IMBRA Enforcement

[Admin]

Anyone who was skeptical that the long-awaited publication of the IMBRA Information Pamphlet (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=12638.0) on October 27, 2010 is a harbinger of upcoming IMBRA enforcement actions, needs to read the attached Advisory (entitled: Advisory for Prosecutors, Attorneys, and Victim-Advocates) issued on October 31, 2010 by Tahirih Justice Center.

- Dan

[viking]

From the brief read, it seems that almost every site/agency which I have heard of in the last 5 years will be subject to IMBRA. I think this will have a profound impact, at least for AM's, in the foreseeable future. And since these men provide the bulk of male clients these agencies are going to have to change their profit models or they can get seriously sued. In fact, it will may be more profitable for the scammers out there to sue the agencies rather than the clients.

[facetrock]

So how will this affect the the small time Russian and Ukrainian agencys? To me it seems like if you have no criminal record you have nothing to worry about. But Viking is right. Not only will the scammers divorce their husbands but they will also sue the sh!t out of any American based agency that didnt have all their paperwork in order.

[BC]

So how will this affect the the small time Russian and Ukrainian agencys? To me it seems like if you have no criminal record you have nothing to worry about. But Viking is right. Not only will the scammers divorce their husbands but they will also sue the sh!t out of any American based agency that didnt have all their paperwork in order.

How it will affect the overseas agencies? - My interpretation is that if their primary market is geared toward US men then they will have to comply.  I've seen US law reach much farther than the border.  Just look at anti-trust law where citizens of other countries and companies all over the world selling goods in the US have been charged with wrongdoing.

Lets say for fixing prices of vitamins:

The vitamins cases brought thus far are as follows:

United States v. Lonza, AG, (N. D. Tex. 1998) (Swiss firm; defendant agreed to $10.5  million fine in plea agreement)
United States v. John Kennedy, (N. D. Tex. 1999) (U. S. citizen; 12 months incarceration; $20,000 fine)
United States v. Lindell Hilling, (N. D. Tex. 1999) (U. S. citizen; defendant agreed to incarceration for period of 12 months and $20,000 fine in plea agreement)
United States v. John L. “Pete” Fischer, (N. D. Tex. 1999) (U. S. citizen; defendant agreed to incarceration for period of 8 months and $20,000 fine in plea agreement)
United States v. Robert Samuelson, (N. D. Tex. 1999) (U. S. citizen; awaiting sentencing)
United States v. Antonio Felix, (N. D. Tex. 1999) (Mexican citizen; awaiting sentencing)
United States v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd., (N. D. Tex. 1999) (Swiss firm; $500 million fine)
United States v. BASF AG, (N. D. Tex. 1999) (German firm; $225 million fine)
United States v. Dr. Kuno Sommer, (N. D. Tex. 1999) (Swiss citizen; 4  months incarceration, $100,000 fine)
United States v. Dr. Roland Brönnimann, (N. D. Tex. 1999) (Swiss citizen; defendant agreed to 5 months incarceration and $150,000 fine in plea agreement)
United States v. Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., (N. D. Tex. 1999) (Japanese firm; defendant agreed to $25 million fine in plea agreement)
United States v. Easai Co., Ltd., (N. D. Tex. 1999) (Japanese firm; defendant agreed to $40 million fine in plea agreement)
United States v. Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd., (N. D. Tex. 1999) (Japanese firm; defendant agreed to $72  million fine in plea agreement)
United States v. Chinook Group Ltd., (N. D. Tex. 1999) (Canadian firm; defendant agreed to $5 million fine in plea agreement)

http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/4523d.htm

Happens all the time..

Overseas agencies will certainly not be immune, but considering that we're probably not talking about companies with huge assets or cash, basically mom and pop operations, there might not be much interest in prosecution except if a charge is filed and one of the agency officers involved cross into US borders where a pair of handcuffs await, or something bad happens to one of their clients and they did not comply, launching a criminal action or civil suit.

