a lawyer 250 pounds, to sort out the "mess"
In my humble opinion, wrong or out of date information if it is an important part of the process, is absloutely useless and
could be damaging.
Remember, we are all dealing with people's emotions and future's here and not an individuals knowledge on the ins and outs of various newsgroups.

Mrtravel

paulgani wrote:
    > "Grinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    > hlink.net    ...
    > > Just as the advice in this forum changes so should any web site that gives
    > > immigration advice.
    > The advice on this forum changes because the maintainers (all of us) continue to
    > update it. The old posts (archives) may contain lots of outdated information.
    > Should it all be removed?

Searching out and deleting posts from many different people is not on par with the
task of mainting a website with legal ramifications for wrong information.

Paulgani

"rogerpenycate" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > As a poster said earlier, wrong or out-dated information could be devestating for
    > > some folks.

Yes, it could be. Perhaps someone who goes to the library and checks out a 3 year
old book on say, immigration procedures, or perhaps, divorce procedures should be
protected. If any information is outdated - perhaps if a newer revision were out,
and the library didn't buy the new revision, then it should be liable for providing
outdated and thus incorrect advice. We should campaign for our libraries to burn any
books which contain any amount of outdated, and thus incorrect information. After
all, how many people could be hurt???

heck, let's take it further. Say *you* have a 5 year old divorce book, and now your
friend is getting a divorce. Let's mandate that you can't pass on to your friend a
likely outdated reference. After all, it would be unconciousable to pass on *known
outdated* information!

In fact, every single time the immigration laws are changed, some item in some
immigration book becomes outdated. Perhaps we need to campaign Congress to pass a
law that requires the destruction of all immigration law related books everytime a
new immigration law is passed. After all, we have to protect all of those poor
confused folks who might run into outdated publications, wherever they may be!

Paulgani

Paulgani

"mrtravel" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Searching out and deleting posts from many different people is not on par with the
    > task of mainting a website with legal ramifications for wrong information.

"maintaining" - that's the point. If you are "maintaining" a web site and
advertising it as an up to date site, say, by date labels, then by all means you
should try to keep the information current.

Now, if you don't want to update the information anymore, fine. But better to leave
it in place than remove it.

For example, take this archive from an attorney's site:

http://www.americanlaw.com/archive.-
html

Read any of their postings from a few years back, and even the novices in this group
will find outdated information. Obviously, they don't have the time to rewrite the
advice from years back. But the point is, the archive should continue to be posted
and available!

Paulgani

Paulgani

"donahso" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > I have to agree with Mrtravel. I have owned websites in the past and currently have
    > to maintain a few. My rule of thumb is: 'if you can't keep it current, don't put it
    > up in the first place."

OK, well, then the K1 FAQ, at:

http://www.k1faq.com

should be immediately taken down. It's dated 2001, and I easily found a piece of
outdated and thus incorrect information on it (6.1.1).

Clearly, it's not being maintained, and clearly, it should be immediately removed.
After all, all those innocent dupes who might take that single web page as God's word
should absolutely be protected!

Paulgani