login info join!
Forums > General Industry > Illinois and 2257A Search   Reply
Photographer
You Can Call Me Pierre
Posts: 739
Montreal, Quebec, Canada


Will the changes for obtaining a driver's license allow undocumented immigrants to circumvent regulatory requirements?
Jan 28 13 05:49 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,746
San Francisco, California, US


Perhaps 2257/2257a, but it is still illegal to hire someone that isn't authorized to work in the country.  On the other hand, it will satisfy 2257/2257a if they have a state issued driver's license.  Those regulation don't speak to employment, only identification and recordkeeping.
Jan 28 13 05:57 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,545
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


gl-amour wrote:
Will the changes for obtaining a driver's license allow undocumented immigrants to circumvent regulatory requirements?

Yes

I, and others, have discussed this in the past in respect of some other states' DL issuance practices.

Yes

Could a primary producer demand an alternative form of proof of identity and age?

Yes

What alternative forms of identity and age might be used - provided they meet all the requirements of 2257 > 28 CFR 75?

Those documents which appear on List A of the I-9 form are liklely appropriate

Documents that may be used under "List A" of the I-9 form to establish both identity and employment eligibility include:

    Unexpired U.S. Passport
    U.S. Passport Card
    An unexpired foreign passport with an I-551 stamp, or with Form I-94 attached which indicates an unexpired employment authorization < subject to legal advice for 2257 purposes
    A Permanent Resident Card (often called a "green card") or Alien Registration Receipt Card with photograph
    An Unexpired Temporary Resident Card
    An Unexpired Employment Authorization Card
    An Unexpired Employment Authorization Document issued by the Dept. of Homeland Security that includes a photograph (Form I-766)

What does 28 CFR 75 require? The ID used must be valid [not expired], issued by the United States, a State government, or a political subdivision thereof, or a United States territory, and contain:

the name of the holder;
the date of birth of the holder;
a photograph of the holder
the name of the issuing government agency
a number relating to the document applied by the issuing agency


Studio36

Jan 28 13 06:07 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Marc Damon
Posts: 6,562
Biloxi, Mississippi, US


studio36uk wrote:

gl-amour wrote:
Will the changes for obtaining a driver's license allow undocumented immigrants to circumvent regulatory requirements?

Yes

I, and others, have discussed this in the past in respect of some other states' DL issuance practices.

Yes

Could a primary producer demand an alternative form of proof of identity and age?

Yes

What alternative forms of identity and age might be used - provided they meet all the requirements of 2257 > 28 CFR 75?

Those documents which appear on List A of the I-9 form are liklely appropriate


What does 28 CFR 75 require? The ID used must be valid [not expired], issued by the United States, a State government, or a political subdivision thereof, or a United States territory, and contain:

the name of the holder;
the date of birth of the holder;
a photograph of the holder
the name of the issuing government agency
a number relating to the document applied by the issuing agency



Studio36

All of that info is part of every driver's license issued in the US. It would seem reasonable that any valid, non-expired drivers license from any US state would meet the requirements for 2257 regardless of a person's immigrant status.

Jan 28 13 06:30 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,746
San Francisco, California, US


Marc Damon wrote:
All of that info is part of every driver's license issued in the US. It would seem reasonable that any valid, non-expired drivers license from any US state would meet the requirements for 2257 regardless of a person's immigrant status.

Of course, immigration status isn't mentioned in 2257 or 2257a.  I suspect if it was, there would be an issue of constitutionality.  I agree with you.

Jan 28 13 06:34 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,545
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


GPS Studio Services wrote:

Marc Damon wrote:
All of that info is part of every driver's license issued in the US. It would seem reasonable that any valid, non-expired drivers license from any US state would meet the requirements for 2257 regardless of a person's immigrant status.

Of course, immigration status isn't mentioned in 2257 or 2257a.  I suspect if it was, there would be an issue of constitutionality.  I agree with you.

Yes, but my point is that one does not HAVE to accept a driver license for 2257 purposes. A primary producer could, if they chose to do so, actively refuse to accept a driver license for the purpose of 2257 compliance in favor of anther kind of qualifying document.

