Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


elmcitymaven last won the day on October 7 2016

elmcitymaven had the most liked content!


About elmcitymaven

  • Rank
    class traitor
  • Birthday June 5
  • Member # 31091

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • City
    Los Angeles, CA
  • Interests
    Abiding by the TOS.

Immigration Info

  • Immigration Status
    Naturalization (approved)
  • Local Office
    Los Angeles CA
  • Country
    United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

30,983 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Update: still nothing. May I say that the staff of Sen. Padilla's office is useless -- no response to a request for assistance, not even a message to acknowledge receipt. But they are spamming the email used to send it and asking for money! Nice. I'm putting a request into his congressman's office on Monday. I filed the G-28 for him last week and am now appearing as his attorney so I can handle stuff with USCIS directly. First off -- what magic was this that someone answered the phone in 18 minutes? That was about the only good thing that happened. Anyway, the operator confirmed that the application is still pending. I asked why it was taking 7 months to reschedule biometrics (!) and was told that it's totally dependent on the capacity of the ASC. Early on in this whole mishigas we asked them to reassign him from the downtown LA ASC to the one in Chatsworth because it's much closer to where he lives. They said fine at the time. Great, great. But now we're left wondering: was asking for the reassignment a terrible mistake? Chatsworth is much smaller than the one downtown. I asked about walk-ins and the operator told me nope, don't even try it. We'd get turned away. So my question is: does anyone think there is any merit in me calling back and asking for biometrics to be reassigned back to downtown LA? After 7 months of total inaction, I am leaning towards doing anything to make things move. Any thoughts on this are much appreciated. I am so out of the immigration game that I don't know if I'm getting snowed or not on any of this.
  6. All part of the service, friend. Like any good dealer, the first one's on the house.
  7. Good for you, LIB. Rock on with your bad self. Many of us and the people we love can't "figure it out" on our lonesomes. I'd say I'm pretty successful by the usual markers, and also by my own estimation. Great career, challenging and interesting work. Strong, supportive partner, loving and functional family. Tight-knit circle of friends. Enough money that (sorry to say it and it's not meant as a flex) inflation isn't affecting me in any meaningful way. (I keep thinking I have morphed into Lucille Bluth from Arrested Development, asking how much can one banana cost, $10?) I describe myself as "happy" which is something I couldn't always say about myself until pretty recently. I'm strolling around in the top slice of a Maslow pyramid, smelling the flowers, all self-actualized and stuff (most days). I know I'm lucky, but I also worked for it. Hard. One of the ways I worked for it was through therapy. I have mild to moderate PTSD from an incident in my young adult life that played out in increasingly destructive ways as I got older. I also have an anxiety disorder that was diagnosed in my late 20s. Trying to "figure it out on my own" wasn't working, but not for want of trying. I needed help and I got it. Doing pretty awesome right now if I do say so myself! Even with a college education and high regard for, like, y'know, the social contract (note to self: Am I actually a loser?). Like a lot of other successful people out there, I bet. (Note to self: Definitely a loser.) I'm moving on past something that has been holding me back for 25 years. Good for me for putting in the work, talking it all out, learning to trust myself more. I'm not on medication because talk therapy works for me. Works for me right now, that is. I've used meds in the past when I was depressed. As @beloved_dingo pointed out, there's a difference between acute, situational depression and chronic depression. I've had both, and for me SSRIs worked for the chronic depression and benzos worked for the acute flavor, mostly because my anxiety was out of control during these times (loss of a loved one; marital infidelity). I had work to do, a life to live, and lying basically catatonic on the couch for days wasn't cutting it because I'm an adult and have responsibilities. I talked it out with therapists, took the meds until my shrink said I could get off them (and they didn't want me to be on them any longer than I needed) and moved on with my life. Haven't had a depressive incident since 2011. Might not again, but I might. I know what to do if I do. Because mental illness is illness. It needs medical intervention. Being depressed isn't having a bad week or month. It's a body and a brain in chaos. Wounded and in need of help. When I got whiplash a few years ago in a car accident, I saw a doctor. When I had scarlet fever as a kid, my parents took me to the doctor. Migraines that affected my ability to work? Doctor. Tooth pain? Dentist who shamed me for my British dental work and fixed the problem once and for all. Serious illness needs help. No shame in it. I really do want to say again, good for you for doing it on your own. Good for you. But to belittle others who don't -- because bodies are different, brains are different, circumstances are different -- isn't necessary for your success to still stand. Be proud of it! No clue why you need to put others down to big yourself up but hey, we're all different. You do you, boo. I'm certainly doing me because it seems to be working GREAT.
