mjones

You are getting yourself in trouble.

On 15 Sep 2002 20:09:16 GMT, [email protected] (MDUdall) wrote:

<...snipped... nearly an unlimited pile of shit that only some freakin moron
would accept as some sort of reasonable basic for bringing up the same old shit
over and over...>

    >Mike mentioned

Mdudall

Jeez Mike, why are you going nuclear over this? Marco brought up the subject of
liberties in America being chipped away including the freedom of speech, and I
spent some time giving him some feedback about freedom of speech (that not all
speech enjoys the same level of freedom [and this has always been true, long
before 09/11/01] and in fact, the mere utterance of some words in and of
themselves is a "crime"). You don't have to read it if you don't want to, but
maybe Marco and others might find it interesting.

And I don't think I incorrectly paraphrased what you said either. On 09/12/02
you wrote, "Alvena didn't even write the tourist visa adjustment page, she just
"rescued" it when the original author removed it from his own website, due to
potential legal liability problem".

Sounds to me like you know more about this author's reasons for removal than I
do, and since it was not Paul, perhaps you can share what you know about the
authors concerns about liability. Do you recall what it was that caused him
concern?

Now I have an honest question for you Mike. Do you think it's proper (legally
and morally) to go around advising the world at large (non-U.S. citizens and
non-LPR's), with no way to limit the advice to lovesick fiancée couples, that
they should lie to our federal officials charged with keeping out those who
should be kept out for a variety of reasons, and "how" to lie to these federal
officials in order to thwart them from being able to effectively do their jobs.
If not, why not? If so, why? Would your answer be the same if written before
and after 09/11/01?

Just curious.

Have a nice weekend.

M.U.

Targaff

[email protected] (MDUdall) wrote in
news:20020915160916.15074.0-
[email protected]:

    > In your posting you mention "Immigration lawyers on the internet with
    > nothing better to do but try and shut down helpful web sites". I
    > assume since you chose to start a new thread with the words, scumbag
    > Matt Udall in it, am I correct in assuming you are referring to me
    > trying to shut down "Charles Steen's" site?

Strike changed the topic of this for a reason: because whilst it was
related to what was posted, it was still tangential and so deserved its
own subheading. As another person has pointed out, it could've benefited
from being in its own separate thread.

The section you refer to above is the only part which makes any reference
to what is amusingly referred to as "Udall v Alvena", and is only a
passing reference made as part of a larger comment. And yet you managed
to write an entire 9 paragraphs of your reply on this one particular
section.

Do you not get the impression that, you know, this was totally
unnecessary and did nothing if not protract a situation which needs
precisely the opposite?

--

Targaff

Mdudall

    >And yet you managed
    >to write an entire 9 paragraphs of your reply on this one particular
    >section.

I wrote about freedom of speech and I wrote about Mr. Steen's page that I think
clearly/obviously contains advice to people to lie to our federal officials at
the POE and specifically "how" to go about lying to them. You can be "Like
Mike" and skip my postings if you don't want to read them.


And I invite you to also answer the same honest question that I asked Mike. Do
you Targaff, think it's proper (legally and morally) to go around advising the
world at large (non-U.S. citizens and non-LPR's), with no way to limit the
advice to lovesick fiancée couples, that they should lie to our federal
officials charged with keeping out those who should be kept out for a variety
of reasons, and "how" to lie to these federal officials in order to thwart them
from being able to effectively do their jobs. If not, why not? If so, why?
Would your answer be the same if written before and after 09/11/01?

And I'll add a bonus question for you. Do you see it any differently when it's
a licensed attorney advising the world at large to lie to our federal officials
vs. a non-attorney doing it?

Regards,
v.t.

Steve

I've read many of the posts and was going to keep silent.

But the bottom line is-- it is the duty of citizens, visitors and immigrants
to be honest when they come into the country. There was a lot of nonsense BS
going back and forth which is really tedious. It really shouldn't matter the
circumstances: Whether you come through customs with more than your limit,
or when you intent to come into this country to marry on a tourist visa, or
come into this country with criminal intent-- all are wrong. I know people
always have an argument why their behavior, though illegal was morally
right....I've seen the advise posted here many times, about how to
"circumvent" the law. But remember, even small (harmless?) lies will tend to
magnify and have consequences down the road.

