Subject to Congress And Bush

[Travis]

Maybe it's time we ask OUR Congressmen to protect us, opposed to protecting foreiners. No, maybe we not ask, but demand protection! We have all accepted the "Violence Against Womens Act of 1994", but maybe it is time we begin to argue about our right to be protected against bogus claims.

It's sorta funny that we seem to be on the ropes and scared that false claims can be made against us, but we do nothing about them until we go to court and try to prove our innocence. What really stinks is we do this alone. We aren't alone!!!

I'll be more than happy to start with my Congressman, but one won't do the job. What the resolution is I really don't know. Maybe some grain of salt is taken with a K-1...I dunno.

I know I was really scr3w3d after 2 months of marriage. The US courts treated it as if she were an American and didn't have anything to gain, which was totally not the case...she was trying to gain a green card and kill my reputation and career in the process, among other things...some things she succeeded at! They weren't prepared for our circumstance.

Why not a law to protect us? Just a guess, but I assume we all vote.

[Powerlifter]

... in response to Subject to Congress And Bush, posted by Travis on Oct 18, 2004

[This message has been edited by Powerlifter]

My first post here, but I wanted to add a thought on this subject.

It is clearly noted in the immigration regs that marriage is not intended to be used as a vehicle to obtain legal residence in the US.  However, the regs then provide an expedited green card for women who file as battered spouses, even though the marriage may not have met the two year test.  This provision provides a very strong incentive for women to file false claims of abuse if a marriage is failing.

While I detest violence against women, if a valid, good faith marriage was truly the reason for a woman to immigrate, then it stands to reason that she should return to her country if the marriage fails.  (Children born to the marriage obviously mitigates this position.)

Although my viewpoint may seem a bit extreme, it would discourage women from taking the "Well, I don't love him, but I'll marry him anyway and if it doesn't work I'll still have a greencard in the end" approach that too many women seem to take.  BTW, it is my understanding that many other western countries take this general approach to the immigration of spouses of their citizens in order to protect their citizens against abuses of the immigration process.

[LP]

... in response to Subject to Congress And Bush, posted by Travis on Oct 18, 2004

Travis, I don't know the specifics of your situation because you've never really revealed them in detail, nor do I know the outcome of it. I've just returned from the wilds of northwestern Russia and I'm beat but I'll offer up a thought or two.

Why not a law to protect MOB men? All I'll say (with no malice towards you or your suggestion) is this:

1) The country has far greater problems to deal with. We're way too busy focusing on a course that'll lead to world destruction. (Lol, or at least domination). And you're asking Dubya for help? Sure, as soon as we invade Halley's Comet for dubious reasons (and totally screw it up afterwards) he might find time to address your concerns. Come on, do you really expect the jackassery that passes for government today to do anything for us?

2) The public's perception of MOB (in all the countries involved) is that the people who do it are losers and misfits. Right or wrong that's the way it is. No one is likely to change anything other than to make it more difficult for everyone involved because the public doesn't see it as normal and they usually adopt a "they got what they deserved" attitude. I'm not saying you were totally at fault in your case but it's exactly why "mistakes" like your's must be minimized. "Russian" into this is not something to be done, no matter how much a guy thinks he's in "love".

Or did you mean a law to protect men in general? That has even less of a chance of happening. I mean come on, how can you expect such an enlightened perspective from a country where 50% of the population thinks the way it does these days? Your wish will remain a pipe dream and in some ways rightfully so. Men (especially MOB men) have proven themselves time and again to be idiots when it comes to women. They need to learn to protect themselves from these things happening in the first place, the last thing we need is more laws. In the end we're all responsible for our actions and must pay the consequences. And if we think we're not it's usually because of the distorted view through our own eyes of the "who to blame" game that comes with the emotional trauma of a failed relationship.

It's life, start liking it. You could've put a .22 between her eyes and been done with it. She wouldn't have been worth it but my point is in general I agree with you. Women should get no slack simply because they're women and certainly not because they're from the FSU. They're more than capable of the most despicable acts known, no different than men. After all, they're just people and it's usually the emotionally crippled who place women on a pedestal and allow themselves to be victimized. Some even go on to do it again and again and then cry at the "injustice" of it all.

Don't get me wrong, I like women too. It's just I always remember every single one (no matter how sweet they seem at any given moment) is capable of anything. I usually have very little problem with them but on some days I think all they're good for is greasin' up and getting in the sink.

As for voting, you might as well get high on sheep embryos to solve our problems. They're not really the fault of politicians. The problems are systemic, the fault of the system and the many Americans who're either too arrogant, uneducated, shortsighted, or just plain stooopid to see past their own ignorance. The fact is no matter who is in office we'll all continue to lose, as will our offspring.

In other words be afraid, be very afraid. The last thing we need these days is more laws to protect ourselves, from ourselves.

[Travis]

... in response to Re: Subject to Congress And Bush, posted by LP on Oct 20, 2004

[This message has been edited by Travis]

I'd like to see something done to protect men in general. There doesn't even need to be new laws passed, simply enforce those that already exist. For instance, the woman that testifies at her divorce trial that her husband beat her but she is making this up in order to help her case for sole custody of the children. It's purjury but often times even if it's proven that she's lying, she faces no consequences.

My case really wasn't too different except she had a different motivation and goal: GREEN CARD! But, I was able to prove she lied. Still nothing was done to her regarding her purjury and filing false documents with the court. I guarentee had I been the one commiting purjury and been proven I was, I'd be in jail today!

My point is that it seems to me that women are permitted to try and get away with it. The courts seem to say "go ahead, put on your best acting job. If your convincing you win, if not we'll forget the whole thing". There is a double standard and it's very much BS.

