elmcitymaven

Like you, I went through the DCF process in London. At the interview, I submitted the copy of my decree absolute that I obtained from my solicitor. This bore an official seal from the High Court, but the seal was a very simple ink stamp of endorsement. No problems whatsoever. If you used a solicitor for your divorce, perhaps you can contact them for such a copy. Alternatively, you'll need to get it through the Principal Registry, as outlined above. Good luck -- this is the very last hurdle and you're nearly past the finish line!

Happy Fourth Indictment Day to all who celebrate! https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-indicted-georgia-racketeering-rcna74912 FYI: probation is not available to a defendant convicted of RICO in Georgia.

The trial is not merely the verdict. The trial commences with the seating of the first juror, continues through opening statements, through direct and cross-examination of lay and expert witnesses, continuing on through closing statements and on through the jury instructions delivered by the judge to the jury. Every step of that will be public and open to our evaluation except for deliberations. Be open. Be skeptical. Weigh the evidence as we receive it. We ask the jurors to do these things. I will keep an open mind, too. It's not Trump's job to convince me of anything. It's the state's to convince me they have it right. I don't mind being wrong when I have a preconceived notion that turns out to be a dud or prejudiced.

LOL @Jericho has it right (mostly). There aren't any incitement charges here. The charges that relate to Trump's spoken words have to do with the three conspiracy counts. Put simply, it is one thing to say a thing, and quite another to say that thing in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit a crime. If (as is alleged) Trump made certain statements that he knew were false with the intent to further any of the three conspiracies alleged (to obstruct an official proceeding; to defraud the United States; and/or to act in contravention of voters' civil rights), that speech is a requisite element in the actus reus of the crime. It is the "act in furtherance." At the same time, there is (as Jack Smith points out on page 1 of the indictment) still First Amendment protection for Trump to say things that are false, and even those which he knows to be false. There is no issue with any of that. Rather it is why those words were said. If the government cannot prove that the words were said in furtherance of any of those criminal conspiracy, then Trump will prevail. But if Trump cannot rebut these allegations, he will have a tough road. I make no secret of detesting Trump. But the point of justice is not only for justice to be done, but to be seen to be done. That is why we have public trials. If the charges are manifestly unjust and scant evidence exists to support the charges (and frankly, it is way, way too soon to tell any of that), he should not be punished. But he is being afforded substantial due process here, way more than you or I would be afforded in similar circumstances. He will be given ample opportunity to review all the evidence against him, and to challenge every scrap of it as well as every witness, as is his right. Good! I want him to get a fair trial. I can live with a not guilty verdict because I believe in the system. And where the stakes are this high, the system will bend over backwards to be fair. If any of you have not read the indictment, please do. Read it all, it's not very long and it's a straightforward read. Tune out what other people (maybe even me!) are telling you about its contents for a while. Consider several prospects: what if it is true? what if it is not true? what if only some of it is true? Hold these questions in your mind concurrently, because right now, none of us know which is the most correct, and what that will actually mean.

~ shrugs in legalese ~ If you can't do the time, get a good attorney. Trump's counsel so far... not so good.

Happy Indictment Day (re-redux) to those who celebrate! https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-indicted-charges-related-efforts-overturn-2020-election/story?id=101612810 Indictment here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/8a7503af-fde7-4061-818c-7d7e0ee06036.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_5

So THIS is what "rhythmic gymnastics" is.

Please. Unsealing happens when the public interest in who has put up a significant sum of money on behalf of a defendant outweighs the privacy interests of the persons who have so paid. Happened the other month with Sam Bankman-Fried, same deal. This sort of information is usually made public, and there needs to be something more particularized than asserting that harassment could occur. The outcome is normal and expected, and Santos has a chance to appeal the ruling. Maybe it's just me, but I want to know who puts up half a mil on behalf of a public servant accused of financial misconduct.

Happy Indictment Day (redux) to those who celebrate! https://abcnews.go.com/US/donald-trump-indicted-time-sources/story?id=99408228

Wonder whose Cheerios he micturated in to get recommended for impeachment. https://apnews.com/article/texas-attorney-general-paxton-impeachment-1eaccf00ce80d26c4fc94eab1672e1bd

Update: He used his US passport throughout inspection, no problems, and was never asked to show his UK passport as the system was all automated. He just inserted his passport in a machine and there was (he thinks) some sort of facial recognition system. While it did not work for everyone it worked for him, and everything moved expeditiously and smoothly. He didn't think he went in any special queue. I asked him what he thought of being back, it being the first time for him in nearly 15 years, and he said, "What a dump." Except he used a rather more vulgar word than "dump." Shocking! Apparently the best part is the easy access to Melton Mowbray pies.

