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

29,009 profile views
  1. Hon, I only comment when I think I can spur good commentary from right and left. Because the law floats in between. I've been stupid busy leaving how to Law like a Lawyer and one of my first assignments is to write an appellate brief like NO BIG DEAL when a particular subsection of a municipal code could be struck down as unconstitutional and maybe invalidated but whatever, no pressure. 😭
  2. You don't need an underlying crime for a charge of obstruction of justice to stick. Just ask Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby. Unfortunately, having weighed the opinions of nearly 500 (and counting) federal prosecutors against NB, I tend to agree the prosecutors on this occasion. Sorry NB. ❤️
  3. Further, if (if!) the plaintiff were to prevail on this narrow issue AND Remington appealed, the ultimate appellate court is the Connecticut Supreme Court, not SCOTUS, as the advertising ground is an independent state ground over which SCOTUS has no jurisdiction.
  4. *sigh* Let's parse what that brief sentence means, because, as always, context is key. "Democracy" here does not mean "direct democracy." "Democracy" here is a metonym for the democratic process. The act of voting by citizens is part of the democratic process, though of course one does not have to have democracy to have voting by citizenry. But in this country, voting is the most obvious manifestation of the citizen's involvement in the democratic process. It does the democratic process good to do the democratic process well. Clearer? Putting aside the fact that you're stuffing words into my mouth that I called America a pure democracy (which I did not), America is not merely a constitutional republic. We are also a representative democracy. Ask my main man, Eugene Volokh, well-known librul fool. We do not have our republican form of government without representative democracy. It really isn't any more complicated than that. I think Ronald Reagan said it well:
  5. I think there are a couple of good reasons. First, it does democracy good to do democracy well. That means an opportunity to run an election as it should be run -- free, fair and above reproach. If any election is likely this year (or next) to be watched carefully to ensure it hews to propriety, it's this one. Both sides have a lot riding on it. Second, because the election was tainted, we will never know what the true tally was. Maybe Harris would have won had the election been fair, maybe not. We can't know. The only way to know is to run it again. Maybe Harris will win, and if he does, shame on those who would put party over propriety. But I would not take away their right to have their values reflected just because I think their reasoning is asinine.
  6. There's also the problem of subject matter jurisdiction -- since the former spouses are citizens of the same state, even if the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 (which we do not know), a federal court CAN'T hear this case. There's no federal question that arises, even though 18 U.S.C. § 228 is out there, and even if it were cited in any claim brought before the court (which again we do not know), because the children are located in the same state and the statute requires them to be out of state. It's not even a matter of exhausting remedies -- it's only applicable if dad is in one state and the kids are in another with mom. Since there's no subject matter jurisdiction for a federal court, this can't be heard there. It's a state matter. (I write this as I am literally revising federal civil procedure notes for the bar exam next week and I have been thinking way too much about subject matter jurisdiction than is healthy for anyone.)
  7. Hi Natalie -- fellow (former) English law student here! Just a heads up -- if you aren't doing a training contract or a pupillage after law school, bear in mind that you *may* need to do additional year(s) in law school if you wish to pass the bar and practice in one of the states. I say this as someone who is currently 2 weeks out from taking the California bar exam, which is pretty much the hardest one in the country. After I finished my LPC, I didn't do a training contract and went to work in investment management in London. Fast forward 10 years, and I found out that in California, where I live, I had to start over from scratch with a full JD! I worked full time and went to school part time for four years. YMMV -- some states will only require an extra year to "cure" the issue, and others are more loosey-goosey. Hit me up (after the bar exam) if you need any details. Of course if you don't intend to practice, you're probably smarter than I ever was.