Hiring someone who is not entitled to work in the US, driver license or not, is a completely different matter and a completely different beach of completely different law.

Studio36

Jan 28 13 07:13 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
GeM Photographic
Posts: 2,358
Chicago, Illinois, US


gl-amour wrote:
Will the changes for obtaining a driver's license allow undocumented immigrants to circumvent regulatory requirements?

Not necessarily. Last I read about the IL immigrant DL is that it is only a permit to drive and not a legal form of identification.

Jan 28 13 07:20 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
You Can Call Me Pierre
Posts: 739
Montreal, Quebec, Canada


There is a precedent with other states like New Mexico and Washington who already have implemented these DLs for undocumented immigrants.
I find it undemocratic to open the floodgates further to foreign workers when there are still so many underemployed voters.
Jan 28 13 07:27 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Marc Damon
Posts: 6,562
Biloxi, Mississippi, US


studio36uk wrote:

GPS Studio Services wrote:

Marc Damon wrote:
All of that info is part of every driver's license issued in the US. It would seem reasonable that any valid, non-expired drivers license from any US state would meet the requirements for 2257 regardless of a person's immigrant status.

Of course, immigration status isn't mentioned in 2257 or 2257a.  I suspect if it was, there would be an issue of constitutionality.  I agree with you.

Yes, but my point is that one does not HAVE to accept a driver license for 2257 purposes. A primary producer could, if they chose to do so, actively refuse to accept a driver license for the purpose of 2257 compliance in favor of anther kind of qualifying document.

Hiring someone who is not entitled to work in the US, driver license or not, is a completely different matter and a completely different beach of completely different law.

Studio36

qft

Jan 28 13 07:47 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Luke Ryan Photography
Posts: 580
Santa Monica, California, US


I thought the DOJ was not enforcing 2257 right now ?

I believe there haven't been any record inspections under the Obama admi
Jan 28 13 09:38 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,746
San Francisco, California, US


studio36uk wrote:
Yes, but my point is that one does not HAVE to accept a driver license for 2257 purposes. A primary producer could, if they chose to do so, actively refuse to accept a driver license for the purpose of 2257 compliance in favor of anther kind of qualifying document.

Hiring someone who is not entitled to work in the US, driver license or not, is a completely different matter and a completely different beach of completely different law.

Studio36

But you are really OT.  The OP asked a simple question.  To paraphrase it:  If a person was in the country illegally, but was now able to get a driver's license issued by the State of Illinois, would that satisfy 2257 / 2257a?

That was all he was asking.  I don't disagree with anything you are saying, but what does it have to do with the OP's question?  The answer to his question is "yes."  A driver's license issued by the State of Illinois will satisfy the identification requirements of 2257/2257a.

There are clearly other issues and there may be alternatives to a driver's license.  You are also not obligated to accept it.   The question, and the only questions, was if the license was sufficient.

The point is that you and I are not arguing about anything, but what we were having was a side discussion which had nothing to do with the OP.  I agree though, there are many nuances to 2257/2257a.

Jan 28 13 10:39 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,746
San Francisco, California, US


Luke Ryan Photography wrote:
I thought the DOJ was not enforcing 2257 right now ?

I believe there haven't been any record inspections under the Obama admi

There is no official policy.  They haven't conducted many, if any inspections, but they have no problem using 2257 as an enforcement tool if they suspect child pornography.

Jan 28 13 10:40 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
NewBoldPhoto
Posts: 4,894
PORT MURRAY, New Jersey, US


Without straying too far from the OP: 2257 does not deal with worker documentation beyond verification of age and identity.
ETA: @Studio36 why would one not accept a valid state issued drivers license as proof of age and identity for 2257 compliance?
Jan 28 13 11:01 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,545
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


NewBoldPhoto wrote:
Without straying too far from the OP: 2257 does not deal with worker documentation beyond verification of age and identity.
ETA: @Studio36 why would one not accept a valid state issued drivers license as proof of age and identity for 2257 compliance?

Why would I not do it?

Because little by little the DL system is being compromised by individual states in respect of those not eligible to work in the US. The states' actions relate primarily to a state push-back against the immigration and other state objections arising out of the federal REAL ID Act of 2005.

