Jim's List site down

[Dan]

The point about there being no online girlfriends is a very legit point. As for Jamie it is nothing personal. In fact all he really would have had to do is say colombian law doesn't require it so I'm not IMBRA compliant and I would have left it alone.  I don't think Jamie is the root of all evil. In fact I'm sure there are many worse agenices to go to. I just don't think he is being very transparent. Researcher outlined the importance of being IMBRA compliant. That's why the question is also important and valid.

>>As for Jamie it is nothing personal. In fact all he really would have had to do is say colombian law doesn't require it so I'm not IMBRA compliant and I would have left it alone.<<

Really?!?

Upthread, I told you that Jamie had already said that. I told you it was in the link provided by Researcher. You said that you looked at the link and the thread. I wonder . . . .

Either you did NOT look, or you did NOT see, or you did NOT understand - because here is what Jamie wrote:

RPCV we are a Colombian company and we are not required to follow this American laws. If a client wants to comply on his own he is welcomed to.

Jamie went on to say (regarding IMBRA):

The lawyer I spoke to said I am fine.

Are you going to need me to link you to any other posts that were provided to you TWICE PREVIOUSLY by others again?

>>Researcher outlined the importance of being IMBRA compliant. That's why the question is also important and valid.<<

You seem to be missing the point. Nobody is disputing that IMBRA is important. However, what YOU are harping on is Jamie and his agency. Long ago he addressed his position on IMBRA. You, and others, now have the option - indeed, the obligation - to make YOUR OWN choices about the risks involved.

Saving people a few grand when they just decide to sign up for some personal dating sites might be positive to them? Sure is to me.

Yes, it sure does seem important to you - AND - I suspect it is important to others.

When it becomes your crusade to push an agenda, however, that is NOT important to others except as an irritant.

bcc - it is NOT your job to save people from themselves. Sharing your experience and perspective is fine, and welcome, but you need to recognize there is a limit, and when you become a 'broken record', it is counterproductive to your stated objective, and raises other questions.

- Dan

[singlefather no more]

bcc,

Why don't you take this to PL Court with Jamie if you have such a hard on for him.. I am very sure he would meet you there.. A old saying comes to mind " Put up or shut up " ..

So will you accept the challenge and go to PL Court against Jamie or are you worried that Jamie will eat you for lunch there ?


..

[Jamie]

bcc
You remind me of the Black Knight in the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail where the Black Knight continues to insult and challenge his victor after losing one at a time, both his arms and legs.

You have a very short memory you mention IMBRA in January and had postings on the very same page where I had my answers saying I was not compliant and did not need to be compliant.

Quote from: bcc_1_2 on January 25, 2009, 01:34:31 AM
"He could have said he was unsure about being IMBRA compliant and even though he was a colombian business he'd contact his attorney."

And this is some of what I said:

“we are a Colombian company and we are not required to follow this American laws. If a client wants to comply on his own he is welcomed to.”

“I am very knowledgeable about IMBRA and there was never any confusion on my part.”

“If it is determined that a client requires some form of compliance it will be very easy for us to satisfy such compliance. But the facts are to date approximately two years after the law has been passed no clients have been delayed or hindered by this law. A law that may not apply to clients who use our services since we are a foreign country not under the jurisdiction of U.S law. Any client who wishes to comply with this law can do so on their own.”

"The lawyer I spoke to said I am fine. If you want to post the specific part of the law that says otherwise please do."

“thanks for that information. But this is a U.S. law and as you know U.S. law does not have jurisdiction in other countries. Of course, what is more important is that the client does not have any delays in his visa process and to date there have not been any, nor any indications there will be. Scare them as you might.”

”The legal advice I received disagrees with you position. As I indicated any client wanting to abide by this law is welcomed to do so.”

”All visiting clients are now provided and suggested to contact a recommended immigration lawyer prior to their visit to discuss any legal precautions they may want to take prior or during their visit. Additional safeguards and compliance will take place on a need-to-basis.” 

Can you explain why you have such a short memory?

As for you other questions. Once you answer the backlog of questions from me I’ll be more than happy to do so for you.

I see after responding to every single question you asked of me on this thread  “Will International Introductions do the right thing or not?” you declined to answer my first questions to you and every other question that followed.

You can start with these questions and backtrack to every other exchanged we have had up to this thread where you don't answer my questions.
________________________________________
Quote from: bcc_1_2 on January 25, 2009, 01:34:31 AM
"I'm starting to see your reasoning. Instead of the name calling and side stepping issues he could have just dealt with them and ended this thread/issue."

