Traffic Tickets do not count!

[Suzy977]

let's see if this thread could break thru 500 replies and 5000 times being viewed.

5000 viewers I doubt it...500 replies, should be done by tomorrow...before noon
...both contenders have the ability to post 100+ MPH (do not think about speeding tickets, "citations" cause this time MPH stands for Messages Per Hour) and without using "copy" and "paste"

 

[newbie001]

Here is one more view and post.

newbie001

 

[qili]

What did you guys (JoeF and naturalizer123) answered to the Part 10 question #7

Have you ever been declared legally incompetent or been confined to a mental institution within the last five years?

This is one example, a great one at that, that you cannot just follow the letter of the law. The question doesn't explicitly ask who declared you legally incompetent. So if I declared JoeF legally incompetent, he should answer "Yes" to be truthful.

Now, let's take it on step further. The question itself doesn't have a knowledge qualifier ("to you knowledge, have you ..."). So you could get into technical trouble if some nutcase somewhere some moons ago declared you legally incompetent and you don't know about it, you would have lied if you answered "No" to that question.

Hopefully, the person filling the sheet has some intelligence to interpret the question in a way that is consistently with the intent, not the letter, of that question.

This goes back to my comments earlier that it is important to answer the question to the spirit, not to the letter.

as to the traffic ticket question, well, I don't know of a single case of denial on that question along (not listing minor traffic citations), and further we know of advices, from ins officers and from highly respected lawyers, to NOT list minor traffic citations.

On the flip side, we have a person who isn't trained in law, who has waived any liabilities for his advices, and isn't obligated to tell the truth under the US constitution, to tell us that we should list all minor traffic citations.

That's a pretty cut situation, isn't it?

 

[MrJackie]

The point here for everybody to conclude is " As per lawyers or even CIS officers, its not required to include traffic violations. But individuals can make decesions on their own and can face consequences of delaying process". And few geeks wants to disagree, that fine, lets agree to disagree.

If lawyers and CIS officers advices, its not essential to include traffic violations and few geeks here disagrees with it. No problem. Always follow professionals and experts.

 

[PacMan72]

The point here for everybody to conclude is " As per lawyers or even CIS officers, its not required to include traffic violations. But individuals can make decesions on their own and can face consequences of delaying process". And few geeks wants to disagree, that fine, lets agree to disagree.

If lawyers and CIS officers advices, its not essential to include traffic violations and few geeks here disagrees with it. No problem. Always follow professionals and experts.

i agree.
although there is no such thing as "expert" lawyer, that's why they are PRACTICING law, i'd take CIS word over any lawyer, don't care how expert he/she is.
bottom line, i can fight it if CIS told me to do something and it turned out to be wrong, i can't fight it if 3rd party told me. that's the bottom line !

 

[MrJackie]

Are you guys still at it? Are you still trying to use this thread a s vehicle to fight with me?
The point is, as has been made abundantly clear, that all citations have to be listed.

Nobody is fighting with you. Even natural had put forward very good points. And many others contributed as well. But in the end, for this issue many lawyers and even CIS officers gave clear directions. Conclusion is "If you want , you can list traffic violations but its not essential as per expert in this field. ( I mean real experts like lawyers /CIS officers)"

 

[AlexanderG]

The point here for everybody to conclude is " As per lawyers or even CIS officers, its not required to include traffic violations. But individuals can make decesions on their own and can face consequences of delaying process". And few geeks wants to disagree, that fine, lets agree to disagree.

If lawyers and CIS officers advices, its not essential to include traffic violations and few geeks here disagrees with it. No problem. Always follow professionals and experts.

MrJackie ... this adjudication officer does not seem to be one of your chosen ones, does he ?

Source: http://www.skyweb.net/~rlls/intro/natexp.html

Name: A
State: San Francisco, Ca -5
Date Filed: 8/2002
Date fingerprinted: 9/2002
Date Interviewed: 5/2003
Date Oath taken:

The whole interview took about half an hour. My original N-400 application did not list a couple of minor traffic tickets I had received years ago, since someone at the INS phone helpline had told me not to include them. It turns out that even a minor traffic ticket is a citation that needs to be listed on the N-400. We went over the two tickets and added them to the application. No DUIs or reckless driving? No.

Then I had to produce a copy of my spouse's birth certificate, which I had not included with the N-400. No problem there. The test was painless. I joked that I had the 13 original states memorized, and the officer replied that she actually uses that question sometimes.

Awaiting the oath scheduling information now.

Update (8/20/2003):
I finally received my N-445 Naturalization Oath appointment for September 2003. I was called in for a second interview in July, because the examiner needed to know the dates and cities for my traffic tickets. It seems like the second interview delayed the oath by a couple of months. Too late to run for guv'nor now. Bummer. I could've been a contendah.


So, for this fellow NOT listing his tickets ('citations' for naturalizer) actually delayed his petition ... Alex

 

[PacMan72]

As usual, the clueless trolls, who are unable of formulate their own thoughts, are late to the game to chime in and try their hands at fighting with me.
The desperate attempts of these trolls to get attention are just laughable. They are all "agreeing with each other" on everything, because that's all they do, agreeing with each other They are nothing more than "dittoheads".

^^^one usefull post

 

[MrJackie]

As usual, the clueless trolls, who are unable of formulate their own thoughts, are late to the game to chime in and try their hands at fighting with me.
The desperate attempts of these trolls to get attention are just laughable. They are all "agreeing with each other" on everything, because that's all they do, agreeing with each other They are nothing more than "dittoheads".

Nobody is fighting with you. If you don't beleive lawyers/CIS officers, that fine. Use your own luck. But we believe in professionals/experts who are experienced in their fields , rathers than bunch of geeks posting non-stop on forums.

 

[qili]

Are you guys still at it? Are you still trying to use this thread a s vehicle to fight with me?

Nobody is fighting with you. If you still haven't realized, you are just too insignificant for anyone to fight.

this goes true for the rest of us as well.

The point is, as has been made abundantly clear, that all citations have to be listed.

And that point is clearly in dispute. A lot of evidence has been provided that diverges from your point.

Again, you have INS officers and well respected and highly qualified lawyers in the field of immigration laws advise the exclusion of minor traffic violations.

On the flip side, you have someone who isn't trained in the laws, who isn't under any obligation under the US obligation to tell the truth, who has wavied all and any liabilities from his own advice and who suggest the opposite.

You have given us your expert advice earlier that we shouldn't listen to the latter and should listen to the professionals / lawyers.

Now, we have good lawyers whose advice goes against yours, that of a non-professional. And you are asking us to listen to you?

How many times do you want to flip flop?

Hope i am not asking for too much. You have said that you cannot give us good advice because your being a non-professional, having no obligation to tell truth and having waived all liabilities. I understand that all and accept it.

All I ask for is consistent advice. Stick to one side of the road! You cannot tell people one thing and then something else the next day.

Is that also too much to ask?