  8. Yes, I learned about that from renowned leftists David Boaz and Eugene Volokh some years ago. A simple aide-memoire: Eminent domain for wall good, for NYC buildings bad. Since I am thinking about eminent domain more now than I care to, as bar prep drags on: the Constitutional threshold for eminent domain is really, shockingly low. Under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as extended to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, the government may take private property for public use only if just compensation is paid. Just compensation is fair market value. A public use is a use that is in the general interest of the public, and not just for a government purpose. Acquisition may occur over the owner’s protest as long as just compensation is paid. It isn't hard to make an argument that rehabilitation of blighted or neglected buildings is in the public interest. Arguments on even more spurious grounds (Kelo v. New London is the most obvious and famous case) have succeeded. The landlords here will be paid market value for these buildings, so it's not like they will be left with nothing. Also, this program has been around since 1996, so not sure what the deal is now except that Di Blasio is a bogeyman for some -- don't say his name three times at midnight in the dark into a mirror or Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton will appear with AOC in their wake! With all that being said, I think eminent domain sucks. It's rarely justified and the burden for the government to prove a public use is way, WAY too low. I'm a capitalist; it's the least worst way to run an economy. I think that unless your building or land causes a real blight on the community and you refuse to do anything about it after ample opportunity to remediate, the government has no business taking your property away, just compensation or no. Levy fines, yes. Provide access to loans or tax abatement to fix up homes, yes. Some carrots, some sticks. But confiscation is some greedy **** I cannot get behind. Peace be with you all, back to studying. 💖
  9. Yes, I do know about waiting periods for both eligibility to file in a particular jurisdiction, and for a divorce to become final. Here in California, for example, spouses who are parties to a summary dissolution of marriage – essentially, an uncontested and collaborative dissolution proceeding available where the spouses have few or no joint assets or debts and have been married for fewer than five years – must wait six months after submitting their judgment paperwork to get the final decree. In Rhode Island, the only requirement for a no-fault divorce is that at least one of the spouses has lived in the state for a year. The questions I have are relating to a judge ordering the parties to therapy before he or she will agree to enter judgment, and the imposition of a three year waiting period notwithstanding the spouses filing under the “no-fault” statute (2013 G.L. § 15-5-3.1). Before asking my question of the OP, I reviewed the Rhode Island statutes relating to divorce to determine if a judge in family court has the discretion to make such orders. I also skimmed articles written by several Rhode Island divorce attorneys. Afterwards, I also read a fairly recent law review article (available here: http://rogerwilliamslawreview.org/files/2014/10/Kruger.pdf) on the role of fault in “no-fault” divorce in Rhode Island. I couldn’t find anything about ordering spouses to therapy, or a judge being able to compel the parties to file under the 3-year separation statute (2013 G.L. § 15-5-3) when they are otherwise eligible to file for a no-fault divorce. While family courts are courts of equity, including Rhode Island, and courts of equity have broader authority in general than courts of law to use discretion to resolve matters in order to achieve something like equality between the parties, an order making the entry of judgment contingent upon therapy a little arbitrary and capricious. For example, what makes a successful outcome of therapy? Is it the mere attendance at, say, six sessions regardless of the parties’ engagement in the sessions? Is it a therapist pronouncing the parties have resolved their marital differences, even if the sessions should take 20 years to get there? What does success look like, and would that success be the same for every judge? Although ordering spouses to mediation as a contingency for the entry of judgment is to be expected in contested divorces, mediation is usually to iron out issues like spousal and child support and the distribution of assets. It’s not to make these people try to resolve their marital differences, but rather their differences relating to their post-marital lives. Further, it is not uncommon in divorce proceedings that the court will bifurcate the matter, so that the issue of dissolution can be resolved before the distribution is, since most divorcing spouses just want to get on with their lives, even if the money isn’t completely worked out yet. Compelling the parties to remain married when they are eligible to have their marriage dissolved is contrary (thankfully) to the availability of no-fault statutes, and smacks of the kind of paternalism that such statutes are intended to remove from the judicial system. TL/DR: I read around in the area and found no reference to RI courts having the discretion to make a final judgment contingent upon therapy or a three-year separation when the parties are otherwise eligible for a no-fault divorce. I would love to see a reference because it seems pretty out there!
  10. Do you have a citation for this? While I could see a judge using his or her discretion when it comes to property distribution, this seems... odd.
  11. I guess none of us will change your mind, so if you are happy not taking that route, that's fine and prudent. And yes, admission is at the discretion of a CBP officer looking at the totality of the evidence presented by the non-USC seeking admission. But it is 100% okay -- regardless of whether both fiances are living abroad or not -- to come over to get married to a USC and then depart. There's no change in government policy. Either the officer believes that you do not have immigrant intent or he/she doesn't.
  12. Definitely not correct. Source: I did this, and my UK spouse (now my ex) not only had no problems when we applied for the CR-1, he's now a citizen with zero issues. We were living together in London but wanted to get married in the US. So we flew over, married in Vermont, and after the ceremony (and a brief vacation) we returned to the UK together. He was completely up front with CBP when he entered on his ESTA (it was the VWP still back then) and said he was coming to the States to marry his American fiancee, with whom he lived in London, and then return back to the UK. Stamped through, no problem. Filed the I-130 and got the CR-1 about 5 months later through direct consular filing. The problem comes when you come over on an ESTA to marry with the intent to stay and adjust status. No one here is recommending that route (and to do so would be in violation of the TOS). Coming for a visit with the intent to marry and then depart, after which time the I-130 is submitted, is absolutely fine. The question is one of intent. Think about it -- there would be no US destination wedding industry to sell to other countries if that were not the case! People come from all over the world to have a Vegas wedding, or get married on a beach in Hawaii. As long as they came in without the intent to stay permanently in the US, there is nothing wrong about getting married in the US as a tourist. Either the immigration lawyer didn't know what he was talking about, or you didn't understand what the lawyer was saying.
  13. I have been on since 2007, I'm divorced from my spouse now and still helped him get naturalized, and I have been housemates with someone I met on VJ since 2010! (Both our marriages went down the proverbial at the same time and we were living in the same time, and both needed to move out of our marital homes.) I've vacationed with people from VJ (including a former mod) and even hired someone to work in my office after getting to know her online here. In other words, I need a life. Seriously, I am still so happy to see people getting through the process, and getting through it TOGETHER, giving each other support and guidance.
  14. I have been checking this thread every week since our naturalization was complete back in April, just to see if your interview was FINALLY set. You have had to wait such a long time, and you filed the same day as we did. So glad to see that it came at last.
  • Create New...