Read this article. It has nothing to do with MOB but a great deal to do with how men in general are treated in family court. There are currently 28 class action lawsuits going on across the country. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133875,00.html

I thought I did give the specifics of my so called marriage. The details I have revealed; the outcome I haven't because I don't know that yet. All I can do is guess what the outcome will be. I did prove to INS that the X committed marriage fraud...'nuff said, ball is in their court [literally] :-)

Sheep embryos???

"In the end we're all responsible for our actions and must pay the consequences."

That is what I want, without the double standard!

As I said before, from now on I'll just enjoy some good 'ole home grown misery :-) Which should be here in 'bout an hour so I need to clean up a bit...later.

[Lynn]

... in response to Re: Re: Subject to Congress And Bush, posted by Travis on Oct 23, 2004

[This message has been edited by Lynn]

Those guys are barking up the wrong tree. Case in point; Two weeks ago one of my associates was in "court*" ,for an unrelated matter, and observed the judge speaking the truth. A case came up where a man and ex-wife were at odds about child custody, thru their various ramblings, of he did that/she did that, they kept making references to "my" children. The judge and the bailiff seemed to find humor in their comments, but soon came to a point to where they had heard enough. The judge then spoke sternly to each individually, pointing his finger and saying; "Those are not your children, and those are not your children, They are OUR children [meaning the "state"]" and then laughed at them for their stupidity. The sad thing is, I'm sure that neither of them knew what he meant.

As for your case, you have never been to "court", you were in "judge's chambers"------look up the definition and then think about what went on when you were there----did the judge entertain pleas/motions. In "chambers" you have no rights, he is king, and what he says goes. To quote from Black's Law Dictionary 4th ed. Chambers. In Practice, The private room or office of a judge; any place in which a judge hears motions, signs papers, or does other business pertaining to his office, when he is not holding a session of court.

 "any place" being the key term here.

In "chambers" you have no rights, the judge may do with you as he wishes and since you hired a lawyer you have asked to be treated as a "ward" of the state---you are at their mercy. Also take note of the flag that is present in that supposed court. It is the flag of "admirality". Yellow fringe/tassels, eagle on top of mast, not of proper size according to U.S.C. Title 4 sub-section 1,2,& 3. Under admirality law you have no rights, only privilages.

but then I'm not a lawyer &
expect none that are to admit these facts--why would they--that would only expose the game.

my 3 or 2cts.
Lynn

[LP]

... in response to Re: Re: Subject to Congress And Bush, posted by Travis on Oct 23, 2004

[This message has been edited by LP]

OK, as much as I shy away from anything Pox is involved in I read the article. It's mainly about custody and that's a different topic. The welfare of the child is the deciding criterion in those cases and I agree things need to be re-examined and updated to reflect the changes in our culture.

But yeah, I see where it could be brought over into men's rights in general. I'm afraid it isn't gonna change much but there's always hope. Until then you need to watch out for number one at all times and not let any woman get her foot in your proverbial door.

Btw, you're doing the right thing with the local talent. You'll see at some point this FSU nonsense is not all it's cracked up to be, especially for those who haven't lost perspective. There is very little difference between women in the ways that matter most. (lol, and I'm not refering to the "they're all pink inside" viewpoint). All the rest is self-centered BS on the part of the man.

What? You've never tried sheep embryos?

[Lynn]

... in response to Re: Subject to Congress And Bush, posted by LP on Oct 20, 2004

.

[Lynn]

... in response to Subject to Congress And Bush, posted by Travis on Oct 18, 2004

When you go to court, someone has to pay. The courts deal in public commerce [all crimes are commercial]. You are "common stock" in the corporation of the USA and therefore must play by the corporate rules. The lawyer's role is to negotiate who pays and how much [he represents you "and" your opponent----check it out]----it's not a question of who is right or wrong, somebody will pay. Since she is not yet "common stock" of the corporation [hence, no assets], you have the most to loose, it would be you that pays.

Sorry you were taken to class without the primer on what the result would be. Financial loss is one thing, but the emotional/social impact is harder to overcome.

my 3 or 2cts.
Lynn

[Craigjjs]

... in response to Subject to Congress And Bush, posted by Travis on Oct 18, 2004


I hate to be a pessimist, but I do not see Congress or Bush staying up nights worrying about this issue.  They all focus like lasers on issues that contributors care about and issues that will bring them votes.  To my knowledge, there is no significant constituency raising this issue.

Thankfully, I have no personal experience with a false claim, but I know it happens too frequently in domestic divorces.  I represent plaintiffs in employment disputes and have had a number of male clients who were disciplined or fired by employers based upon false sexual harassment claims.  These are tough situations; prosecutors, employers, judges and juries always give the women the benefit of the doubt.  Even in cases where I have been able to clearly prove that an allegation was false, the only ramification for the woman was losing a job. Prosecutors have no interest in going after these women for false claims even though there are already applicable laws on the books.  Prosecutors do not care about a woman’s immigration status.  With all due respect, neither do I.  I do not favor limiting a woman's protection against abuse on the basis of status.  But, I would certainly factor status into my evaluation of the credibility of the woman.  Of course, you can always sue the woman making the false claim, but the odds of ever seeing a ruble are next to zero.  No lawyer will take the case on contingency and you will just be throwing good money after bad.  Of course, if you can afford it, I am delighted to vigorously represent a client who wants to recover his honor at $350 per hour. :-)

I think that, unfortunately, this is one of those very unfair areas of the law that is not likely to be resolved.

My heart does go out to you and anyone who is the subject of such a horrible false allegation. Despite my pessimism, I wish you luck.

Craig