I think so many posters get caught up in the argument or personality, but
the issue was and is about doing the right thing.

Just do the right thing people.

Have a nice week.
"MDUdall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:20020915160916.15074.00-
[email protected]...
    > Hi Marco,
    > I enjoyed your posting, and I thought I'd post a reply if that's OK.
    > I applaud your reading of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I
wonder how
    > many American's have read those documents.
    > Constitutional law is a required class in law school and it takes a year
to go
    > through. It requires massive amounts of reading case law to see how the
courts
    > have interpreted or applied the Constitution to specific facts/cases over
the
    > years. There are many concepts/tests (ways of reasoning) that the law
student
    > learns during Con law that most "non-attorneys" never have to use in their
    > lives (for example, the strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny and
rational
    > basis standards when it comes to various kinds of treatment shown to
various
    > types of groups). Reading the cases provides a unique glimpse into
American
    > history that you just don't get without doing all of that case law reading
(you
    > are never going to get the same thing from watching the history channel or
    > other forms of media).
    > All in all, Con law is probably one of the most difficult classes for a
law
    > student, and my "favorite" one. I loved every minute of it, and to this
day, if
    > asked what my favorite class in law school was, my answer is always Con
law.
    > I had a buddy in law school that was flunking out. He was in the class 1
year
    > behind me (we started out in the same class, but he was on the cut-off
line of
    > failing either the first or second year [I can't remember now which one it
    > was], and the school gave him the opportunity to repeat that year so he
did).
    > He had failed Con law the first time around, so I decided to help him.
    > I started tutoring him for around 8 hours a week (and he kicked me down a
few
    > bucks for my time). Instead of rereading all of the cases with him, I
focused
    > on teaching the "tests" and "concepts" that one needs to know when
confronting
    > various types of fact patterns, pounding mnemonics into his head so he
could
    > remember the convoluted and sometimes cumbersome rules/tests that one
needs to
    > use when applying to certain fact patterns (and would need to be explained
on
    > his essay exams).
    > He had moved to San Francisco from San Diego, and while in San Diego he
owned a
    > couple of surf shops, so he was into surfing. I had always wanted to try
it,
    > and one of my favorite memories of tutoring him was one afternoon as we
floated
    > outside the breakers at Mustang beach, discussing the finer points of
    > "procedural" and "substantive" due process while waiting for some nice
waves. I
    > recall a couple of the other "local" surfers floating out there with us
    > overheard our discussion, and I recall the look on their faces when they
    > realized who we were and what we were doing. They might have thought,
"great,
    > now we have to deal with sharks on top of the water too" :-).
    > There is no way my friend would have passed Con law without the tutoring
    > (believe me, as his tutor I can tell :-), and he did pass Con law and the
Cal
    > Bar, and to this day has a thriving family law practice in the bay area.
    > Marco, in your posting you mentioned the phrase, "America is Freedom", and
you
    > mention that you feel this also means the freedom to say what you want. In
most
    > respects that is true, however the freedom of speech is by no means
absolute.
    > The "stereotyped America as in the Hollywood movies", depending on what
your
    > particular stereotypes are (the ones you incorporated into your thinking),
may
    > not really be the way America actually is (you should take Con law if you
    > really want to study this in detail).
    > The 1st amendment and the freedoms it guarantees, including speech is one
of
    > those areas in Con law that took a heck of a lot of time and case law to
go
