Online Marriage

[Hestecrefter]

2 hours ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

I did not read the rest of your post, because as someone who has been there, done that, and living the life here in Canada to prove it . .  you sir, are full of it.

Why on earth would you be so insulting?  I posted as I did because, as an attorney familiar with Canadian immigration law, I saw it appropriate to point out a post providing incorrect information.  Nothing personal, as you have made it. You have the temerity to call me out as "full of it" when I provided the links to the Canadian immigration website to back up what i say?  What's wrong with you.  I dare you to provide one scintilla of authority to back up anything you said.  That includes all that you said, especially "one or two years at their discretion".  If you show me wrong on that score, I'll make a full and public apology for saying you were mistaken.

Maybe you should take a lesson in grace, dignity and good behaviour from @craftbeerlover in this thread.  I pointed out to him some misinformation he had received.  He did not come back with contumelious insults, but thanked me for providing correct information.  Unlike you, I expect no one to accept at face value anything I have said.  In each case, I have provided clear authority to back up my words.  What have you done, but act as a petulant child?  

I do not doubt you got your wife into Canada, as you say.  But you have not stated correctly the relevant Canadian immigration law.  I have not taken time to delve into your historical posts here, but I seem to recall reading that you lived with your wife, girlfriend, or whatever your status, for more than a year in the Phils.  She more than likely applied for permanent resident status as a common law spouse.  Indeed, that's what you called her in your post.  There is no way she could have applied as other than spouse, common law or conjugal. But your words: "Whether traditionally married, common-law married, or on-line married, the important thing was to establish a history of a spousal type relationship for a period of time, (one or two years at their discretion)" are just plain wrong.  I double dog dare you to come back with anything from a government of Canada to support any of that.  Sheesh...grow up.

[Rooster]

6 hours ago, Hestecrefter said:

I respectfully disagree with the consulate person with whom you spoke, for reasons set out below.

The FC reference sets out the requirements for a valid marriage performed in the Phils.  It says nothing about recognition of foreign marriages, valid where performed.

I, for one, was giving it serious consideration during the almost 2 years the Phils was closed to tourists, which ended on February 10, 2022.  In that two years, I was looking for a way to be reunited with my then gf.  After I left her at the end of 2019, thinking I would be back in the Phils by March, covid thwarted that plan.  However, if one had a spouse living in the Phils, one could gain entrance with a s. 9A visa.  But my gf was not my spouse.  The Filipina spouse from whom I was divorced (after 18 quite satisfactory years together), was a good sport and offered to get me into the Phils as a balikbayan.  That remained possible during most of the lockdown period.  We could fly in, show our marriage certificate, and get in as balikbayans.  But, I was very reluctant to take her up on her offer.  She would be going to the Phils just to get me in the door, then turn around and go back to Canada.  About 2 days of travel, time loss from her work, much inconvenience.  Of course, I was willing to cover all her costs, time loss, etc., plus something for her time and trouble, but still....

So, I researched online wedding very seriously.  

I looked at online videos on the topic that supported that what I was considering was possible.  Here are two examples:

 

In the course of my research, I corresponded with the Philippine Consulate in Vancouver, and received rather more encouragement than craftbeerlover received from the consulate he contacted in the U.S. (and there are many...there was one in LA when I lived there, but there are more, and I suspect not all would hand out accurate information).

One email I received said this:

On Thursday, February 4, 2021, 08:11:52 AM PST, Visa Section <visasection@vancouverpcg.org> wrote:

Per our civil registry section, the Philippine Consulate accepts online marriages if they are valid in the country / state where they were celebrated, subject to verification with the concerned Post (Embassy/Consulate) that has jurisdiction of the entity that issued the marriage certificate and evaluation of documents submitted by the parties involved.

Before issuance of Philippine visa, parties are required to file the Report of Marriage along with the submission of the documentary requirements for the same.  Please refer to the link below for the requirements for the Report of Marriage application https://www.vancouverpcg.org/services/civil-registry/report-of-marriage/ . 