Just visiting his mum for about a month, and to remind himself why he's not moving back, lol. He's a naturally risk-averse guy, he'll probably go in the line for US citizens but I'll pass this on too. Much obliged, dude.

Thanks, this is the actual answer to this particular issue. The UK is unlike the US in this regard, and I appreciate you flagging it. British citizens have a right of abode and can return, even on an expired passport. He's not concealing his citizenship, to the person who suggested otherwise. As I stated earlier, "He knows to show both passports at the border in Heathrow". If the situation were reversed and his US passport were expired and returning to the US, he'd be facing far greater issues than which queue to be in. @CMJuilland thanks for the tip, this is extremely useful. I'll pass it on.

Due to COVID and general oversight, my ex let his British passport expire and didn't get around to renewing it. (What's done is done, we don't need to be reminded or scolded here.) He does have a valid US passport. He is due to fly into Heathrow in about a week for the first time since 2009, and because of the expired passport he booked the ticket using his US passport. He knows to show both passports at the border in Heathrow, but the question is: which queue should he join? I argued that notwithstanding his lack of a current British travel document, he has always been and remains a British citizen and should use the UK one. He is minded to go in the "All Other Passports" queue because he is entering on his US passport. It's probably the safer bet, but if he can use the UK one it would almost certainly be quicker. Any thoughts much appreciated. He'll be renewing while he's over there.

Patience, friend. I've been in litigation hell for the past couple of months but I might have some bandwidth later today. Criminal law ain't my bag but I'll give it a whirl.

Happy Indictment Day to those who celebrate! https://apnews.com/article/trump-hush-money-new-york-indictment-election-027d0e5ac1881a4c55c6379deae75faa

Approved: 1/27 Passport received: 1/28 Still waiting on the nat cert to be returned but the most important part is done. Free at last!

Locator 69 - Routine Service 11/29: Applied at Burbank, CA City Hall 12/6: Check cashed 12/26: After weeks of "Not Found" every time I log in, finally "In Process" and showing a date of 12/6 that application was received

Slightly belated update -- Last Friday, the certificate showed up in the mail. Of course the case still shows up as "actively reviewing" on my USCIS portal. What did we learn that I can add to the paltry amount of VJ info on the N-565 on VJ? First, most obviously and as we all know: do not rescheduled unless you absolutely have to. This rescheduling falls under "absolutely have to" but do not recommend. I'm certain that the request for a reschedule caused the application to fall through the cracks. Second, once I appeared as an attorney in this case on behalf of the good doctor, things moved, at last. He'd submitted requests to look into the matter but zero happened. I made a phone call as his attorney, and 8 days later he got a biometrics appointment for only about 2 weeks later. I was able to go with him into the ASC and if it took 10 minutes I'd be lying. This is, I note, the same office that USCIS told me over the phone was jammed up, leading to a 8-month delay in getting an appointment. There was one other applicant in there before him, and then two entered while he was being processed. Advice: this falls under "if you know someone who is an attorney who is willing to help you for nothing or maybe just a dinner, ask them to help." Theoretically you don't need an attorney and YMMV but nothing happened until I stepped in in a professional capacity. Third: Even though I am supposed to receive copies of all notices from USCIS, I still have not received a notice that the certificate was mailed. So.... when you want to poo all over attorneys for not updating you, consider that they may not be getting notices either. Again: YMMV. I'm not an immigration attorney and they may have some special sauce. So the process took a year in total, with about 4 months of actual, you know, processing time. Passport application is going to be submitted at the end of the month. And so, at last -- I hope! -- shall endeth my visa journey.

Usual prefatory remarks here -- I'm a lawyer, but not a Texas lawyer, and definitely not anyone's on here. All that being said: the judge is correct. He does not have personal jurisdiction over the absent spouse. I will not bore anyone with the topic of personal jurisdiction, but in general state courts are unable to "hale" into court anyone who is outside of their state, unless there is a long-arm statute on the books that permits them to do so, and thus establish PJ over the out of state person. Out of state PJ is not unlimited though, and in order to exercise it certain criteria must be met. This is the case here. If you look at the "Original Petition of Divorce" in Texas (accessible here: https://texaslawhelp.org/sites/default/files/2021-09/fm-divb-100_div_w_kids_petition_english_petitioner.pdf), it gives a thorough rundown of when a Texas judge may exert PJ over an out of state defendant in divorce proceedings: Do any of these apply? Apparently not, if I am reading the OP's posts correctly. A quick consult with a TX family attorney is the best bet here if the spouse is not willing to submit to TX jurisdiction and file a waiver of service or answer. Looks like service by publication can get a little hairy in TX if there is any property involved and would not be a DIY proposition. Good luck. Contrary to popular opinion, attorneys are actually useful members of society every so often.

