Law School Discussion


Re: .....
« Reply #90 on: March 13, 2012, 04:33:05 PM »

But she also sees a life beyond the global horizon, saying, "I think that I am a pretty normal, average person, despite all of the hype. And I am very interested in spending time with my friends and my family and not being on the merry-go-round all the time."

That brings up an issue no woman wants to hear from friends, Clinton notes with a chuckle. "My friends call and email saying, 'Oh, my gosh, I saw you on television. You looked so tired.' Which I send back saying, 'Gee, thanks a lot.' But I know, because if you work around the clock like we do, that's just inevitable. So I do try to take some time, long weekends, take some deep breathing. I do exercise, yoga, those kinds of things. But no, I'm never tired about the work. It's just the physical challenge."

"I was just walking through the mall here and had some young women come up and shout at me and tell me how much they appreciated me. And I think for young women and not so young women, there is a connection. They know that I've spent a lot of time working on women's issues and they care about what I'm doing and what it might mean for them."

No doubt she could have chosen to not take the job up - that it was her own decision to become SOS for the Obama administration.

I tend to think she wanted to make some kind of statement in politics as a woman, before it was too late. She could not become the first woman President, but at least she would not be remembered just as the First Lady during the husband days.

I hope she doesn't change her mind!!!

Re: .....
« Reply #91 on: March 21, 2012, 12:02:36 PM »


That petition would take years to mature into an actual green card, but we all were optimistic nevertheless; and there you have it - in April, my husband gets that notification letter from the NVC letting him know he had won the D-V lottery. From that point on, we were concerned that the Consular officer would accuse my husband during the interview for misrepresentation because of my hubby having claimed me arbitrarily as his wife on the NVC forms (initially in February when originally applied for, and then again in May) - given the fact that we only got the marriage license 4 months after he made the statements on the NVC forms (August). We remained anxious 'til the day of the interview, April of next year, but the Consular Officer was surprisingly over-friendly towards us, with him granting us the immigrant visas and without inquiring at all as to our marriage timing.

Truth-be-told, we were anxious also because we could not disclose to the Consular officer that the two of us had lived in a neighboring country for some time - my mother-in-law paid a friend of hers for us to be issued two brand-new passports, so that we did not have to show at all the neighboring country's entering visas we had gotten during the years on our old passports. We had been on and off illegally in that country, so we could not get clearances from that country's police for the time period we lived there. This is something that almost all the people who win the American green card lottery do - it's not smth we did to hide some kind of "major crime" committed or anything like that.

We were hearing that those people who admitted to the Consulate that they had been in other countries, besides their home country, were required to submit police clearances from those neighboring countries' authorities, something difficult and time-consuming, since we had also been there illegally - the way such a thing is handled in our native country is to simply pay the municipal employees for a new passport (easily accomplished and for not too much money) and then appear with the new passport before the Consular officer.

We also arranged for (fake) Employment Verification Letters where it was stated by (fake) employers that we had been employed in our home country (having had, thus, lived there all the time), so that it would appear that we had not been outside our home country at any time (to put it differently, we covered gaps in our employment history). These latter two are done regularly by almost all people who win the lottery in our country, and the consulate people themselves know deep down themselves that such things happen all too often.

Incitatus, what you mention in regard to your issue with the lottery application: It was my understanding that the DV "lottery" is as much "lottery" as apple is an orange. The people are selected for specific (political, ethnic, racial, and religious) reasons, and the state dept. is aware that most other cultures and countries have other values of certain moral issues. Little "white" lies are not significant enough to guarantee such a drastic punishment such as, say, "deportation."

You have done quite a few things, no doubt about it, but I'd like to let you know that,

There's a waiver, the Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility, is used by applicants for immigrant visas, non-immigrant fiancé visas, V visas, and adjustment of status to request a waiver of the following grounds of inadmissibility in the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) - should ICE move ahead and try to deport the aliens:

  • Section 212(a)(1)   – health-related grounds;
  • Section 212(a)(2) – criminal and related grounds,
  • Section 212(a)(3)(D) - immigrant membership in a totalitarian party;
  • Section 212(a)(6)(C) – misrepresentation in immigration matters;
  • Section 212(a)(6)(E) - smugglers;
  • Section 212(a)(6)(F) - subject to civil penalty;
  • Section 212(a)(9)(B)   – unlawful presence in the U.S. for at least 180 days, beginning on or after April 1, 1997, followed by departure from the U.S.