    > through, and the concepts/tests and balancing of interests used by the
Supreme
    > Court to determine the "boundaries" of free speech are some of the most
    > difficult ones encountered when studying Con law. Plus, the concepts in
Con law
    > are not static, and do change with time and changing circumstances. I'll
bet we
    > will see case law develop that will involve the relatively new (as far as
    > widespread use goes) technology such as the internet and e-mail. So
obviously
    > I'm not going to try to even begin a comprehensive analysis in a news
group
    > posting, but I bring this up just to say that there is a lot more that
goes
    > into the concept of freedom of speech then you might think, and that
people are
    > "not" necessarily free to say what ever they want (OK, maybe they can say
it,
    > but there might be consequences for their saying it).
    > In your posting you mention "Immigration lawyers on the internet with
nothing
    > better to do but try and shut down helpful web sites". I assume since you
chose
    > to start a new thread with the words, scumbag Matt Udall in it, am I
correct in
    > assuming you are referring to me trying to shut down "Charles Steen's"
site?
    > If so, I'd like to tell you that this is not correct. Charles Steen is not
    > Alvena. He's an attorney licensed in the State of Texas, and from what
I've
    > heard, he does not practice in the area of immigration law. I could be
wrong
    > about him not practicing in immigration law, however that has been what
I've
    > been told.
    > Mr. Steen is an officer of the court, and as such he has a "DUTY" to be
honest
    > and truthful with the tribunals he deals with. I'm not sure what the state
bar
    > of Texas' rules says, but there just might be a rule that prevents him
from
    > lying on behalf of his clients or instructing them to lie.
    > I'm not trying the get Mr. Steen to remove his site, and in fact I've gone
out
    > of my way to help make it a better site. However I do have a problem with
1
    > page. That page contains text that clearly instructs people to lie to
federal
    > officers at the point of entry, and "how" to lie to them. If you want, we
can
    > go over the points on that page one by one (I did so already in a reply to
Rita
    > a day or so ago), and I don't think there can be any doubt that
instructions to
    > lie to the INS officers appear on that page.
    > Mike mentioned that someone other than Mr. Steen wrote that page, but due
to
    > potential liability concerns, he took his name off of it, gave it to
Alvena,
    > who in turn has given it to Mr. Steen. Perhaps Paul (if that was you who
    > originally wrote the page in questions) can elaborate about what it was on
that
    > page that caused him or his lawyer to think there might be potential
liability
    > for posting that material.
    > And if Mr. Steen does not practice immigration law, he might not even be
aware
    > that the very act of presenting oneself to an INS officer at the POE, with
the
    > intent to immigrate but with a non-immigrant option "is" to commit an
illegal
    > act "at" the POE (regardless of "what is said" at the POE).
    > Now "I" know, and I think anybody who knows what the person can "most
likely"
    > do as far as adjusting "after" entry will know the "motive" for posting
    > information how to lie to an INS officer at the POE, however the "motive"
for
    > instructing people how to lie to INS officers at the POE does not turn the
    > suggestion to lie into a suggestion for telling the truth.
    > Now, add to this information telling people to lie and how to fool INS
officers
    > at the POE, 09/11 and "future" threats.
    > So I think Mr. Steen is advising people to lie to federal officers at the
POE
    > and I understand why he's doing it. But do you really think the Founding
    > Fathers will start rolling over in their graves if they were to know that
an
    > "Attorney" decided it was not a good idea, post 09/11, to instruct the
world at
    > large "to lie" to Federal officials?
    > Do you really think the freedom to tell others to lie to Federal officials
and
    > thus sneak through the POE is one of the "essential liberties" that Mr.
    > Franklin would champion?
    > M.U.