Also don't forget that IMBRA has been law for several years now.  Overseas agencies that aren't already in compliance are operating at considerable risk.  Now that the government is fully complying with the law by finally finishing the pamphlet there is no excuse or defense going forward.  As Dan seems to state, the last building blocks are now in place, setting the stage for the first cases.  Tahirih Justice Center with this ADVISORY FOR PROSECUTORS, ATTORNEYS, AND VICTIM-ADVOCATES clearly states at the bottom of the first page (their bottom line) that they are actively looking for someone, anyone to step up and be among the first cases. 

If you encounter a situation in which a woman has been abused by a man that she met through an IMB, please contact Tahirih at 571-282-6161(TDD-VA Relay: 711) or justice@tahirih.org.

(emphasis added)

They also set a lure on page 6 citing a case they assisted with resulting in their client being awarded $500,000 plus.  This case was pre-IMBRA (Tahirih did not mention in the advisory that this was 2006), but much of their case seems to have been hinged on negligence of the agency involved, especially by not informing their client of the laws pertaining to her situation (WAVA).  This decision would likely be used as precedent in any future IMBRA cases, a sort of double whammy for non compliant agencies - not only for breaking the laws, but civil actions as well where actual and punitive damages can be awarded that are well above any fines levied by the Government.

At this point, I believe agencies need to see IMBRA not in a negative, but positive light.  If they follow IMBRA procedures they may find it can help protect them in civil cases.  Reviewing the Fox case http://www.tahirih.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/fourthcircuitcourtdecision.pdf I doubt that it could have been successfully prosecuted had IMBRA been in force at the time and the agency complied with all of the provisions.

[kievstar]

Local agencies in Ukraine and Russia will be impacted how?  The USA agency which drains all there profits will have to move there operations from USA. Anastiaweb is in Maine and HRB is in Florida???  So they relocate.  Hard to sue someone on a USA law in a foreign country. 

[Admin]

Local agencies in Ukraine and Russia will be impacted how?  The USA agency which drains all there profits will have to move there operations from USA. Anastiaweb is in Maine and HRB is in Florida???  So they relocate.  Hard to sue someone on a USA law in a foreign country. 

IMBRA has extra-territorial provisions by design. In fact, one might say it was a key element of the legislation.

- Dan

[facetrock]

  I would really be surprised Dan if Russia or Ukraine would lift a finger to help procecute Joe's Mail Order Brides in either country. They might file a lawsuit, big deal IMO. I would be shocked if anything would happen.
  The lawsuits BC listed are from Switzerland, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Canada. The those countrys have a lot closer ties to the USA than Ukraine or Russia. Whats the benefit for Russia to impose USA laws on its citizens and to be cleaned out by a bunch of USA lawyers? I dont think it will ever happen.

[Admin]

  I would really be surprised Dan if Russia or Ukraine would lift a finger to help procecute Joe's Mail Order Brides in either country. They might file a lawsuit, big deal IMO. I would be shocked if anything would happen.
  The lawsuits BC listed are from Switzerland, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Canada. The those countrys have a lot closer ties to the USA than Ukraine or Russia. Whats the benefit for Russia to impose USA laws on its citizens and to be cleaned out by a bunch of USA lawyers? I dont think it will ever happen.

Russia and Ukraine do not need to help if the US decides to initiate prosecution - though it would, of course, probably make it easier.

There are a number of options available to US prosecutors, and I suspect those will provide more than a bit of deterrence once enforcement actions are initiated.

I know there has been a lot of speculation about enforcement and how far-ranging (a) the legislation is, and (b) the authorities will carry enforcement. My bet is that the authors (and now owners) of the legislation were VERY intent on insuring the extra-territorial provisions were included, and they know there are a great many skeptics, and they plan to resolve the skepticism.

We all will need to wait-and-see a while longer before anyone will really KNOW. Right now, all we have is the written legislation, and the pattern of activities based on that legislation - some of those quite recent. Until we see the authorities move on an enforcement action, we really do not know. For that matter, I expect a couple of rather tentative early enforcement steps - and then there will be the 'showcase.' BUT - that is pure speculation on my part.

- Dan

[BC]

facetrock,

These countries in the example did not impose US law on their citizens.  Such actions usually come about by arresting folks as they come into the US on business or vacation.  These types of cases when filed are usually held secret until folks come into the US, or when the company has assets in the US.