2257 only contains a requirement for establishing identity and age, that is entirely correct; however, other law [using, distinctively, both the words "employer" and "hirer"] also requires establishing work authorisation, and a hiring party [who may not be en employer by definition if the hired party is a contractor - 8 U.S.C. §1324a] is responsible for verifying that. The latter verification is done using an I-9 form that sets out in three tables the documents that are acceptable for that purpose - documents that prove BOTH identity and work authorisation [table A]; or, a document that proves only identity [table B] that must be combined with a document [table C] that proves only work authorisation.

It would have been so much simpler had the DoJ just incorporated the I-9 procedure into 28 CFR 75 adding only an additional requirement for proof of age [not part of I-9]. They didn't and went off on their own. Behind the scenes, however, the DoJ in doing what they did, also expressed, during the 2257 public comment consultation exercise, the notion that someone without US issued ID of the description and classes set out in 28 CFR 75 [for 2257 purposes] would likely also be someone not authorised to work in the US in any case.

Without state compliance with the REAL ID Act, and conversely without any 2257 requirement to also verify work authorisation status in addition to identity and age, it is now a total mess, and we wind up in discussions like this thread.

Studio36

Jan 29 13 12:50 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,746
San Francisco, California, US


studio36uk wrote:

Why would I not do it?

Because little by little the DL system is being compromised by individual states in respect of those not eligible to work in the US. The states' actions relate primarily to a state push-back against the immigration and other state objections arising out of the federal REAL ID Act of 2005.

2257 only contains a requirement for establishing identity and age, that is entirely correct; however, other law [using, distinctively, both the words "employer" and "hirer"] also requires establishing work authorisation, and a hiring party [who may not be en employer by definition if the hired party is a contractor - 8 U.S.C. §1324a] is responsible for verifying that. The latter verification is done using an I-9 form that sets out in three tables the documents that are acceptable for that purpose - documents that prove BOTH identity and work authorisation [table A]; or, a document that proves only identity [table B] that must be combined with a document [table C] that proves only work authorisation.

It would have been so much simpler had the DoJ just incorporated the I-9 procedure into 28 CFR 75 adding only an additional requirement for proof of age [not part of I-9]. They didn't and went off on their own. Behind the scenes, however, the DoJ in doing what they did, also expressed, during the 2257 public comment consultation exercise, the notion that someone without US issued ID of the description and classes set out in 28 CFR 75 [for 2257 purposes] would likely also be someone not authorised to work in the US in any case.

Without state compliance with the REAL ID Act, and conversely without any 2257 requirement to also verify work authorisation status in addition to identity and age, it is now a total mess, and we wind up in discussions like this thread.

Studio36

I agree with you ... satisfying 2257 doesn't mean that the person is eligible to work in the U.S.  On the other hand, not everyone who has their picture taken is working.  What if you are engaged to a girl from France.  Let's say you decided to shoot some nudes of her when she was here visiting you.  If she didn't have a US government issued ID, it could be illegal under 2257.  If she had an Illinois DL it would not be.

I think we need to keep the conversation clear though, 2257 and immigration laws are two separate things.  One doesn't speak to the other.  So it is possible to be in compliance with 2257 yet have it still be illegal to employ someone under immigration law.  However, if you comply with 2257 you will not be going to jail for failure to comply with the record-keeping requirements.

Jan 29 13 11:21 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,545
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


GPS Studio Services wrote:
However, if you comply with 2257 you will not be going to jail for failure to comply with the record-keeping requirements.

As they say: It depends on what you knew and when you knew it.   LOL

I don't see the issue as strictly shooting the model, in your hypothetical, if the work is thereafter closely held. The problem occurs when the work is put into distribution. That was one of the key points in Connections Distributing.

Not unlike Tracy Lords who was under-age but used a genuine, albeit fraudulently obtained, passport.

Studio36

Jan 29 13 11:39 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,746
San Francisco, California, US


GPS Studio Services wrote:
However, if you comply with 2257 you will not be going to jail for failure to comply with the record-keeping requirements.
studio36uk wrote:
As they say: It depends on what you knew and when you knew it.   LOL

I don't see the issue as strictly shooting the model, in your hypothetical, if the work is thereafter closely held. The problem occurs when the work is put into distribution. That was one of the key points in Connections Distributing.