gardencity

Geez...how about letting go of this 'hacking and nawing' away?

Better yet, how about closing all POEs so no one gets in nor out of USA? How about grounding all flights? How about putting tourism for USA, and the total revenue that comes from it, to a grinding halt?

Yet all that wouldn't solve any problems of terrorists threats, would it? All that would just be 'acute paranoia' in action.

Because, even though I am non-USC, am 10k miles away, I still know there are countless 'sleepers' already living and breathing in your backyards (not to mention in other countries' too). All they (sleepers) are waiting for is further instructions from their respective leaders to act.

In short, I don't see your point of relevancy at all. And you know, even though I am not on anybody's side, much less that of Alvena or Steen, I think your stance on - quote 'Alvena, no sorry, Chuck's website' unquote - is not funny at all.

IMHO, from the various postings you have made and the replies you have given, I am beginning to wonder if you are really interested to help 'with INS' queries or you are harbouring 'ulterior motives' to perhaps, for one, 'shut down all and sundry related to INS queries?'.

Of course, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But I don't know about the others. And pls, if you are really interested, just help answer the queries and pls stop being paranoic and stop finger-pointing.

As a member of the respected(at least in my view, if not others) legal fraternity, perhaps you'd do good for your kind.

IMHO. And, no offence meant.

Regards.

Paulgani

"MDUdall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:20020915220147.12470.00-
[email protected]...
    > Now I have an honest question for you Mike. Do you think it's proper
(legally
    > and morally) to go around advising the world at large (non-U.S. citizens
and
    > non-LPR's), with no way to limit the advice to lovesick fiancée couples,
that
    > they should lie to our federal officials charged with keeping out those
who
    > should be kept out for a variety of reasons, and "how" to lie to these
federal
    > officials in order to thwart them from being able to effectively do their
jobs.
    > If not, why not? If so, why? Would your answer be the same if written
before
    > and after 09/11/01?

Advice to legitimate airline travelers on how NOT to unduly attract
attention from airport security:

1 - smile, be friendly
2 - don't be nervous
3 - don't make any jokes about security or 9/11
4 - don't wear a T-shirt with Osama Bin Ladin's image on it
5 - carry minimal or no carryon luggage
6 - wear thin sandals

Advice to terrorists on how NOT to unduly attract attention from airport
security:

1 - smile, be friendly
2 - don't be nervous
3 - don't make any jokes about security or 9/11
4 - don't wear a T-shirt with Osama Bin Ladin's image on it
5 - carry minimal or no carryon luggage
6 - wear thin sandals

Paulgani

Mjones

Hey Paul,
Cool. I have foreign relatives coming to visit over the holidays.
Can I republish it :-)
Do we feel a parody coming on?
Or just a re-post of Matt U-Doll?
Mike
--
tsosnmhylai


    > Advice to legitimate airline travelers on how NOT to unduly attract
    > attention from airport security:
    > 1 - smile, be friendly
    > 2 - don't be nervous
    > 3 - don't make any jokes about security or 9/11
    > 4 - don't wear a T-shirt with Osama Bin Ladin's image on it
    > 5 - carry minimal or no carryon luggage
    > 6 - wear thin sandals
    > Advice to terrorists on how NOT to unduly attract attention from airport
    > security:
    > 1 - smile, be friendly
    > 2 - don't be nervous
    > 3 - don't make any jokes about security or 9/11
    > 4 - don't wear a T-shirt with Osama Bin Ladin's image on it
    > 5 - carry minimal or no carryon luggage
    > 6 - wear thin sandals
    > Paulgani

Harvey Leems

I'd like to see that page...Okay, I have seen it. No where does it
recommend to lie. No where!

--
Harvey Leems
"MDUdall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:20020915231444.12470.00-
[email protected]...
    > >And yet you managed
    > >to write an entire 9 paragraphs of your reply on this one particular
    > >section.
    > I wrote about freedom of speech and I wrote about Mr. Steen's page that I
think
    > clearly/obviously contains advice to people to lie to our federal
officials at
    > the POE and specifically "how" to go about lying to them. You can be "Like
    > Mike" and skip my postings if you don't want to read them.
    > And I invite you to also answer the same honest question that I asked
Mike. Do
    > you Targaff, think it's proper (legally and morally) to go around advising
the
    > world at large (non-U.S. citizens and non-LPR's), with no way to limit the
    > advice to lovesick fiancée couples, that they should lie to our federal
    > officials charged with keeping out those who should be kept out for a
variety
    > of reasons, and "how" to lie to these federal officials in order to thwart
them
    > from being able to effectively do their jobs. If not, why not? If so, why?
    > Would your answer be the same if written before and after 09/11/01?
    > And I'll add a bonus question for you. Do you see it any differently when
it's
    > a licensed attorney advising the world at large to lie to our federal
officials
    > vs. a non-attorney doing it?
    > Regards,
    > M.U.