I believe I-601 is for those who apply for the green thing, not for those who already have it - or may even have become USCs.

I did check the matter thoroughly, colo, there's definitely a waiver available, even after you've gotten the green card (with the CIS having you placed on deportation proceedings afterwards).

Re: The Fifth: Self-Incrimination
« Reply #92 on: March 24, 2012, 01:36:18 PM »

Wow - some great posts related to immigration matters here. My husband and I came to the U.S. on immigrant visas after hubby won the D-V (Diversity Lottery) several years ago. I was not legally married to my husband (had not yet gotten a marriage license) by the time he got the notice he was assigned a visa lottery. Neither did we legally married when he sent the first response to the (NVC) National Visa Center shortly after. We only got legally married in August of that year, 4 months after he listed me as her spouse on the NVC forms. The reason why I did not legally marry to my husband from the very beginning (since I began to live with my-hubby-to-be, in August) and my mother left for the States (September), was that I was counting on my parents who went to the US to get me too there, after my permanent resident mother (she won a D-V Lottery the year before) would have hopefully arranged something for me; although all she's able to do, in actuality, was just petitioning on my behalf in January of next year - she filed the I-130 with INS, immigrant relative petition for an unmarried child 21+

Excuse me - just to make sure I'm getting this right - why did ya have to find a man (the-hubby-to-be) after your parents immigrated to the States?! Why couldn't you stay single and wait that way for the time to come to join your parents?! I would have to go ahead and assume you're from some kind of Muslim country where women are expected to have "their man"! Are you guys afraid there men will harass, rape and kill you, were you to walk alone in the streets?! Hell, you even say you found him in August, just one month before your parents would leave for the US - pardon my French, but wouldn't one be justified to go on a hunch and say that your people arranged for you to engage 'a nobody', somebody very likely beyond your level, just because time dictated that?!

But then again - it's just doesn't add up - from what I know, in these countries, where women are considered to be their man's property, living temporarily with a man as husband and wife is frowned upon and is considered unacceptable. You are flat out saying that that was basically your plan - were your parents to have arranged in some type or form for you to go to the US, you would stop living with him right away to join your parents in the States. Unless you were some kind of SuperGirl who didn't much care about notions and taboos, you'd still be faced with your own country's people who more likely than not would not see your previous arrangement sympathetically. In fact, that's what your hubby might have counted on - that you would not, in actuality, leave him, reason why he tolerated at first when agreeing not to enter into a marriage contract (in the hope, that with the passing of time, he'd get there - the important thing was that he got you in hand, getting a much better deal than he could have ever dreamed of). As for America, little did he care, although he'd eventually get that as well, sooner or later, via you.

I'm kinda perplexed as to what kind of "arrangement" this was, with this "hubby-to-be," as you call him. You are saying it yourself that the petition that your mother filed on your behalf would take years to materialize into a green card - would you continue on the concubinage path with your boyfriend/husband/whatever you choose to call him? Would you have any children with him? I would assume No, since your wait time to immigrate to the US would be even longer. So all these sacrifices (because they are considered to be "sacrifices" in those countries) just to be able to come to the US - and then, when immigrants actually arrive here, they figure it out how wrong they were to have made all those insane decisions, back in their native countries where/when they thought America was the "land of milk and honey"!

Was all that worth it?! Spending years with a man beyond your level, compromising your real marital (and probably) professional life, all these in the name of a dream (America)? Or even worse, ending up with that very man, just like it turned out, when that Cheetah was handed a stupid lottery?!

"Any questions" - listen to me, you b i t c h - you are stupid if you think I only cared to come to the U'S ... I did not mention in my first post that I came to the U'S along with my hubby on B-2 visas a couple of months before we were supposed to go for the green card interviews (that actually changed later, as the b i t c h e s postponed the interviews' dates). We stayed 40 days in the U'S at my parents' apartment. It was when an immigration attorney told us that we would  probably not be able to process the lottery visa from within the U'S, that we left the U'S and went back to our native country to have the lottery visa interview.