My response:
"If you look at the sequence of postings you will see William insulted me a few times prior to me even posting to him once. In my first post to him I tried to start a dialogue with him. Do you see any insults in that post? He then insulted me in three more post. He is now up five post insults to my 1 post before I realize I am dealing with a coward who prefers to call me names instead of debating. Now why don’t you take another look and tell me if you see it any differently than I just stated?"

If you felt I sidestepped an issue please tell me what it is but I suggest you carefully reread the thread?

[singlefather no more]

bcc,

I just finished talking with Jamie on the phone and as he has posted to you before he said he will happily meet you in PL Court..

So do you accept this challenge ?

So what is your answer ?


Yes or No ?


..

[bcc_1_2]

bcc,

I just finished talking with Jamie on the phone and as he has posted to you before he said he will happily meet you in PL Court..

So do you accept this challenge ?

So what is your answer ?


Yes or No ?


..

To court over what? If he is IMBRA complaint and inline with the code of ethics? Absolutely.

If he is seperated or married? That I wouldn't do as I'm not a mind reader.

Well hey at least you actually got answers from me. Didn't beat around the bush.

[bcc_1_2]

bcc
You remind me of the Black Knight in the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail where the Black Knight continues to insult and challenge his victor after losing one at a time, both his arms and legs.

You have a very short memory you mention IMBRA in January and had postings on the very same page where I had my answers saying I was not compliant and did not need to be compliant.

Quote from: bcc_1_2 on January 25, 2009, 01:34:31 AM
"He could have said he was unsure about being IMBRA compliant and even though he was a colombian business he'd contact his attorney."

And this is some of what I said:

“we are a Colombian company and we are not required to follow this American laws. If a client wants to comply on his own he is welcomed to.”

“I am very knowledgeable about IMBRA and there was never any confusion on my part.”

“If it is determined that a client requires some form of compliance it will be very easy for us to satisfy such compliance. But the facts are to date approximately two years after the law has been passed no clients have been delayed or hindered by this law. A law that may not apply to clients who use our services since we are a foreign country not under the jurisdiction of U.S law. Any client who wishes to comply with this law can do so on their own.”

"The lawyer I spoke to said I am fine. If you want to post the specific part of the law that says otherwise please do."

That's all great. They aren't enforcing it and you are in Colombia. It still means you aren't compliant which was my point. I'm not in favor of the law, but it is still a law that governs me the USA citizen. Citizens need to know this. Even though it may not be being enforced AT THE MOMENT it still is a law we USA citizens are suposed to follow.

And my only other point is technically you don't comply. Now Dan won't come out and say it, but according to what his Code of Ethics says and his prior posts... He does not suggest people use marriage brokers that do not agree and comply with the Code of Ethics.

That is basically my only point. And one I'd be more than willing to prove in the P-L court.

[singlefather no more]

Dan,

So Jamie and bcc have both accepted the challenge to take all this to PL Court..

bcc,

Save you comebacks for PL court..

.

[bcc_1_2]

Dan,

So Jamie and bcc have both accepted the challenge to take all this to PL Court..


.

Just to note the only way I would participate is to get an official PL decision on if Jamie's agency is IMBRA compliant or not. Otherwise there is no possible postive reason for me to partake. So far Dan seems against making a distinction as to if any agency is IMBRA complaint so I'm not sure he'll let it happen.

[singlefather no more]

Just to note the only way I would participate is to get an official PL decision on if Jamie's agency is IMBRA compliant or not. Otherwise there is no possible postive reason for me to partake. So far Dan seems against making a distinction as to if any agency is IMBRA complaint so I'm not sure he'll let it happen.

bcc,

I notice you have not responded to Dan's post above.. Maybe you missed his post ?

You have been flogging a dead horse and actually I think we have 12 dead horses on the ground..

As I understand it PL Court is for parties to take issues too and get resolved.. Speaking for myself and some other posters I have talked too this thing you have going on with Jamie is getting to be irritating as hell and very old.

Why are you thinking of backing down from going in with Jamie ?

You have made about 40 + posts I am guessing on this issue within the last month. With all due respect you seem to have a real hard time grasping and understanding some issues.. I think you must be trying to speed read posts and don't fully understand what you are reading..

You have challenged Jamie on a number of topics and he is willing to go to PL Court and answer all your questions to your hearts content so we don't have this going on and on and on in threads..

After all this you are thinking of wimping out ?

If you don't go to PL Court I would ask you drop this charade , the subject , debates and arguments with Jamie since you will have proved to all of us you are not interesting in a resolution and a decision of this matter and just want to have this conflict carry on..