Thank you.

Visa Section

Consulate General of the Philippines
999 Canada Place, Suite 660
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6C 3E1
Telephone Nos.: +1 604-685-1619 / 7645
Fax No.:   +1 604-685-9945
Websites: www.vancouverpcg.dfa.gov.ph; www.vancouverpcg.org

I also contacted a Filipino attorney friend, who was a neighbor when I lived in Manila.  I knew him to be familiar with Phils family law.  He considered that was I was proposing would work.

So yes, Possum, I'll confess to giving serious consideration to a "desperation move".  I did not then, and do not now, see it as all that pathetic.  If you are separated as we were, with few options to reunite, it does not appear to be such an outrageous proposition.

I should add, for the sake of completeness, that Canada will not accept an online marriage for immigration purposes.  For us, at that time, that was of no moment.

Bizarre that you disagree with The Consulate said when it's clearly written in The Family Code of The Philippines.

The Bottom line is regardless of where one is on the planet, one cannot legally get legally married to a Filipina via an online marriage while that Filipina is inside The Philippines. The marriage will not be recognized, she cannot claim "spouse" to any foreigner who petitions her to come immigrate to their country as a spouse. 

Once the Filipina is outside the Philippines, and in another country then she must follow that countries online marriage laws and she may or may not be able to get married online.

 

 

 

[Hestecrefter]

2 hours ago, Rooster said:

Bizarre that you disagree with The Consulate said when it's clearly written in The Family Code of The Philippines.

The Bottom line is regardless of where one is on the planet, one cannot legally get legally married to a Filipina via an online marriage while that Filipina is inside The Philippines. The marriage will not be recognized, she cannot claim "spouse" to any foreigner who petitions her to come immigrate to their country as a spouse. 

Once the Filipina is outside the Philippines, and in another country then she must follow that countries online marriage laws and she may or may not be able to get married online.

 

 

 

Even more bizarre that you disagree with the strong evidence I provided, including conformation IN WRITING from the Vancouver consulate.  And are you calling the Armstrong story video a pack of lies and fake?  

That which is "clearly written in The Family Code of The Philippines" are the prerequisites for a marriage solemnized on Philippine soil and under Philippine law.  The online marriage of which I speak is one occurring under U.S. law (many being done under Utah state law).  In that case, the marriage is deemed to occur in the Utah and Utah gets to say what are the requirements for getting married in Utah.

As for your bald statement (again, citing absolutely no authority except your final word on the topic) that: "The marriage will not be recognized, she cannot claim "spouse" to any foreigner who petitions her to come immigrate to their country as a spouse", I would say that's up to the foreigner's particular country.  As I said, I know Canada won't accept it (or am I totally wrong on that score too?).  I for one, would find it surprising if the U.S. would not accept it, if, for example, a state such as Utah issues a Certificate of Marriage, but then U.S. immigration says it won't recognize it.  But I do not purport to have any knowledge on that score.  

I looked very closely into this matter when considering getting into the Phils on a s. 9A visa.  At the same time, I researched whether Canada would accept an online marriage for immigration purposes.  I did not research the U.S. or other countries.  You say you know the law of all countries and you know there's not one in the world that will accept it.  I bow to the breadth of your knowledge.  Most impressive.

 

Edited September 24, 2023 by Hestecrefter

[Rooster]

Just now, Hestecrefter said:

Even more bizarre that you disagree with the strong evidence I provided, including conformation IN WRITING from the Vancouver consulate.  And are you calling the Armstrong story video a pack of lies and fake?  

That which is "clearly written in The Family Code of The Philippines" are the prerequisites for a marriage solemnized on Philippine soil and under Philippine law.  The online marriage of which I speak is one occurring under U.S. law (many being done under Utah state law).  In that case, the marriage is deemed to occur in the Utah and Utah gets to say what are the requirements for getting married in Utah.