  8. Service by publication is absolutely permissible under TN law and is probably a good choice here. As someone who spent months during 2020 trying to serve a Russian oligarch with a complaint, ask me how much fun it is to try to effect even substitute service on someone who's resident in Russia, even before the war. (Hint: it was not fun, except when we got the court to grant an order allowing us to serve the guy via email. That felt fantastic, because his US lawyers were [insert nasty plural noun].) Service by publication usually requires a showing that something more than "I tried" -- have you exhausted all regular means of service? Can you document your efforts? That's what they're looking for. The impossibility of service by regular means will help, too. A few other points to the OP: PLEASE seek competent local counsel. PLEASE! That your attorney didn't mention service by publication right off the bat is worrying. Yes, there are hoops to jump through, but you look likely to be able to jump through them. Ask people you know for personal referrals, and read Google reviews as well as Martindale-Hubbell for peer reviews. (Google reviews of lawyers tend to be more informative, in my personal opinion, than Yelp reviews.) Also, I looked at your timeline and you were married for under 18 months before you split. Now, I don't claim to know anything about TN family law (see my closing remarks below), but family courts are courts of equity. This means that the judge is empowered to weigh all sorts of different factors in deciding how to distribute the marital estate, and whether either party has a right to spousal support, and how much, for how long, and from where. In your favor: short marriage, never lived together, little (if any?) financial comingling, likely little to no showing of financial dependence of one spouse upon the other, and (I'm guessing) your husband is still relatively young and capable of gainful employment at or around the same level of seniority and pay as before the marriage, notwithstanding factors outside of his and your control like the war. Working against you: that you were married at all, and I'm guessing no prenup. Theoretically, your husband may be entitled to a portion (not necessarily half, and unlikely to be given the factors I listed above) of the real and personal property you acquired during the duration of the marriage. This means normal earnings from a job, investment dividends, cars and other big-ticket items, and any real estate. It doesn't mean any inheritances or personal injury proceeds, plus anything you brought into the marriage or anything you designated as your own separate property. Of all that, the salary and investment earnings are the most likely targets, but even then -- you were only married 16 months before the date of separation to someone you never lived with as your spouse. You aren't required to give him a better life -- the court needs to ensure that he is not worse off economically for marrying you. A judge isn't going to make a person in a 16-month marriage pay for the other spouse's education, give him a leg up, or set him up for life. Particularly someone who (forgive me if I am wrong) is likely not a squillionaire. In my personal opinion, do not pay this man money to go away without letting the court shepherd you through this a little. It could be you can walk away with an order of dissolution without needing to pay him a penny. Is he planning on having local representation? How's he going to pay for that? Contingency fee agreements are not a thing under TN law as it relates to "domestic relations" matters such as obtaining a divorce or alimony so he needs to pay. He's blowing smoke up your heinie (legal term) and trying to get you to cough up without him having to spend anything. Stuff that. Once you serve him, whether by publication (affordable) or court order permitting service by email (less affordable, requires much more attorney work), he's in the case. If he's a no show, he gets no chance to make his case -- but that's his problem, not yours. Right now, start gathering all your evidence. That you didn't support him, that there was little to no financial comingling, what he was earning before the marriage, etc. Find a good local attorney with at least some experience of international divorce. Paying him now to go away, when you don't have an order you can enforce in court, is just opening a tap that he isn't going to want to turn off. The courts are here to help enforce rights, yours and his. Take advantage of them. Touchy-feely stuff: I know this feels like junk right now. I have been divorced twice, and they both felt like hell for different reasons. (Note: do not marry your first boyfriend after you divorce -- rebound divorce is real!) But it truly does test your mettle and can be transformative. Big girl pants time now. You can do this. Closing remarks in disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but not anyone on here's lawyer, and I'm a California lawyer and definitely NOT a Tennessee family lawyer, so everything I just said is just plain ol' "I'm trying to be helpful in a, you know, friendly capacity" so don't rely on anything I said in court -- seek qualified local counsel. And to the OP specifically: your soon to be ex sucks. I'm glad you figured it out before you had to suffer through marriage together.