Not unlike Tracy Lords who was under-age but used a genuine, albeit fraudulently obtained, passport.

Studio36

But we are still back to the same thing, you are entangling immigration law with 2257.  They have little to do with each other.  The use of an image, has nothing to do with immigration law.  You have either employed the model or you haven't.  If it is employment, they either have a working visa or they do not.  The list of items that would satisfy an I-9 is not the same list that would satisfy 2257.  They were never meant to be complimentary.  They serve two totally different purposes.

Jan 29 13 01:55 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticPhotography
Posts: 7,699
Buffalo, New York, US


Here's a twist for you to think about, and I am not sure of the answer. If a person has an "Enhanced" drivers license, such as that issue by NY (and I'm sure IL), then that might constitute proof of eligibility to work because it proves citizenship.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/09/16/nyregion/license533.jpg.

An "enhanced license" is a mini-passport and allows exit and re-entry into the country via land (i.e. Canada and Mexico).
Jan 29 13 08:32 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,746
San Francisco, California, US


ArtisticPhotography wrote:
Here's a twist for you to think about, and I am not sure of the answer. If a person has an "Enhanced" drivers license, such as that issue by NY (and I'm sure IL), then that might constitute proof of eligibility to work because it proves citizenship.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/09/16/nyregion/license533.jpg.

An "enhanced license" is a mini-passport and allows exit and re-entry into the country via land (i.e. Canada and Mexico).

That is covered in the immigration regulations and the instructions for the I-9 form.   Once again though, immigration status has nothing to do with 2257.

Jan 29 13 11:16 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,545
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


More to the point, Alan. A perfectly valid DL but marked as you see -

http://studio36.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CT_DL_NFFID.jpg

From what I gather CT will not issue a DL or state issued non-driver ID cards to a non-citizen at all until and unless they establish their immigration status.

http://www.ct.gov/dmv/cwp/view.asp?a=4078&q=477752
S36: underlining is mine - - -

WHAT ARE REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-U.S. CITIZENS?
Non-U.S. citizens also will need to show a valid foreign passport with a U.S. Visa and an I-94 or permanent resident card along with other legal presence documents (see list). Anyone with a current driver's license or DMV-issued ID card that does not meet requirements for legal presence in the U.S. will not receive a renewal of that license or ID card.

or

WILL MY LICENSE OR DMV-ISSUED ID CARD BE MARKED IF I ACCEPT OR REJECT THE OPTION FOR IDENTITY VERIFICATION?
Yes. The new identity-checked driver licenses and DMV-issued ID cards will have a gold star in the upper right hand corner. Those without this identity check will have their licenses or ID cards stamped “Not for Federal Identification” since it has not met the federal standard for identification.

This is clearly a form of "mission creep" with driver and other state IDs just as [at one time at least] to get a US passport you also had to make disclosures on the passport application of your US tax and tax filing status and any foreign financial holdings under your control.

Studio36

Jan 30 13 01:56 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,746
San Francisco, California, US


studio36uk wrote:
More to the point, Alan. A perfectly valid DL but marked as you see -

http://studio36.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CT_DL_NFFID.jpg

From what I gather CT will not issue a DL or state issued non-driver ID cards to a non-citizen at all until and unless they establish their immigration status.

http://www.ct.gov/dmv/cwp/view.asp?a=4078&q=477752

Except that the license you showed would be valid for the purposes of 18 USC 2257 / 2257a.  The language you are citing relates to establishing a right to work.  The state will still require you to establish age, because absent proof of age, you wouldn't qualify for a driver's license to begin with.

That marking is required because the Federal Government established regulations relating to the identification of license holders, specifically their right to be in the country and the right to work.   2257 merely requires that you establish age using a credible form of identification, i.e. a government issued ID.

You can check yourself.  I just spoke with a Federal prosecutor.  I was told, with certainty, that the ID you posted would be sufficient for the limited purposes of 2257.  He said for it to be unacceptable, there would have to be specific language in the statute excluding it for that purpose.