As for your bald statement (again, citing absolutely no authority except your final word on the topic) that: "The marriage will not be recognized, she cannot claim "spouse" to any foreigner who petitions her to come immigrate to their country as a spouse", I would say that's up to the foreigner's particular country.  As I said, I know Canada won't accept it (or am I totally wrong on that score too?).  I for one, would find it surprising if the U.S. would not accept it, if, for example, a state such as Utah issues a Certificate of Marriage, but then U.S. immigration says it won't recognize it.  But I do not purport to have any knowledge on that score.  

I looked very closely into this matter when considering getting into the Phils on a s. 9A visa.  At the same time, I researched whether Canada would accept an online marriage for immigration purposes.  I did not research the U.S. or other countries.  You say you know the law of all countries and you know there's not one in the world that will accept it.  I bow to the breadth of your knowledge.  Most impressive.

 

Regarding your comment:  Even more bizarre that you disagree with the strong evidence I provided, including conformation IN WRITING from the Vancouver consulate.  And are you calling the Armstrong story video a pack of lies and fake?  

Regarding:  You say you know the law of all countries and you know there's not one in the world that will accept it.  I bow to the breadth of your knowledge.  Most impressive.

Read my comments. You are making false statements and accusations.  You claim you are an Immigration Attorney in Canada. Perhaps you should read Canada's Code of Professional Conduct of Lawyers

DIVISION III

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS

19. A lawyer must not, directly or indirectly, publish, broadcast, communicate or send writings or comments which are false or which he should know are false or assist anyone in doing so.

https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cr/b-1,%20r.%203.1

 

 

 

[Hestecrefter]

13 minutes ago, Rooster said:

...

Read my comments. You are making false statements and accusations.  You claim you are an Immigration Attorney in Canada. Perhaps you should read Canada's Code of Professional Conduct of Lawyers

DIVISION III

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS

19. A lawyer must not, directly or indirectly, publish, broadcast, communicate or send writings or comments which are false or which he should know are false or assist anyone in doing so.

https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cr/b-1,%20r.%203.1

 

I make (and have made) no claim to be an immigration attorney in Canada or anywhere else.  But, I do claim to have more knowledge on the topic than most here. In fact, I no longer carry on an active law practice, since it is difficult to to so away from the downtown Vancouver office where I did so.  I am now spending a lot of time abroad, especially in the Philippines.  While in Canada, I have a home in Victoria, where I could have an office, but I prefer to be on a more remote oceanfront acreage where I am off-grid and have to travel by boat and it's hardly conducive to any kind of active law practice.  So, I now work online as a legal researcher, writer and editor.  That allows me to work from anywhere in the world.

So just what, pray tell, have I published that is false?

You are putting out no shortage of false content.  Please show us "Canada's Code of Professional Conduct of Lawyers".  You have provided a link to Quebec legislation.  My province is British Columbia.  When practising law, it it the Law Society of BC and its conduct codes that apply.  

And enough with the childish emojis, okay?  They are distracting and add nothing of value, apart from revealing you to be a mental midget.

 

Edited September 24, 2023 by Hestecrefter

[Rooster]

Just now, Hestecrefter said:

I make (and have made) no claim to be an immigration attorney in Canada or anywhere else.  But, I do claim to have more knowledge on the topic than most here. In fact, I no longer carry on an active law practice, since it is difficult to to so away from the downtown Vancouver office where I did so.  I am now spending a lot of time abroad, especially in the Philippines.  While in Canada, I have a home in Victoria, where I could have an office, but I prefer to be on a more remote oceanfront acreage where I am off-grid and have to travel by boat and it's hardly conducive to any kind of active law practice.  So, I now work online as a legal researcher, writer and editor.  That allows me to work from anywhere in the world.

So just what, pray tell, have I published that is false?