  9. Nothing's changed, dude. I've been here over 15 years and it's always been full of Judgey McJudgefaces, exercising their internet-given right to judge. I've been both judge and judged, and after a while, I've embraced the hate and let it flow through me. I'm always here for a decent flounce though.
  10. Personally, I'm ageing backwards. When you get sworn in, you're Fedexed a starter pack of adrenochrome. Eventually, you will need to re-up, but this is a fairly straightforward process administered by Vons (aka Safeway). With every $100 purchase of mid-range champagne and 8oz packet of sustainably-raised smoked salmon, and a swipe of your bar card, you get enough baby blood to keep you going for another lunar cycle. Really an amazing value!
  11. As you know, NB, every time I am invoked a small gong is struck in my infernal lair to alert me to a summoning. I would have been here earlier, but the wages of sin are earned through typing way too many emails on exceedingly boring topics. Also we had pastries in the office kitchen today, which was distracting. I am afraid that I am here to spoil the fun, yet again. What if I were to tell you that this case boils down to some of the most dull topics conceivable for a Friday night, specifically the enforceability of arbitration awards through the courts, statutory interpretation, and the rights of a third party in intervention? I read the actual opinion, which is 15 pages of my eyeballs' reading life I will never recoup. (Sadness.) It's fairly easy to understand why the court did what it did, although there is the question of what precisely was in the insurance policy, as it apparently was not in the record reviewed by the appeals court. Anyway, here's how we got here: Fun fun sexytimes in the back of a Genesis lead to HPV when the driver knew he had the virus but failed to tell his partner. This is literally the most exciting part of the case and frankly, yeeeuuucccccccch. Partner gets HPV, and before filing an action for damages, presents a claim in settlement to GEICO. GEICO tells her to go away, the policy doesn't cover the claim, and she needs to take it up against the insured. This is crucial! Partner and insured enter into a special agreement under Missouri law (California has a similar law I am aware of) wherein the parties agree to limit damages to whatever the insured defendant's limits are if the insurer has refused to provide coverage. The agreement also provides that the dispute shall be handled through arbitration, and not through the courts. The statute also requires that a notice be given to the insurer within 30 days of entering into such an agreement, which the parties deliver. The insurer then has the opportunity to intervene in any litigation that results from the arbitration. After a full hearing during which both partner and insured presented evidence and gave testimony, the arbitrator made a finding that the insured was negligent leading to the partner's damages. The parties agree that they will not dispute the finding, and will file a new action in court to enforce the judgment as soon as possible. One week after the arbitration award, the partner files a lawsuit to affirm the arbitration award so that it becomes a judgment that is enforceable at law. This way she can collect from GEICO who is the insurer of, uh, the insured. Courts are pretty much required to affirm arbitration awards in the absence of corruption, fraud or undue means. It's a statute that says "shall" rather than "may" affirm. Not much wiggle room for what is essentially a ministerial act, and the court reduces the award to a judgment. Shortly thereafter, GEICO seeks leave to intervene after the judgment has been entered. They argue that they were not given any real opportunity to argue that the policy does not extend to the passing of naughty diseases in the back of a car, so the award should be vacated so they can make their arguments. But..... GEICO did have such an opportunity when the partner presented her claim in settlement, but they told her to get lost. They could have said they would defend in any such action but they passed. Too bad, so sad. Furthermore, when an intervenor comes into an action, like GEICO did in post-judgment proceedings, they take the case where it currently stands. In the case, a judgment had already been entered. They had no right as a third party to disturb the judgment in the absence of any fraud/collusion/etc., and GEICO failed to provide evidence of such. There was no right to relitigate when GEICO had the opportunity but said "nah, brah" and noped out. GEICO also pointed to a part of the statute