Jamie is man enough to put this in front of PL Court so this does not keep disrupting the board and to get everything out on the Table ?

It is called " conflict resolution " ..


Are you man enough ?



.

[bcc_1_2]

Are you man enough ?

Dan always ends his posts with people should decided for themselves. What other issue than than if Jamie is IMBRA compliant is there? I don't think it is wrong for me to think it would suck to purchase a package for $9,900 and then find out they are arbitrarily deciding to enforce the IMBRA laws after I get engaged.

Ah more manhood questioning. My dispute is that Jamie is not IMBRA compliant and instead of answering yes or no he talks about that the law isn't being enforced and that he is in Colombia so it doesn't apply to him. I agree with both those statements. But its still the law and can be enforced at any time on US citizens. And as US citizens we must comply with the law not matter how much it sucks.

The reason we have all these pages of posts is because Jamie won't just come out and say he is not (or is for that matter) IMBRA compliant. If he did that would be the end of the issue. Just be honest and say you are or are not compliant.

Otherwise PL court is fine with me. But at the very least while you're questioning my manhood make sure you actually tell me exactly what we are going to court for.

I'd be more than willing to go to court for something concrete worth discussing. The only thing I haven't heard is a simple yes or no answer. I'd be more than willing to go to the PL court for that. And let them decide it.  Other than that I see nothing to go to court over. I'm not going to court over if his packages are worth it for instance or if he is a nice guy (that's findalatina's department)

But if it means the PL board coming out and drawing a line in the sand on the issue of IMBRA compliance then I'm all for going. I keep getting the impression from Dan that he wouldn't let PL actually come out and say this agency or that agency is not IMBRA compliant. Maybe for legal reasons of his own (which if that is the reason I should probably apologize for getting on him, but it still doesn't excuse avoiding the simple yes or no answer on the agency owner's part)

So my brass balls are ready. 

[bcc_1_2]

and... Jim got his website back.

[Dan]

Dan always ends his posts with people should decided for themselves. What other issue than than if Jamie is IMBRA compliant is there? I don't think it is wrong for me to think it would suck to purchase a package for $9,900 and then find out they are arbitrarily deciding to enforce the IMBRA laws after I get engaged.

Ah more manhood questioning. My dispute is that Jamie is not IMBRA compliant and instead of answering yes or no he talks about that the law isn't being enforced and that he is in Colombia so it doesn't apply to him. I agree with both those statements. But its still the law and can be enforced at any time on US citizens. And as US citizens we must comply with the law not matter how much it sucks.

The reason we have all these pages of posts is because Jamie won't just come out and say he is not (or is for that matter) IMBRA compliant. If he did that would be the end of the issue. Just be honest and say you are or are not compliant.

Otherwise PL court is fine with me. But at the very least while you're questioning my manhood make sure you actually tell me exactly what we are going to court for.

I'd be more than willing to go to court for something concrete worth discussing. The only thing I haven't heard is a simple yes or no answer. I'd be more than willing to go to the PL court for that. And let them decide it.  Other than that I see nothing to go to court over. I'm not going to court over if his packages are worth it for instance or if he is a nice guy (that's findalatina's department)

But if it means the PL board coming out and drawing a line in the sand on the issue of IMBRA compliance then I'm all for going. I keep getting the impression from Dan that he wouldn't let PL actually come out and say this agency or that agency is not IMBRA compliant. Maybe for legal reasons of his own (which if that is the reason I should probably apologize for getting on him, but it still doesn't excuse avoiding the simple yes or no answer on the agency owner's part)

So my brass balls are ready. 

>>The reason we have all these pages of posts is because Jamie won't just come out and say he is not (or is for that matter) IMBRA compliant. If he did that would be the end of the issue. Just be honest and say you are or are not compliant.<<

bcc - I am going to call bu!!sh!t on you. You continue to insist Jamie refused to address a question, but he actually addressed it in mid-January, and you have been provided links to his responses several times now.

How many more times are you going to repeat the same tired fallacious accusation?

I can tell you that it frustrates me - and probably many other members. Because it is a disruptive tactic and I am becoming convinced you are engaging in the tactic for sport and not out of a sincere interest to engage in learning, I am close to classifying you as a troll and acting accordingly.

>>I'd be more than willing to go to court for something concrete worth discussing. The only thing I haven't heard is a simple yes or no answer.<<

Yes you have. You know exactly what Jamie's position is on the topic.

>>But if it means the PL board coming out and drawing a line in the sand on the issue of IMBRA compliance then I'm all for going. I keep getting the impression from Dan that he wouldn't let PL actually come out and say this agency or that agency is not IMBRA compliant.<<

OK - I will 'bite' on this one - but only because others may be interested in the response.