You are putting out no shortage of false content.  Please show us "Canada's Code of Professional Conduct of Lawyers".  You have provided a link to Quebec legislation.  My province is British Columbia.  When practising law, it it the Law Society of BC and its conduct codes that apply.  

And enough with the childish emojis, okay?  They are distracting and add nothing of value, apart from revealing you to be a mental midget.

 

You used the edit feature to remove your claim that you were a Canadian Immigration Attorney. 

 

[Hestecrefter]

3 hours ago, Rooster said:

You used the edit feature to remove your claim that you were a Canadian Immigration Attorney. 

 

And that's a complete and utter falsehood and I hotly resent the implication that I would resort to such a low road stunt.  It's the kind of thing that could get an attorney into a serious discipline proceeding with the attorney's governing body.  Even if it occurs on an anonymous forum.  I'll venture to say that the Law Society of BC would be interested to know if a member was behaving unethically at any time.  Professional standards are to be upheld at all times, not just at the office.  If lawyers act badly off the job, it reflects poorly on the profession as a whole.  

The only thing I said that comes close to calling myself "a Canadian immigration attorney" remains there, unedited.  I said: "as an attorney familiar with Canadian immigration law...".  And that is true.  I am also very au courant in criminal law, family law, wills and estates law, corporate law & c.  Yet I am not a criminal attorney or any of the others.  

So yes, I claim to be an attorney familiar with Canadian immigration law.  But then, because of the nature of my present work as a legal researcher and writer, as mentioned above, I am very familiar with a wide variety of areas of law, far more than when I was in practice.  The reason for that is that, when in practice, I had to work on my client files and getting billings out.  I practised in only a few areas of law, since it's not possible to handle a wide variety of files and to do all the reading and research necessary to keep up-to-date in multiple areas of law.  Most lawyers nowadays confine their work to one or two discrete areas.  Not possible to master them all. The days of "general law practice" are pretty much past.  The law is too complex to allow one to accept whatever files come through the door.  I can safely say now that I am far more up-to-date in more areas of the law that probably any practising attorney.  That is because I am now paid to read, research, keep up-to-date without having to attend to the daily grind of getting through files, making court appearances, dealing with clients, other attorneys and a host of things that take time; time I no longer have to spend.  

I'll add that most of my awareness of Canadian immigration law flows from the fact of processing immigration applications for my own family and I have taken on a limited number of applications for others, at no charge.  That has required me to learn the applicable law.  It weighs on me, in particular, even working pro bono, work I do for others must bloody well be done right.  I have never done paid work on an immigration file. 

If there are others here who agree that I acted with shameful dishonesty and carried out the editing attributed to me by Rooster, please step forward.  Tell me where the redacted words appeared.  I went back and looked at my posts and I see that the post in which I said I was an attorney "familiar with Canadian immigration law" has NOT been edited.  So, please point to the post wherein I claimed to be a Canadian immigration attorney and, if you will, tell us where in that post the claim appeared.  I note, as well, that the only post in this thread that reveals it to have been edited my me, came long after the post that appears to have Rooster acting like a child throwing a tantrum.  I can think of a host of insults and calumnies to hurl at him in return, but I'll restrain myself and not stoop to his unbecoming level acting like a petulant child.

[Clermont]

Come on boys, this is a forum of people, using big words only stuffs up good reading, no one is interested in who’s the smartest.

[Gator]

On 9/25/2023 at 10:24 AM, Clermont said:

Come on boys, this is a forum of people, using big words only stuffs up good reading, no one is interested in who’s the smartest.

Don’t you worry none Claremont, I got yer back! I done did sent a email to goggle translate. I told dem to add Canadian to da list of foreign languages so that we can get dem big Canadian words translated to English fur ya n fur me to! 

[OnMyWay]

As I mentioned before, if you are seriously interested in UTAH online marriage to a Filipina,  join Visa Journey, read and ask questions.  Since the pandemic, there a still a few reasons why a couple might use the Utah online marriage.