Now, if my only intention was to get to this country (U'S), would I have left and go back to my native country together with my husband?! There was no guarantee whatsoever that we'd get the immigrant visas from there (we had those stupid issues that you know) and the B-2 visas we used to enter the U'S were single-entry - so we could not get back to the U'S. And yet, we decided to go back to our native country, no matter what the results of the @ # ! * i n g green card interview would be.

Because we did not want to remain illegally in the U'S like b i t c h e s, after our visitor visas would have expired. We said, we're better off in our native country, being full-right citizens, rather than illegally in the U'S.

I am sorry but your guessing wrong, I loved and I love my husband - I was not left by my parents in his "protective custody," until my visa number would have become current, as you say. We did not much care whether we'd get the lottery visas to reenter this country one more time, or not - were it not like that, we would have not chosen to go back to our native country and process the green card lottery from there. There was probably enough time for our lottery to be processed from within the U'S (although there were slight chances we couldn't process it from here and we had to go back to our native country - but even if we'd not get the m u t h a @ # ! * i g green card because of staying here and not going back, we'd still be here in the U'S, albeit illegally). And yet, we went back - and, of course, not because this immigration attorney held a knife to our necks threatening to cut our throats open were we to decide contrary to what he advised us to do!

So, would you please give some credit where credit's due, Any Questions?!

This woman is unbelievable - I counted four or five times where she's committed fraud and she won't stop calling other people evil - Incitatus, would you please take a look in the mirror?!

And then, come here to tell us how unfair people are, and what b i t c h e s people who tell you the truth are!

A lil' bit of self-reflection wouldn't hurt at all!

It's never too late .. or is it?!

garcon, I believe you're taking a moral stance, here - because we all know that, in practice, no one would go to the official and say such and such and such - I mean, that would be totally stupid, wouldn't it? That's what those people are there for, to check the truthfulness of the statements you make. As it was mentioned here, already, Incitatus' stuff is small potatoes  ... they're not looking for those kinds of things, when doing the interview and the like!

Remember Martha Stewart?! Eventually, the judge threw away the most important part of the charges, that for insider trading - she was basically found guilty on the obstructing of the investigation thing, because she lied. Now, why does the accused have to cooperate with an investigation against oneself? Is it not this called self-incrimination, and hence unconstitutional?!

Re: practicing law as a non-U.S. citizen
« Reply #93 on: March 27, 2012, 01:24:38 PM »


The fundamental theme of our historical period, domination, readily implies that of liberation as the objective to be achieved (given the fact that themes of any era are always interacting dialectically with their opposites) It is by means of critical thinking that individuals will be able to understand the world in totality, not in fragments, achieving a clearer perception of the whole. To this end, a dialectical method of thought, exemplified in the analysis of a "coded" situation is presented. The "decoding" on the part of students/learners will guarantee moving from the part to the whole and then returning to the parts, so that the Subject recognizes oneself in the coded concrete situation and recognizes the latter as a situation in which he finds himself, as well as with the other people; accomplished as it should, this makes possible for the abstract to be "transported" to the concrete realm, by the critical perception of the subject himself. The task of the teacher becomes the "representing" of the universe of themes to the people from whom it was initially received -- presented to them as a "problem."

I'm familiar with the method - the thing is that placing the workers in these coding/decoding situations for them to actually appreciate the deep * & ^ % they're in won't work - unless it's being done all the time, or at least for a very long time, say 10 years or so.

say it don't pay it, are you saying that the "teacher" has to have the "workers" gathered in a classroom kind of thing - and surveying their reactions and the like in response to the "themes" mentioned?! Like do this, every day, for 10 years in a raw?!

I would really be interested (irony aside!) how this's supposed to work! I mean, really!

As you can see, I'd not be totally dismissive of this kind of thing, as I understand it - so, any takers?!

Re: Delusional Disorder & Latent Homosexuality
« Reply #94 on: March 30, 2012, 03:10:46 PM »

Horrible indeed! The core of the syndrome is that the affected person has a delusional belief that another person, usually of higher social status, is secretly in love with them. The sufferer may also believe that the subject of their delusion secretly communicates their love by subtle methods such as body posture, arrangement of household objects and other seemingly innocuous acts (or, if the person is a public figure, through clues in the media). The object of the delusion usually has little or no contact with the delusional person, who often believes that the object initiated the fictional relationship. Erotomanic delusions are typically found as the primary symptom of delusional disorder, or in the context of schizophrenia.

