marriage on tourist visa

[rebeccajo 14]

Unauthorized practice often leads to ethics issues. Which can lead to trouble for you.

You seem like a fairly bright guy. I wouldn't think I'd have to wax on exponentially for you to get what I was saying.

I have no idea why you continue to wax exponentially on this topic when I've already explained it on a few occassions. Immigration lawyers are certainly allowed to analyze, work on and otherwise "practice law" with respect to corporate matters; criminal defense lawyers are certainly allowed to analyze, work on and otherwise "practice law" with respect to real estate matters, etc... Likewise, there is no unauthorized practice of law problem with corporate lawyers analyzing immigration matters. Since immigration law, as discussed here, consists of only federal law, with a few exceptions there is generally no need for lawyers to apply for any additional bar licenses to avoid UPL charges. In other words, corporate, immigration, criminal and every other type of lawyer out there generally has the same exact right to practice immigration law. Are we finally clear on this?

As I've also explained to you, although the definition of "practice of law" varies state to state, in my humble opinion the discussion in this thread is actually a lot LESS likely to even constitute "practice of law" then most of the threads/posts on VJ. What most of the non-lawyer VJ posters do not realize is that under certain circumstances their posts expressing an opinion on various immigration issues, telling others about the best way to complete certain forms, suggesting that they file various forms such as waivers, AP's, EAD's and numerous others can be deemed a "practice of law," which can present a number of problems for those posters. If you would like to become an anti-UPL crusader, you may want to start focusing on those posts.

Just continue to go about whatever it is you do. It's not going to matter what anybody says to you anyway.

I've been around lawyers for the last 20 years of my life. I learned a long time ago that if one of them decides to cop a superior attitude, you just might as well shut up and let them enjoy the sound of their own voice. Because there's always another lawyer or judge with more power and a bigger, haughtier attitude that will put them in their place one day.

Edited January 18, 2007 by rebeccajo

[am1996 0]

I've been around lawyers for the last 20 years of my life. I learned a long time ago that if one of them decides to cop a superior attitude, you just might as well shut up and let them enjoy the sound of their own voice. Because there's always another lawyer or judge with more power and a bigger, haughtier attitude that will put them in their place one day.

It's not superior attitude, it's knowledge. Speaking of superior attitudes, however, aren't you a secretary at a small West Virginia firm? There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a secretary but there is everything wrong with constantly creating posts about complex issues such as UPL that you know absolutely nothing about. Oh, and speaking of unauthorized practice of law, you might want to first consider your own posts (http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=49379&st=15) -- not only did you make profoundly false statements in that thread but also combined them with legal analysis and conclusions. Edited January 19, 2007 by am1996

[rebeccajo 14]

I've been around lawyers for the last 20 years of my life. I learned a long time ago that if one of them decides to cop a superior attitude, you just might as well shut up and let them enjoy the sound of their own voice. Because there's always another lawyer or judge with more power and a bigger, haughtier attitude that will put them in their place one day.

It's not superior attitude, it's knowledge. Speaking of superior attitudes, however, aren't you a secretary at a small West Virginia firm? There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a secretary but there is everything wrong with constantly creating posts about complex issues such as UPL that you know absolutely nothing about. Oh, and speaking of unauthorized practice of law, you might want to first consider your own posts (http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=49379&st=15) -- not only did you make profoundly false statements in that thread but also combined them with legal analysis and conclusions.

You really are something aren't you? Does that make you feel better to belittle my career and the place I live? Nice work. Did they give you that priggish attitude when they handed you your JD or were you born with it?

I made no false statements in that thread - that was a political and rhetorical discussion wherein I was trying to draw the reader into realizing just how serious a matter adjustment of status is. I made no recommendations to readers as to anything they should do, nor suggested any course of action to them.

And before you bore the living hell out of me further with your analysis of adjustment of status, let me just say to you, in advance, that I'm not interested.

[jsnearline 2]

Now kids... play nice... You're giving VJ a bad name.

[am1996 0]

You really are something aren't you? Does that make you feel better to belittle my career and the place I live? Nice work. Did they give you that priggish attitude when they handed you your JD or were you born with it?

I made no false statements in that thread - that was a political and rhetorical discussion wherein I was trying to draw the reader into realizing just how serious a matter adjustment of status is. I made no recommendations to readers as to anything they should do, nor suggested any course of action to them.

And before you bore the living hell out of me further with your analysis of adjustment of status, let me just say to you, in advance, that I'm not interested.

I've actually been quite tolerant of your "quasi-legal" analysis on this board filled with buzz words that you clearly do not understand. As such, your career and the place you live was not belittled -- you announced that you've been around lawyers for 20 years and implied, as you have been doing throughout VJ, that you have knowledge of the law. To that, I simply pointed out that you've been a secretary at a small firm and that, as such, you have no legal training or experience and that, judging by your posts, you do not understand most of the terminology that you've been using.

Please note that my response came only after you made several posts in this thread that had nothing to do with the subject matter thereof and that continued to bring up an issue that you knew very little if anything about. Every time I politely replied to your posts explaining the reasons that you were misunderstanding the issue. When for the 10th time in this thread you brought up the same exact issue that had already been addressed and explained to you on several occassions, you received the reply above.

As for your false statements in the thread above, do you still believe that Jane could've become a deportable alien for alleged minor traffic violations? Once again, your statements in that thread were not only baseless and false, but they also called for legal opinions and conclusions which you are not licensed to give. Since you seem to be quite concerned about UPL, I suggested that before looking at other people's post, you take a look at your own.

[TracyTN 237]

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I will say that you (am1996) seem to 'talk down' to people quite a bit.

Maybe one day we'll all be as smart as you. *SIGH* Dare to dream...

[rebeccajo 14]

You really are something aren't you? Does that make you feel better to belittle my career and the place I live? Nice work. Did they give you that priggish attitude when they handed you your JD or were you born with it?

I made no false statements in that thread - that was a political and rhetorical discussion wherein I was trying to draw the reader into realizing just how serious a matter adjustment of status is. I made no recommendations to readers as to anything they should do, nor suggested any course of action to them.

And before you bore the living hell out of me further with your analysis of adjustment of status, let me just say to you, in advance, that I'm not interested.

I've actually been quite tolerant of your "quasi-legal" analysis on this board filled with buzz words that you clearly do not understand. As such, your career and the place you live was not belittled -- you announced that you've been around lawyers for 20 years and implied, as you have been doing throughout VJ, that you have knowledge of the law. To that, I simply pointed out that you've been a secretary at a small firm and that, as such, you have no legal training or experience and that, judging by your posts, you do not understand most of the terminology that you've been using.

Please note that my response came only after you made several posts in this thread that had nothing to do with the subject matter thereof and that continued to bring up an issue that you knew very little if anything about. Every time I politely replied to your posts explaining the reasons that you were misunderstanding the issue. When for the 10th time in this thread you brought up the same exact issue that had already been addressed and explained to you on several occassions, you received the reply above.

As for your false statements in the thread above, do you still believe that Jane could've become a deportable alien for alleged minor traffic violations? Once again, your statements in that thread were not only baseless and false, but they also called for legal opinions and conclusions which you are not licensed to give. Since you seem to be quite concerned about UPL, I suggested that before looking at other people's post, you take a look at your own.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a secretary. Why are you bothering me?

Edited January 19, 2007 by rebeccajo

[Kez/JWolf 6]

You really are something aren't you? Does that make you feel better to belittle my career and the place I live? Nice work. Did they give you that priggish attitude when they handed you your JD or were you born with it?

I made no false statements in that thread - that was a political and rhetorical discussion wherein I was trying to draw the reader into realizing just how serious a matter adjustment of status is. I made no recommendations to readers as to anything they should do, nor suggested any course of action to them.

And before you bore the living hell out of me further with your analysis of adjustment of status, let me just say to you, in advance, that I'm not interested.

I've actually been quite tolerant of your "quasi-legal" analysis on this board filled with buzz words that you clearly do not understand. As such, your career and the place you live was not belittled -- you announced that you've been around lawyers for 20 years and implied, as you have been doing throughout VJ, that you have knowledge of the law. To that, I simply pointed out that you've been a secretary at a small firm and that, as such, you have no legal training or experience and that, judging by your posts, you do not understand most of the terminology that you've been using.

Please note that my response came only after you made several posts in this thread that had nothing to do with the subject matter thereof and that continued to bring up an issue that you knew very little if anything about. Every time I politely replied to your posts explaining the reasons that you were misunderstanding the issue. When for the 10th time in this thread you brought up the same exact issue that had already been addressed and explained to you on several occassions, you received the reply above.

As for your false statements in the thread above, do you still believe that Jane could've become a deportable alien for alleged minor traffic violations? Once again, your statements in that thread were not only baseless and false, but they also called for legal opinions and conclusions which you are not licensed to give. Since you seem to be quite concerned about UPL, I suggested that before looking at other people's post, you take a look at your own.

OMG you are one jumped up jackass, get off your high horse and cut the I am a lawyer #######... this is a place for people to talk and share their immigration journey, not a place for wanna be immigration lawyers like you to come practise on... yes you are going through your own immigration journey but why can you take off your lawyer hat and just be a member of VJ and stop lording it....

You make me sick...

Kez

[am1996 0]

... and we are once again back to the adolescent pissing match

[Kez/JWolf 6]

It is many mant years since I have been an adolescent.... but as you said yesterday you need to listen to your own advise...

Cant you just be an ordenary user, why do you feel the need to practice your lawyer skills here? are you like this in your private life when you are away from the office... it would be so much nicer to be able to have a discussion with you without feeling that I am being lectured to by a lawyer/judge... so I dont think a pissing match has anything to do with the topic and as far as I am aware it is very dificult for woman to have pissing matches.... but I am sure you will be able to prove me wrong on that too...

Kez

[am1996 0]

It is many mant years since I have been an adolescent.... but as you said yesterday you need to listen to your own advise...

Cant you just be an ordenary user, why do you feel the need to practice your lawyer skills here? are you like this in your private life when you are away from the office... it would be so much nicer to be able to have a discussion with you without feeling that I am being lectured to by a lawyer/judge... so I dont think a pissing match has anything to do with the topic and as far as I am aware it is very dificult for woman to have pissing matches.... but I am sure you will be able to prove me wrong on that too...

Kez, please take another look at the posts in this thread and see who brought up the fact that I am a lawyer. Just a hint: it wasn't me. I simply replied to the OP's question, explained our feelings about the issue of adjusting status from a tourist visa and then posted links to handbooks/articles that supported those feelings. A discussion regarding the 30/60 day rule ensued, which is perfectly fine and appropriate.

Rebeccajo then interjected several times with off-topic comments about unauthorized practice of law. Although this thread was neither the time nor the place to discuss it, I politely addressed her comments, every time explaining to her why it was not an issue. Instead of verifying the accuracy of my explanation, she continued to post essentially the same exact off-topic comment that missed just about every issue related to UPL and then implied that she has extensive experience dealing with legal issues and then outright dismissed my substantive replies as "attitude." To that she received a reply pointing out that contrary to her assertions, her job experience did not expose her to the legal issues she was constantly trying to bring up and that her own posts in another thread were not only substantively incorrect but also involved legal analysis and opinions, which, in light of her apparent concerns over UPL, she may want to reconsider.

Once again, it makes no difference whether I am a lawyer or a janitor. Just READ the substance of the posts and of the supporting links and, if you disagree, post links to the contrary. At some point this used to be a rather informative substantive discussion -- now it is just an amusing flame war.

P.S.

Oh, and as for women finding it rather difficult to have pissing matches -- touche! Although, to be honest with you, I am not even sure how men would hold such a "match."

[Kez/JWolf 6]

You just don't get it do you....

oh well...

Kez

[am1996 0]

You just don't get it do you....

oh well...

Do you realize how rude comments such as the one I am quoting above sound? You have once again not addressed ANY of the substance of my post and have instead made a rude and a snide remark. You then complain about the replies that posts like that trigger.

[Kez/JWolf 6]

if you feel I have been rude to you then feel free to report me.... I realy dont care.... you will be who you think you are regardless of how others see you or interpret your posts....

Kez

[Boiler 43,877]

This comes up every now and then, there was a long thread some time back on www.briitishexpats.com

Anyway the conclusion was that there is no such rule, the thread had a number of IMMIGRATION Lawyers contributing.

That pretty much killed it as a topic, odd to see it come up here again.