First reference the PL Values (http://www.planet-love.com/index.php?pid=29). In it, you will find tenets of self-moderation, civil discourse, and personal accountability - among others.

At our CertifiedMarriageAgencies.org site, where we host the Agency Code of Ethics, on the Home Page you will find this statement:

Welcome to Certified Marriage Agencies!

We are established to provide information about International Marriage Brokers (a/k/a 'Agencies'), so that you can determine which of them is operating honestly and with integrity, and ultimately, so that you may be more assured they are a business deserving of your hard-earned money.

Through the Agency Code of Ethics, we have provided written description of the behaviors we believe represent 'Standards' of performance and behavior which should be operational for any Agency conducting itself in an honest and ethical manner. And through the Certification Guide, we seek to provide a reasonable level of assurance to users of Agency services (both men and women) that those Agencies are honest and ethical.

As important as what we ARE - it is equally important to recognize what we ARE NOT.

    We have NO interest in establishing any kind of "blacklist." IR and CMA have described the behavior and performance we believe are important for an honest and ethical agency. We want to reward and promote those agencies which are behaving honorably and conform to the ACoE.

    We are NOT a police or investigatory agency and have no authority to act in that capacity. We accept the obligation to review complaints sent us by Agency customers and clients, and we will report our findings faithfully and honestly - but that falls short of having any form of police powers.

    We are NOT in the business of creating problems for anyone. That is not our objective. Our objective is to promote and report on those Agencies operating with integrity.

    We are NOT a political organization and intend to remain politically agnostic.

Within the limits of what we do, and what we do not, we firmly believe this site and the information available here will make a positive impact on many lives. Please drop by the Forum and review the information found there.

Welcome to the CMA site!

You will NOT find anything about CMA or PL acting as an enforcement agency. We explicitly refuse to create a "blacklist" and we explicitly acknowledge we are not the internet police.

I think you need to take a "Reading for Comprehension" course. Would you like me to recommend one for you?

- Dan

[eddomo1970]

Ah more manhood questioning. My dispute is that Jamie is not IMBRA compliant and instead of answering yes or no he talks about that the law isn't being enforced and that he is in Colombia so it doesn't apply to him. I agree with both those statements. But its still the law and can be enforced at any time on US citizens. And as US citizens we must comply with the law not matter how much it sucks.

I call bull sh*t on this one. Tell me which state you live in and i can give you at least 5 different laws you break in your everyday life. Ever hear of dumb laws? According to you we must comply no matter what. Yeah right get a clue man. How many laws are struck down by the courts all the time because they are unconstitutional?

From your other posts it is easy to come to the conclusion that you like to argue with people. Not just on PL. What it is like to be young and think we know it all. Glad I am well past that phase in my life.

[singlefather no more]

My dispute is that Jamie is not IMBRA compliant and instead of answering yes or no he talks about that the law isn't being enforced and that he is in Colombia so it doesn't apply to him.

So my brass balls are ready. 

bcc,

I guess you have a memory problem or you can't comprehend what you are reading.. Jamie answered No he is not many times..

I don't think you have brass balls since you are not confident to debate Jamie in PL Court. . I have classify you as a blowhard and a Troll unless you have a Reading comprehension problem.

Here is a Video for you with 6 tips for you and I sincerely hope it helps you..

http://www.youtube.com/v/aIHMYpgLaXA&hl=en&fs=1

[singlefather no more]

troll,

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Troll?qsrc=2888

An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1;

regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion.

Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait.

Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll."


..

[Ray]

The point about there being no online girlfriends is a very legit point.

 

I disagree.

‘IF’ you think that you have the right to insult another man’s significant other just because you don’t believe their relationship is legitimate in your mind, then you sir are an idiot.

The fact that two people have not yet met in person does NOT mean that she can not be his “girlfriend”, or fiancée for that matter.

This is something that you will just have to accept: IF you ever resort to insulting or belittling another man’s girlfriend, fiancée, wife, mother, or children, be prepared to be bitch-slapped from one end of this forum to the other, and justifiably so.

Ray
 

[Researcher]

I call bull sh*t on this one. Tell me which state you live in and i can give you at least 5 different laws you break in your everyday life. Ever hear of dumb laws? According to you we must comply no matter what. Yeah right get a clue man. How many laws are struck down by the courts all the time because they are unconstitutional?