I do see your point though.  While it may or may not be unlawful for a photographer to hire a model who is working here illegally, having a state issued driver's license, with those markings would do nothing to establish a right to work.

Jan 30 13 09:52 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,545
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


Interestingly the question is not one of immigration status. Someone in an unknown status or an illegal status would not get one at all. The notation occurs because the person has opted out of verification of their IDENTITY.

Curious point.

Studio36
Jan 30 13 01:11 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,746
San Francisco, California, US


studio36uk wrote:
Interestingly the question is not one of immigration status. Someone in an unknown status or an illegal status would not get one at all. The notation occurs because the person has opted out of verification of their IDENTITY.

Curious point.

Studio36

Identity as it applies to immigration status as defined by the Federal Statutes.  The notation relates to a very specific Federal program.  As to identification, you are proving immigration status. The DL will net serve as an enhanced DL and it won't serve to prove immigration status under federal regulations.

Give the state a call, they do have to verify age, which is the issue with 2257.  I think you are trying to read these things more broadly than the authorities are, but I see your point.  None the less, it is acceptable is proof of age, which is what 2257 requires.

Jan 30 13 01:23 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,545
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


GPS Studio Services wrote:
Identity as it applies to immigration status as defined by the Federal Statutes.  The notation relates to a very specific Federal program.  As to identification, you are proving immigration status. The DL will net serve as an enhanced DL and it won't serve to prove immigration status under federal regulations.

Give the state a call, they do have to verify age, which is the issue with 2257.  I think you are trying to read these things more broadly than the authorities are, but I see your point.  None the less, it is acceptable is proof of age, which is what 2257 requires.

Without debate I will offer this:

After 2011, "a Federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver's license or identification card issued by a state to any person unless the state is meeting the requirements" specified in the REAL ID Act. The DHS will continue to consider additional ways in which a REAL ID license can or should be used for official federal purposes without seeking the approval of Congress before doing so. States remain free to also issue non-complying licenses and IDs, so long as these have a unique design and a clear statement that they cannot be accepted for any Federal identification purpose. The federal Transportation Security Administration is responsible for security check-in at airports, so bearers of non-compliant documents would no longer be able to travel on common carrier aircraft without additional screening unless they had an alternative government-issued photo ID.

That reference cites 2011 however the date was pushed back to 15 Jan 2013 and so presumably, without any additional information, the thing is now in effect.

It goes far beyond merely immigration status. It goes to the use of a non-conforming document for ANY official federal purpose. Therein seems to lie the 2257 question.

FWIW the statute itself is concerned with BOTH age AND identity [18 USC 2257 (b)] and mandates a record of BOTH. The statute actually seems to put more emphasis on the identity then merely an age check. The DoJ did not emphasise that in 28 CFR 75, but the requirement exists there as well but in somewhat less strident terms than as set out in the statute.

Studio36 < < < shrugs

Jan 30 13 04:13 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,746
San Francisco, California, US


GPS Studio Services wrote:
Identity as it applies to immigration status as defined by the Federal Statutes.  The notation relates to a very specific Federal program.  As to identification, you are proving immigration status. The DL will net serve as an enhanced DL and it won't serve to prove immigration status under federal regulations.

Give the state a call, they do have to verify age, which is the issue with 2257.  I think you are trying to read these things more broadly than the authorities are, but I see your point.  None the less, it is acceptable is proof of age, which is what 2257 requires.
studio36uk wrote:
Without debate I will offer this:

That reference cites 2011 however the date was pushed back to 15 Jan 2013 and so presumably, without any additional information, the thing is now in effect.

It goes far beyond merely immigration status. It goes to the use of a non-conforming document for ANY official federal purpose. Therein seems to lie the 2257 question.

FWIW the statute itself is concerned with BOTH age AND identity [18 USC 2257 (b)] and mandates a record of BOTH. The statute actually seems to put more emphasis on the identity then merely an age check. The DoJ did not emphasise that in 28 CFR 75, but the requirement exists there as well but in somewhat less strident terms than as set out in the statute.