Occasionally the subject of the delusion may not actually exist, although more commonly, the subjects are media figures such as popular singers, actors and politicians. Erotomania has been cited as one cause for stalking or harassment campaigns. The assassination attempt of Ronald Reagan by John Hinckley, Jr. was reported to have been driven by an erotomanic delusion that the death of the president would cause actress Jodie Foster to publicly declare her love for Hinckley. Late night comedian David Letterman and retired astronaut Story Musgrave were the targets of delusional Margaret Mary Ray. Other reported celebrity targets of erotomania include Madonna, Steven Spielberg, Zachary Quinto, Britney Spears, Barbara Mandrell, and Linda Ronstadt.

There's a not-very-accurate belief that the delusional disorder (paranoia) is almost always linked with homosexuality. That's not really the case. Take a look at this post:


[...] The paranoid preoccupation with homosexuality has sometimes been explained as reflecting "unconscious homosexual impulses." This locution is misleading, in that it is not usually genital urges that stimulate homophobia; it is loneliness and the wish for a soulmate. Because as children we were comfortable with peers of the same sex before we became comfortable with opposite-sex peers, and because people of the same sex are more like us than people of the opposite sex, when we are withdrawn from everyone, we are attracted to someone of the same sex. Unfortunately, the patient becomes aware of this attraction, misinterprets it as homosexuality, and this sets off the defenses. In other words, at the core of the self-experience of paranoid people is a profound emotional isolation and need for a "consensual validation" from a "chum."

I believe it's the exact opposite, Flat -

Paranoids = latent/fear of Homosexuality
Need to deny oneself Homosexual Desires = development of Paranoid Delusions

Take a look at this other thingy thing:


Take Hitler: They say there is insufficient evidence that Hitler was an overt homosexual. But it seemed clear he had latent homosexual tendencies, and that he worried a lot about them. He was terribly concerned, for example, lest he give the impression of showing feminine traits - which, indeed, he did. A colleague of the himself-homosexual English diplomat and historian Sir Harold Nicolson, spoke of Hitler as being "the most profoundly feminine man that he had ever met, and that there were moments when he became almost effeminate."

Hitler also revealed fears of homosexuality by protesting so much that he had no feminine characteristics whatsoever. He was totally masculine - tough, hard, cold, ruthless, brutal. His tendency to think in terms of disjunctive stereotypes about men and women (strong, iron-willed, effective males vs. weak, emotional, incompetent female) is in itself revealing. Such thinking demonstrates a strong conflict and confusion between masculine and feminine natures. To him, sexual differences appeared as exaggerated and mutually exclusive opposites, as roles to be played, rather as natural attributes of human personality. In Hitler's case, as in Himmler's, the fantasized tough male role developed into sadism, murder and destruction.

The question of Hitler's latent homosexuality can also be approached indirectly. It can be stated with some confidence that Hitler must have had latent homosexual tendencies because he showed clear indications of paranoia. This does not mean that all homosexuals are paranoid, but it does mean that all paranoids have fears of homosexuality. The direct connection between homosexuality and paranoia was first noticed by Freud, who concluded that paranoia "invariably arises from an attempt to subdue an unduly powerful homosexual wish."

There is a terrifically strong need to deny homosexuality; the very thought of sexual contact with another man is "completely intolerable." Moreover, the need felt by a paranoid for approval is especially acute; his megalomania is in itself an expression of his need for proof that he is important. There is a high incidence of constipation in paranoid individuals. All paranoids have strong anal components, problems with order and cleanliness, and obsessions with purity and vice, as well as impurity and infections of others. Anal sadistic fantasies are directed towards the father, because he is seen as the rival for the mother's love; the intensity of the drive to be loved is supported mainly "by the intense need to neutralize and erotisize a tremendous hate." When the unconscious hate is so great, the attempt to erotisize it fails, and the individual turns to sadism.

While homosexual feeling and paranoid delusions may be in bitter conflict, both are, in a sense, dependent on each other and are defenses against one another. Thus, it seems quite possible that Hitler developed paranoid delusions, in part, to fight his homosexual feelings. As long as he persecuted and attacked homosexuals, he felt he was successfully combating his own inadmissible inclinations toward homosexuality.