Squire

In article <[email protected]>, MDUdall
<[email protected]> writes
    >I wrote about freedom of speech and I wrote about Mr. Steen's page that I think
    >clearly/obviously contains advice to people to lie to our federal officials at
    >the POE and specifically "how" to go about lying to them. You can be "Like
    >Mike" and skip my postings if you don't want to read them.
    >And I invite you to also answer the same honest question that I asked Mike. Do
    >you Targaff, think it's proper (legally and morally) to go around advising the
    >world at large (non-U.S. citizens and non-LPR's), with no way to limit the
    >advice to lovesick fiancée couples, that they should lie to our federal
    >officials charged with keeping out those who should be kept out for a variety
    >of reasons, and "how" to lie to these federal officials in order to thwart them
    >from being able to effectively do their jobs. If not, why not? If so, why?
    >Would your answer be the same if written before and after 09/11/01?
    >And I'll add a bonus question for you. Do you see it any differently when it's
    >a licensed attorney advising the world at large to lie to our federal officials
    >vs. a non-attorney doing it?

Reading the Doc Steen site a few moments ago I see that various
qualifications have been added and/or given more emphasis, presumably
resulting from recent criticisms. I also agree that much could still be
worded differently to avoid the impression of giving advice to
circumvent immigration inspection at the POE. On the other hand, I see
phrases like "We do not recommend.." and "Always tell the truth.."

In various past occupations I have often been called upon to appear in
court as a witness for my plaintiff employer. Invariably our lawyer has
briefed me to answer questions put to me directly, truthfully,
succinctly and without embellishment. Is this not the case in the US
legal system?

As a tax accountant in the UK I get involved from time to time advising
clients whenever they are interviewed by Revenue and Customs & Excise
personnel. Guess what.. I advise them to answer only the questions put
to them, truthfully but without unnecessary addition and if they dont
understand the question to say so.

Incidentally, whenever I have entered USA pre 911 the usual question has
been "Business or pleasure?" with an occasional follow up question as to
my destination. Length of intended stay has always been asked. My memory
is getting hazy but the sequence (I think) has been INS -> collect
baggage -> US Customs. So I cant understand why INS would initially see
what amount of luggage I was bringing with me.

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

Matthew Udall

None taken :-).
Well, this is my first posting ever, submitted from british expats. Lets see if this works.

Matthew Udall

Hi Paul.
What do these lists have in common with an attorney in Texas advising the world at large to lie to our federal officers at the POE, and telling them "how" to lie to the federal officers?

M.U.

Matthew Udall

Sure it does Harvey. I'm not going to type this all over again, but search for my reply to Rita made on 09/13/02 at 6:47PM pacific time in the string titled, "From M. Udall, reply about the controversy". If you have questions after reading my analysis and the entry risks page, let me know and we can discuss it further.

M.U.

Paulgani

"Matthew Udall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:417148.1032230808@britishexpats-
.com...
    > What do these lists have in common with an attorney in Texas advising
    > the world at large to lie to our federal officers at the POE, and
    > telling them "how" to lie to the federal officers?

The point is, YOU are the only one who believes this. The rest of us read
the same page, and see no such statements.

Might I propose that you are natural conspiracist? You see evil things in
innocent actions. As such, you should clearly find a profession that
permits you to exploit your natural tendencies/talents. Perhaps a writer
for the X-files? Heck, you already live in that area anyway.

Paulgani

L D Jones

Matthew Udall wrote:
    > Originally posted by Harvey Leems:
    > > I'd like to see that page...Okay, I have seen it. No where does it
    > > recommend to lie. No where!
    > >
    > > --
    > > Harvey Leems
    > >
    > Sure it does Harvey. I'm not going to type this all over again, but
    > search for my reply to Rita made on 09/13/02 at 6:47PM pacific time in
    > the string titled, "From M. Udall, reply about the controversy". If you
    > have questions after reading my analysis and the entry risks page, let
    > me know and we can discuss it further.

Please discuss it further via email.