Studio36 < < < shrugs

That all goes to the department of transportation, immigration, etc.  I still don't believe that it relates to 2257, and I will certainly take the word of a federal prosecutor over your interpretation.

Jan 30 13 09:20 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Kent Art Photography
Posts: 2,658
Ashford, England, United Kingdom


GPS Studio Services wrote:
That all goes to the department of transportation, immigration, etc.  I still don't believe that it relates to 2257, and I will certainly take the word of a federal prosecutor over your interpretation.

Actually, studio36UK is an acknowledged expert on these things, and there are a large number of people who would take his word for it, rather than the word of a US federal prosecutor.

Jan 31 13 06:03 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,545
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


Kent Art Photography wrote:

GPS Studio Services wrote:
That all goes to the department of transportation, immigration, etc.  I still don't believe that it relates to 2257, and I will certainly take the word of a federal prosecutor over your interpretation.

Actually, studio36UK is an acknowledged expert on these things, and there are a large number of people who would take his word for it, rather than the word of a US federal prosecutor.

In truth Alan [GPS] and I are both very up on this subject, and though we do have our differences they are not without some foundation of knowledge. The important part to remember is that NEITHER OF US is offering anything other than an educated, though differing, opinion and we are certainly not offering legal advice to any reader here, either way.

Frankly, the question of these DLs, as illustrated above, makes me nervous and Alan not so much.

Studio36

Jan 31 13 06:47 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,746
San Francisco, California, US


studio36uk wrote:
In truth Alan [GPS] and I are both very up on this subject, and though we do have our differences they are not without some foundation of knowledge. The important part to remember is that NEITHER OF US is offering anything other than an educated, though differing, opinion and we are certainly not offering legal advice to any reader here, either way.

Frankly, the question of these DLs, as illustrated above, makes me nervous and Alan not so much.

Studio36

Actually, I think that puts it in a nutshell. Studio36 and I are actually pretty good friends.  He and I look at things differently sometimes, but in reality, most of our differences are relatively minor.

In most cases, it comes down to risk assessment, and neither one of us are attorneys, so it is always just opinion and not legal advice.  John tends to take a more more conservative view of things that I do.   I used to have a close friend who was an attorney, Henry Krolic.  He was a terrible trial lawyer, but one of the best researchers I have ever met.  If you are familiar with the "motion in limine" he is actually one of the fathers of it.  I believe he was the first to argue the concept in Michigan before an appellate court to win.  He won with his briefs and research, not his prowess to argue in court.

Anyhow, He had a system that has always worked.  He did his legal research (back thin in libraries, he died before the Internet) and dug up everything he could on things.  Then, when he had gaps he couldn't fill, he would ask people that he had reason to believe were knowledgeable.  He'd speak to other attorneys, government offices, judges, whomever.  If the consensus agreed with what he'd learned, he felt secure enough to believe it.  If people varied, he got nervous.

Where John and I vary is in that concept.  I read John's interpretations of things and quite often they are very rational, just run counter to what everyone I've checked with who is in a position to know.  So, for example, when I am told that they will accept any state issued DL for ID, I believe them.  That will be entirely true until someone decides they disagree and press for a new interpretation.  That is called "good lawyering."  It doesn't happen very often, but it does happen.

So, I agree with John, if I had an alternative form of ID available, I would definitely prefer it on the slim chance that some day, someone would get a bug up their butt and try to change the rules through the courts.  I suppose that if they wanted to get someone (like they did Al Capone with taxes), they could try to press the issue.  I just don't feel like I need to run my life around the very slim chance when I have been assured by people in the know I need not worry. 

John, on the other hand, wants to plan for the very unlikely.  As Mr. Spock (and Sherlock Holmes) have repeatedly said, when you eliminate the impossible, all that remains is the possible, no matter how improbable.  John's interpretations are generally plausible as read, just not always what appears to be the current trend.  I will also admit, I often don't have the time to read every court decision that affects it, every treatise and public policy decision.  Nor has he, so that is why neither one of us has the credibility of a lawyer.  We speak with knowledge, but there are others far more qualified than either one of us.

Jan 31 13 09:18 am  Link  Quote 
  Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers