Thomas Young, PC

So much blather out there about illegal immigration and how it needs reform.   Most of the talk is by persons who know little to nothing about immigration law or procedure–people with agendas who want no rational discussion of the real immigration law, only to advance a particular solution to a problem that is not related to immigration law at all, except in the breach.

Much is made about the apparent lack of ability of qualified persons to come to the US either as temporary or permanent residents.  In any case, such lack has nothing to do with unskilled labor coming to the US illegally, or overstaying visas.  The law does not need to be reformed to provide for such “lack”.    “Reformed” implies that the system is broken.   If it is broken, the only evidence for that is the massive law breaking which takes place.  There are numerous avenues available for persons with desirable skills, which avenues are for the most part backlogged with applicants.  The “problem” is that the numerical limitations are lower than some would like.  That is a situation which Congress could address.   But again, it would not  solve many problems for persons here illegally who may not fit within those categories approved by the law.

Reforming the law to provide amnesty for law breakers without providing for increased security at the border will do nothing but postpone and increase the problem for the next generation.

I went to a seminar on a litigation subject recently and the instructor said something very interesting to me.   He was describing, as plaintiff’s counsel, what was the most intimidating tactic used by defense counsel:   coming up with and sticking to a single theory of the case.

Trial lawyers need to be story tellers.   They need to be aware that juries and judges all like to have a story told.   We are all programed in a sense to think linearly, cause and effect, this happened first, then the next thing happened.   Defense counsel that is only interested in carping at and reacting to the claims of the plaintiff are less effective, because less comprehensible, than counsel that can fit the facts into a storyline.  I think that counsel that does not tell a story, in a sense causes a jury especially to turn off.

So this instructor basically said that if a defense counsel does not have a theory of the case, a story line, an explanation for how the bad stuff happened, that the jury will automatically favor the plaintiff.   His biggest fear therefore was the defense attorney who could tell a story and explain what happened–gives competition to the plaintiff and his/her story.

Got me thinking.

A recent question came up and I was grateful for the outcome.   Long story short:    Special Districts which maintain roads outside of incorporated cities and towns are immune from liability for damages arising out of the maintenance of those roadways.    They piggy back on county immunity.

Normally, less than ideally maintained roads in Colorado which cause damages to person or property, can lead to liability for those governmental entities which are charged with maintaining them.  An exception for county roads however exists.  Most special districts which maintain roadways are outside of incorporated cities and towns, and therefore those roads are similarly outside the scope of the waiver of immunity found in CRS 24-10-101 et seq., the Governmental Immunity Act.  The rationale is that roads outside of cities and towns have such a wide range of conditions that to hold the county liable to maintain all roads, including dirt tracks in the mountains, would be very burdensome.

Medicaid does not recognize any distinction in resource availability created by a marital agreement of any kind. To protect eligibility of Medicaid recipients upon marriage, keep the spouse’s resources below the “community spouse resource allowance” figure. In Colorado, see

Protecting the eligibility of Medicaid recipients upon marriage, where the addition of the new spouse’s resources could cause the recipient’s resources to exceed the maximum, perhaps can be accomplished by use of a pre-nuptial agreement. Pre-nups as they are called can be useful in second marriages to preserve the inheritance rights of the children of the first marriage, who may otherwise suffer a diminution of their portion of the estate of their parent to the rights of the second spouse. But can the pre-nup preserve the Medicaid eligibility of a “poor” spouse when he/she marries someone whose resources otherwise cause him/her to exceed the maximum resources allowable by Medicaid rules? Is the government bound by the restrictions in the pre-nup? Isn’t the parties’ voluntary segregation of assets and income an attempt to defeat the Medicaid rules? Further research needed.

Recently had reason to check this out.  Client wants to purchase an ongoing business, and it gets a proposal from the target company that fails to describe if the acquisition is a stock sale, asset sale, or a merger–appears to be a merger.  Initial inquiry by attorney reveals that the target company’s parent has been administratively dissolved for years and that the target “subsidiary” is really only a trade name for the parent, with no separate identity.  Whoa, says the attorney,  this puts up many red flags–did the parent treat the “subsidiary” as a separate company on the books or only in the mind of the owner/shareholder.  This kind of deficient corporate treatment illustrates the overwhelming desirability of a letter of intent being used prior to a formal agreement to purchase–it provides the buyer especially the opportunity to perform some much needed (in all cases) due diligence, and the ability to back out if something doesn’t smell right.

Recent client question spawned this post. Nothing to be ashamed of, clients have other things to worry about. What is a P-1, does it give me permanent residence? No. A P-1, often the first route for athletes, is a temporary, i.e. non-immigrant visa category, which more often than not will get the athlete a three year period, with a renewal. It is not permanent residence, often called green card status. If the athlete does not change status or extend at end of period of stay, he/she must return to home country. Oftentimes, during the stay the athlete attains such fame and skills, that he/she can convert to O-1 status, also good for athletes, but for those of higher skill level, or to green card status. It is very important to properly evaluate the evidence that can be presented on behalf of the athlete’s petition–it may very well be possible to get O status or green card right away.

This will be my first posting.   I want to explain a little about how I envision my site to develop.    I will be making postings to the blog when I can, in the areas of law that I am most interested in.    But also I’ll post on other subjects.  I encourage visitors to reply to my postings, or email me at tjyoungjr@aol.com.  More later.

Tom