Lets take the following scenario:

Agency A in FSU country is not in compliance.  This was discovered during an interview with a K1 couple.  Nothing happens to the couple, they are allowed to live their lives and marry normally.  They may not even know or be told of Government interest.  A few other couples from the same agency have the same story.  All are interviewed and asked to remain silent - and they will.  Investigations continue, a criminal information filed and they find:

One or more of the principals will be traveling to the US
One or more of the principals have assets in the US (could be something like affiliate commissions owed by a US firm or transactions in-process by US credit card companies, maybe a vacation home)
One or more of the principals have financial dealings and/or a business partner, or de-facto owner in the US

Cuffs are slapped on the first party they can get hold of and they are arraigned, or if no accountable person can be found, assets evaluated and frozen.

For the same reasons it's quite difficult for a US based firm to try and skirt these laws by suddenly moving overseas. Such arrangements usually involve the owner/operator officially handing over the business to a foreign entity with only hopes they can get the profits out (can they be trusted?) with a sizable discount along with possible tax evasion/laundering charges if using cash transactions - if not still traceable as de-facto owner (follow the money).

It's all much more complicated than one would think at first sight.

Bottom line and at the very least, they will no longer be able to do business as normal with US customers and should avoid traveling to countries listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradition_treaties

A good many of these cases are due to 'whistleblowers' - disgruntled employees who can and do make a good chunk of change by sharing their internal knowledge for a percent of the proceeds.

All in all, quite effective deterrent IMHO.  Will be interesting to see what develops in the next few years.

[BillyB]

Tahirih Justice Center with this ADVISORY FOR PROSECUTORS, ATTORNEYS, AND VICTIM-ADVOCATES clearly states at the bottom of the first page (their bottom line) that they are actively looking for someone, anyone to step up and be among the first cases. 
 (emphasis added)

They also set a lure on page 6 citing a case they assisted with resulting in their client being awarded $500,000 plus.  This case was pre-IMBRA (Tahirih did not mention in the advisory that this was 2006), but much of their case seems to have been hinged on negligence of the agency involved, especially by not informing their client of the laws pertaining to her situation (WAVA).  This decision would likely be used as precedent in any future IMBRA cases, a sort of double whammy for non compliant agencies - not only for breaking the laws, but civil actions as well where actual and punitive damages can be awarded that are well above any fines levied by the Government.

At this point, I believe agencies need to see IMBRA not in a negative, but positive light.  If they follow IMBRA procedures they may find it can help protect them in civil cases.  Reviewing the Fox case http://www.tahirih.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/fourthcircuitcourtdecision.pdf I doubt that it could have been successfully prosecuted had IMBRA been in force at the time and the agency complied with all of the provisions.

I don't see why agencies need to see IMBRA in a positive light. IMBRA is backed by people who want to see an end to agencies. Year after year new laws are added and their fight is pushed to each State too. Although I don't say much good about agencies, I see IMBRA's agenda is not to protect women but to put an end to agencies and restrict who American men are to marry.

IMBRA does not protect all women since American match making services for American men and women aren't affected. IMBRA doesn't even protect all foriegn women since men who found their ladies at free or paid dating sites are immune from the hassles of going through the IMBRA process. If anything IMBRA prevents the exchange of contact info between men and RW at agencies and thus men and women who end up meeting each other know much less about each other. A guys spends thousands at an agency, spends thousands on an agency tour package, overspend on hotel/apartment provided by agency, meets his RW(stranger) and feels pressure to propose to her since he's invested much much more than a guy who uses dating sites.

[Admin]

I don't see why agencies need to see IMBRA in a positive light. IMBRA is backed by people who want to see an end to agencies. Year after year new laws are added and their fight is pushed to each State too. Although I don't say much good about agencies, I see IMBRA's agenda is not to protect women but to put an end to agencies and restrict who American men are to marry.

IMBRA does not protect all women since American match making services for American men and women aren't affected. IMBRA doesn't even protect all foriegn women since men who found their ladies at free or paid dating sites are immune from the hassles of going through the IMBRA process. If anything IMBRA prevents the exchange of contact info between men and RW at agencies and thus men and women who end up meeting each other know much less about each other. A guys spends thousands at an agency, spends thousands on an agency tour package, overspend on hotel/apartment provided by agency, meets his RW(stranger) and feels pressure to propose to her since he's invested much much more than a guy who uses dating sites.

Billy,

You know - all the 'talk' and concern up to now has been on enforcement actions by US authorities - HOWEVER - if you consider what BC wrote, here:

Tahirih Justice Center with this ADVISORY FOR PROSECUTORS, ATTORNEYS, AND VICTIM-ADVOCATES clearly states at the bottom of the first page (their bottom line) that they are actively looking for someone, anyone to step up and be among the first cases.

They also set a lure on page 6 citing a case they assisted with resulting in their client being awarded $500,000 plus.  This case was pre-IMBRA (Tahirih did not mention in the advisory that this was 2006), but much of their case seems to have been hinged on negligence of the agency involved, especially by not informing their client of the laws pertaining to her situation (WAVA).  This decision would likely be used as precedent in any future IMBRA cases, a sort of double whammy for non compliant agencies - not only for breaking the laws, but civil actions as well where actual and punitive damages can be awarded that are well above any fines levied by the Government.

Consider how many attorneys there are in the US that might like to take a run at *using* IMBRA as the basis for filing a civil action whether it be against an individual or an agency.

Once IMBRA becomes enforceable (October 27, 2010 + 30 days), all bets are off and it is not ONLY the US authorities who can file actions against an agency owner - it is any attorney who feels that IMBRA may be helpful, or even the foundation, for their own claims against an agency owner.

Just something to consider - as once again, we are going to have to wait-and-see what actually transpires - BUT - the table is now nearly set for legal actions of various sorts to commence.

Maybe we ought to start a pool to see who might be able to guess the date/time an action is filed citing IMBRA??

- Dan

[erudite]

Aren't Lawyers in the US just wonderful?  They have such high standards of ethics when it comes to serving "justice" for the right amount of money they can wrangle from a situation.  During the trial of O. J. Simpson there was a joke going around about one of this attorneys who is Robert Shapiro.  The joke was about how many times Shapiro "shed his skin" while he was working on the O. J. trial. 

[kievstar]

Some of the agencies in Kiev have mafia type partners who foot the bill not sure any lawyer in the USA would touch those since mafia is very strong throughout USA.  Nothing is going to happen to the local agencies.  Now a USA born man perhaps who also travels to the USA and has no strong Russian partner.   

One agency in Kharkiv which has recently expended throughout Ukraine has a silent owner who is worth over a billion.  One of his lovers runs the agencies. 

Do not see this law going far. 

[BillyB]

Once IMBRA becomes enforceable (October 27, 2010 + 30 days), all bets are off and it is not ONLY the US authorities who can file actions against an agency owner - it is any attorney who feels that IMBRA may be helpful, or even the foundation, for their own claims against an agency owner.

It must be nice to be able to sue someone if you feel like you are in a bad marriage. If I got into a bad marriage, someone has got to take the blame and pay for it and it ain't gonna be me!

[Boethius]

Some of the agencies in Kiev have mafia type partners who foot the bill not sure any lawyer in the USA would touch those since mafia is very strong throughout USA.  Nothing is going to happen to the local agencies.  Now a USA born man perhaps who also travels to the USA and has no strong Russian partner.   

One agency in Kharkiv which has recently expended throughout Ukraine has a silent owner who is worth over a billion.  One of his lovers runs the agencies. 

Do not see this law going far. 

Do you really believe Homeland Security, the State Department, or the US Department of Justice will be threatened by mafiosi?

[acctBill]

Some of the agencies in Kiev have mafia type partners who foot the bill not sure any lawyer in the USA would touch those since mafia is very strong throughout USA.  Nothing is going to happen to the local agencies.  Now a USA born man perhaps who also travels to the USA and has no strong Russian partner.   

One agency in Kharkiv which has recently expended throughout Ukraine has a silent owner who is worth over a billion.  One of his lovers runs the agencies. 

Do not see this law going far. 

Kievstar there are numerous criminal organizations in the US, some of them incredibly violent.  I really don't think the Russian mafia can intimidate the FBI or ICE or Homeland Security or any other US law enforcement agency.  At one time everyone was afraid of the Italian mafia and figured they were untouchable.  Now most of the Italian godfathers are dead or in prison serving sentences that will see them die in prison. 

[kievstar]

Boethius how did you get homeland security and department of state and FBI out of what was discussed.
Are you really that book dense.  Put the book down and go walk down the street to get smarter. 

Someone mentioned personal lawyers would take cases to sue.  I called BS on that.  Try to stay on the topic.

AcctBill, read what people said and not what people like Boethius tries to stir up.  For being a moderator Boethius and FaxPaus love to stir the pot.  Never did I say mafia types would track down FBI agents or homeland security. 

[Boethius]

Boethius how did you get homeland security and department of state and FBI out of what was discussed.

I actually read the legislation.  You do know, don't you, that laws are enforced based on what Congress legislates?

Are you really that book dense.  Put the book down and go walk down the street to get smarter.  

I suggest you go to lexisnexis and read a few cases.  Or pick up a newspaper.  Or even read BC's post above.  Then perhaps you will learn that laws are not designed merely as mechanisms for lawsuits.  You may even learn who handles prosecutions.  

Thanks for the gratuitous insult.  As you can tell, I am absolutely crushed.

Someone mentioned personal lawyers would take cases to sue.  I called BS on that.  Try to stay on the topic.

See Dan's first post.  The topic is "enforcement of IMBRA".  It isn't "personal lawsuits".    You posted:

Do not see this law going far.

 

You also posted:

Nothing is going to happen to the local agencies.

IMBRA is not designed for men to sue agencies.  It is designed primarily for governmental enforcement against agencies, including foreign agencies with US clients, and secondarily, for victimized women to bring lawsuits.  Given that the law is drafted as, and intended to be, an enforcement mechanism, my comment was, in fact, an appropriate response to your statement.  If you want to limit responses to your comments solely to men suing agencies, you shouldn't make such broad, and grossly inaccurate, statements as the immediately preceding quotes.  I believe that's what Bill was responding to as well.

AcctBill, read what people said and not what people like Boethius tries to stir up.  For being a moderator Boethius and FaxPaus love to stir the pot.  Never did I say mafia types would track down FBI agents or homeland security.  

Perhaps Bill, like FP and me, has a basic comprehension of the legislation which, evidently, you do not.

[Maxx2]

Reviewing the Fox case http://www.tahirih.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/fourthcircuitcourtdecision.pdf I doubt that it could have been successfully prosecuted had IMBRA been in force at the time and the agency complied with all of the provisions.

Actually the case in which TJC built it's case against IMBs was full of lies. I have all the documents that show that the victim was engaged in immigration fraud. Dan, is this of any interest to you? I can elaborate if you want me to. (I guess I have)


The "infamous" James Fox with his Fiancee Elena


James' petition for Elena

In the meantime... Another man with his fiancee


The future Mrs. James Fox, Natalia poses with the man that was her original fiance Geoffery Hermsmann






It didn't work out and she had to go back. By law No exceptions for fiancees








http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k131/Maxx_1953/EmbassyLawyerE-mail.jpg


 



 James' original fiancee petition was for Elena Rybeck whom Natalia Derkach later used Elena's identity (A number) to petition herself with. See above first document on why this was so.

Notice how Nalalia's A number changed. It changed to James' original fiancee's number yet she claimed she is petitioning herself through the man she originally entered the country by.

[Boethius]

Whether she committed fraud is irrelevant to the abuse she suffered.

James Fox's former American wife, and his former American fiancée, both testified that he was abusive.  It was based on that pattern that he settled Nataliya's lawsuit against him.

[Maxx2]

Whether she committed fraud is irrelevant to the abuse she suffered.

James Fox's former American wife, and his former American fiancée, both testified that he was abusive.  It was based on that pattern that he settled Nataliya's lawsuit against him.

There is so much more to this case than simplistic conclusions. The former wife Christina claimed she was threatened by a spirit (I read the court transcripts) that came through a wall. The woman was institutionalized as psychotic and never took the witness stand because the prosecution was not sure what she would say so they videotaped her. The woman had a long history of mental illness.

 The former bitter girlfriend said he had been abusive once in a parking lot yet she never reported him to the police or said anything about it to anyone she knew. She had been deposed 17 times by A&P. She was paid a fee by A&P each time she was deposed. The legal costs to him according to his statements to me were somewhere between 4 and 5 hundred thousand dollars. He settled for 130K to get this off his back. He was later expunged of everything. I could post that document as well.

Natalia Fox committing identity theft by using Elena Rybeck's "A" number, lying on Federal documents and later having the INS trying to deport her for "fraud" should speak volumes on whether to believe her story or not. Her and TJC saying she suffered "Shattered chest bones" when the hospital sent her home the same day with two Tylenol tablets for treatment says something as well. I seen the hospital report on that one as well. It is not so simply as politicians/special interests/lawyers try to portray it.

Also about Jim's first wife. She never claimed Jim had abused her except she claimed that they had sex before marriage and that she figured later this was rape. But she did marry him anyway. According to Jim the sex was mutual and had no idea she was bothered by it. She was VERY religious and went to revival and faith healing meetings. She also had a fetish about a certain spoon she would always carry with her. Once the police brought her home after they found her walking backwards naked down a road. She said on the video tape she was not afraid of James. Now get this Natasha Spivak of EC is criticized for not interviewing her prior to her introducing Natalia to James. Are IMBs required to interview former wives and fiancee's to meet their IMBRA requirements? Are IMBs required to go into mental institutions and talk with former wives and fiancees to find out if they have a history of abuse? This is the "violent history" that James is said to have according to the TJC. This is the agency that used this case to bring about IMBRA.  To this day James Fox has no criminal record.


Here is a photo of them taken two weeks after the supposed night of terror where Jim according to TJC beat her in the chest for two hours. Natalia and their baby Sophia left the shelter and went with Jim to a party. Like James' first wife she had no fear of him and today they meet when they exchange Sophia. No armed guards.

All of this, photos, documents etc is in the official court records.

[Boethius]

OJ Simpson had no criminal record for spousal abuse before he murdered his wife.  So, I don't think that's necessarily a strong argument.

A jury saw the exact same evidence, plus the demeanor of witnesses on the stand, and came to a very different conclusion than you. 

[Maxx2]

OJ Simpson had no criminal record for spousal abuse before he murdered his wife.  So, I don't think that's necessarily a strong argument.

A jury saw the exact same evidence, plus the demeanor of witnesses on the stand, and came to a very different conclusion than you. 

Juries and judges are often wrong. As EI's lawyer Zunkenberg said to Natasha Spivak in a whisper after his first cross examination of Natalia, "Wow has she been briefed!"

 

In regard to OJ. He was found not guilty in the criminal trial. The jury was biased against the white cops as it was possible (probable?) that the EI jury was biased against men who marry "Mail Order Brides" and those that help them. It is natural to help the woman claiming distress. It is this tendency that organizations like the TJC use against us. It is sad that the public can be so easily manipulated.

[Boethius]

Different legal standards, Maxx.  OJ had to be convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt".  While race played a role, early in the trial, sitting at a conference table with a group of lawyers, we were discussing the case to date.  A senior lawyer said he'd get off.  It was obvious that the prosecution's case was circumstantial, at best.

Civil cases are won or lost "on a balance of probabilities".  Were EI's witnesses less well briefed?   I doubt it.

[Turboguy]

It was obvious that the prosecution's case was circumstantial, at best.

I agree with you that the criminal system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt but I do think there was strong evidence.  Her blood on his sock in his bedroom is just one that goes beyond circumstantial but Mark Furman and the glove that was his brand and size but do to being wet and his wearing rubber gloves didn't fit during the trial tipped the scales the wrong way. 

I do agree that everyone gets sympathetic to women with a tale of woe even though it might be made up.  Anyone facing a DV charge is probably not going to be judged in an unbiased way.