I've been helping my ex get a replacement certificate of naturalization for the same reason as your wife -- hadn't gotten his passport yet, and then when he went to do so he could not locate it. We presume he lost it during a move in 2020. He filed online and provided a written statement, which I replicate below with a couple of redactions: He attached the photo he referenced above, which clearly showed the certificate. He also uploaded a high-resolution copy of the photograph, which when zoomed in upon shows the document's details. Note: there is no need to file by mail. Online filing provides ample opportunity to upload any documents you feel may be useful in establishing your wife's case. We have had some deeply irritating delays involving his biometrics, but at last he's going tomorrow afternoon. I have a thread going if you're interested in seeing how we've handled it. People going through the I-565 process are very rare on here, so I'm happy to help if I can. https://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/772642-in-case-of-emergency-what-happens-if-youre-sans-us-passport-but-you-need-to-go-home/

Holy moly -- the USCIS wheels have turned. 8 days after my phone call pleading the good doctor's case, they issued an appointment notice for biometrics, which just came in the mail today. It's at a completely different ASC than either the one he was first assigned to or the one we requested which is... interesting. In any event, he will be there.

Thanks guys. This is very useful info. I'm still waiting on her to send back my appointment as her representative, so when I chase I'll ask about what was presented at the time of naturalization. It was quite a long time ago, though. It looks like she has two level 3 documents and three level 4 documents. We'll see where I get. She entered the US back in the pre-revolutionary Iran era, so we are talking a LONG time that this has been an error. In fact, while we were nosing around we found out my boss also has the wrong birthdate on his SSA record, so after I fix it for his cousin he's next up. I'll report back -- this may eventually be useful for someone else caught in a similar bind. And for everyone else -- check your SSA file and make sure yours is correct. You don't want to end up finding out there's an error in a time of crisis.

Asking for a client rather than myself. Here's the situation as I know it: Client is a naturalized USA citizen, born in Iran. Naturalization was in 1999. Client was recently booted off her health insurance -- she is now eligible for Medicare because she turned 65 in July of this year, and that terminated her coverage. Client needs to have two surgeries which, while elective, she really should have. Client tried to sign up for Medicare but was told she is not yet eligible, because the Social Security Administration has her birthdate down as February 1958 (!). Client goes in-person to local SSA with the following original documents, all of which show the identical July 1957 birthdate: Certificate of naturalization US Passport Current driver's license She also brings her SS card and a copy of her most recent CA state tax return, the latter of which shows her July 1957 birthdate. SSA was predictably useless and told her none of these documents are acceptable to substantiate her date of birth. They want to see her Iranian birth certificate, which she does not have. Client protests and asks to speak with a manager; worker she is dealing with says he (the worker) will speak with the manager for her. Comes back and says manager agrees. Manger does not come out. Client is my boss's first cousin, so even though this is totally outside of my wheelhouse (I do commercial property law), I gotta do it. My first impression here is that this is all BS. If the person is presenting both a Certificate of Naturalization AND a passport, surely this is enough to substantiate the date of birth. What does a birth certificate from Iran say that is more convincing to the SSA than what USCIS and DHS have to say about her true date of birth? Now, the client can get the BC, but she says it is likely that it will take longer to do that than wait until February of next year. Beyond that, she will have to wait for these surgeries. I believe she could get cover in the interim on the private market, but she shouldn't pay over the odds for something that is the SSA's mistake. Anyway, here's the question -- is this just a matter of trying a different office and seeing if that works? Does anyone have a link to something on the SSA website showing what documentation is acceptable to prove date of birth? I have started my own research on this but if anyone has insight, I'd be grateful so she can wave it in a worker's face if necessary. I'm putting a call in to the number provided by the SSA for these questions but any additional insight is useful. Thanks in advance for any help.

Dude, I wasn't making it about me, I was using myself as an example, or more properly, a counterpoint. I was also pointing out that your words could hurt people who need support of the kind we both got, and the kind that we've both given. You and I both know what it's like being on the precipice. Compassion for people in hard places can be hard, but it's often very rewarding. You know that. Be well, and keep well.