that said a party has 90 days after receiving notice of the award to challenge the award prior to entry of judgment, and therefore they could go in and argue their case. Court said no, you were not a party to the case when the partner sought confirmation of the award or at any prior time. Sorry! Finally, GEICO's arguments that they had no opportunity to defend and litigate their own interests in violation of the US and Missouri Constitutions held no water. They passed when given the chance. Not only that, GEICO had also filed a separate action in federal court for declaratory relief to determine its obligations to the insured under the policy -- so they had a forum in which to litigate their interests. The decision was correct and the reasoning is very sound. It is important to note that while the judgment is currently enforceable against GEICO, the outcome of the federal dec relief claim may mean that they in fact have no obligation to pay. This is where the mysterious agreement comes in -- there is no copy out there that I could find, just a lot of people guessing that poor draftsmanship led to this result. I'd say watch this space, but really, do any of us want to watch venereal disease in action? I apologize if I inadvertently kink-shame anyone by that question. Now do I get admitted to the damn platinum plan??????????
  12. The difficulty is proving intent. Let's look at the text (emphasis mine): Intent is difficult to prove in the absence of overt statements like "unless you find Jack Sprat innocent, we're going to dig up your prize rose bushes" -- a mild threat, but a threat made with the intent to influence a judge who loves his rose bushes. At that point, you're looking for objective, circumstantial evidence to prove subjective intent. This is a little more straightforward when you're dealing with, say, extortion, and a little less when you're treading into what resembles more closely First Amendment activity. Keep in mind that federal prosecutors haaaaaaaaaaate bringing charges they think they can't get a conviction on. When you're wandering into First Amendmentland, the ground is uncertain if the government is trying to curtail speech. Restrictions on free speech must be narrowly tailored, even when not content-based. Remember: this is a good thing. I looked yesterday at the line of cases which deal with 18 USC 1507 and to be honest, there's not much out there. 32 cases on Westlaw, in fact. This should tell you something! Protesting at a justice's home isn't in and of itself a crime. It comes back to "the intent to influence" which -- though I admit to some bias here -- is kind of nebulous in the current circumstances. If the protestors are demonstrating not to change the minds of justices but rather to express their disgust and dismay at the draft opinion, this is protected speech, end of, cops there only to keep the peace, etc. If the protestors are there with the intent to change the justices' minds so that the opinion is redrafted to favor the position of the demonstrators, then potentially yes, there has been a violation of the statute. How do you delineate between those in the former category from the latter? What happens if many people are charged with violation of the statute who fell into the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore so I'm going to tell you you suck" camp, and all those charges are thrown out? That's a whole lotta civil rights lawsuits coming down the pike, and potentially beaucoup bucks that Uncle Sam will have to pony up. Bear in mind, these are misdemeanors. The hassle of charging hundreds of people with petty crimes of speech-based civil disobedience -- in the absence of damage to property or persons -- is outweighed by the potential exposure to civil liability. Cops should be there to keep the peace, and protestors should understand the limits of their freedom of expression.
  13. Awesome -- thanks so much. I've been out of the immigration loop for so long that I can't remember how much of it works. Our experience at every other stage was exceptionally quick and drama-free, including his naturalization, so this is the first time we've ever faced an actual USCIS hurdle.
  14. Thank you, and yes, I am now an old. Not quite old enough for the AARP yet, but they sent me a threatening postcard last year along the lines of: Get ready, gurl. We know where you live. But what we all really need to know is -- B_J, how are your pleated khakis these days? I always respected your commitment to the pleats in a flat-front society.
  15. Yes, y'all are definitely high. I'd say don't bogart that but alas, I do not partake. Recently noted that my 15th VJ-aversary was last month. Shocking. Quite pleased to report that Mr U and I are about to hit 11 years in early June -- we're disgustingly, sick-makingly in lurrrrvvvvve. This week a young woman in my office told me he and I are "relationship goals" which is both charming and revolting. THANKS LADY! Mr U has also put a ring on it, at last. No wedding is imminent as we're finally buying a home together this year, which takes precedence over nuptials. But VJ's most eligible bachelorette will very soon be off the market, and no further applications will be accepted.
  • Create New...