          Once again:The definition of International Marriage Brokers in the Act covers virtually all for-profit matchmaking entities, whether U.S. based or not, whose main business is the facilitation of dating or like services between U.S. citizens and foreigners. The definition excludes matchmaking sites whose principal business in not providing dating services between U.S. residents and foreign clients and which charges like fees for its services regardless of the gender or national origin of the client.

 
            As a matter of fact IMBRA was challenged in court for being unconstitutional and the people who brought the lawsuit lost.Don't take this or the visa process lightly because one of the main reasons people get denied is that they don't take it serious.

           The group that is responsible for pushing IMBRA just got a huge amount of money from the government.With Hillary as Secretary of State now do you think they won't be pushing this law further?


     

[Ray]

The group that is responsible for pushing IMBRA just got a huge amount of money from the government.

Are you talking about Tahirih?

I don't recall hearing anything about them receiving any huge government funding recently other than a one million dollar grant for IMBRA enforcement in 2007. Nothing on their website either.

Do you have any more info on this or a news link?

Ray

[eddomo1970]

          Once again:The definition of International Marriage Brokers in the Act covers virtually all for-profit matchmaking entities, whether U.S. based or not, whose main business is the facilitation of dating or like services between U.S. citizens and foreigners. The definition excludes matchmaking sites whose principal business in not providing dating services between U.S. residents and foreign clients and which charges like fees for its services regardless of the gender or national origin of the client.

 
            As a matter of fact IMBRA was challenged in court for being unconstitutional and the people who brought the lawsuit lost.Don't take this or the visa process lightly because one of the main reasons people get denied is that they don't take it serious.
    

Who says the main business is american clients? As for me I never used an "agency" so i have no worry for that. Also my girl knows everything about me. I don't feel the need to lie to the woman i want to have a serious relationship with.
As for the lawsuits it was brought by the agencies not the people using them. The unconstitutionality of the law is based in individual citizen rights, not business owners. As of yet I have never heard of anyone being denied because of IMBRA. Seems to me it is one of those silly laws to scare you into thinking you are doing something wrong.

[eddomo1970]

          Once again:The definition of International Marriage Brokers in the Act covers virtually all for-profit matchmaking entities, whether U.S. based or not, whose main business is the facilitation of dating or like services between U.S. citizens and foreigners.

Also who are we to presume we can dictate laws in other countries? Should the French dictate our laws? Would you follow them if they did?

[Researcher]

Who says the main business is american clients? As for me I never used an "agency" so i have no worry for that. Also my girl knows everything about me. I don't feel the need to lie to the woman i want to have a serious relationship with.
As for the lawsuits it was brought by the agencies not the people using them. The unconstitutionality of the law is based in individual citizen rights, not business owners. As of yet I have never heard of anyone being denied because of IMBRA. Seems to me it is one of those silly laws to scare you into thinking you are doing something wrong.

                 That's great that you don't have anything to worry about.IMBRA was challenged on the basis that it is unconstitutional because it prohibits two people from talking to one another.I think that is an individual right.

                 In that case just go ahead and try to bring your woman to the US without a visa.Just tell them that you think it(having a visa) is a silly law and you don't have to follow it.The bottom line is it is a law, silly(I think it is) or not.

[Researcher]

Also who are we to presume we can dictate laws in other countries? Should the French dictate our laws? Would you follow them if they did?

                  The US doesn't dictate other countries laws but that can deny visas. I'm not really concerned as much with IMBs getting in trouble as I am with denial of visas.As I have said before;from the time I met my wife until her interview at the embassy I saw the change in how IMBRA was being enforced.It is a law now, enforced or not.

[Researcher]

Are you talking about Tahirih?

I don't recall hearing anything about them receiving any huge government funding recently other than a one million dollar grant for IMBRA enforcement in 2007. Nothing on their website either.

Do you have any more info on this or a news link?

Ray

        2007 not recent enough?One million not big enough?

[eddomo1970]

                 That's great that you don't have anything to worry about.IMBRA was challenged on the basis that it is unconstitutional because it prohibits two people from talking to one another.I think that is an individual right.

                 In that case just go ahead and try to bring your woman to the US without a visa.Just tell them that you think it(having a visa) is a silly law and you don't have to follow it.The bottom line is it is a law, silly(I think it is) or not.

IMBRA was challenged by agencies and they lost because they were not losing there individual rights. The unconstitutionality of the law is in the denied individual, which it has yet to do, or has yet to been challenged.

Where they hell you get bringing them to the US without a visa is beyond me. You have gone way of track with what i was talking about.

[Ray]

        2007 not recent enough?One million not big enough?

Then it's old news.

No, one million is not a huge amount when you consider the billions trillions these dumb-assed politicians are throwing around lately...