IMBRA Upheld and EC Case Dismissed....

[Bruno]

IMBRA...

Some idiot question about it !!!

Is the IMBRA only related to US men? In the case of US women seeking a foreign husband, it is the IMBRA from application ?

People speak of domestic violence... physical and psychologique one... usually a man will have a DV related to physical offence... but women are specialist in the psychologique warfare... Is DV complain possible for a man against a woman ?

Gator wrote :

on an average more than three American women are killed every day in America by their husband or boyfriend.  Domestic violence is real!

Cannot compare US women and Russian women... citrus ( AW ) are not sweet apple ( RW )... from before the IMBRA, i have only know a very few case of RW murder by husband... in some case, it was not the husband who have kill... when the RW flee the husband with all money, take a new boyfriend who kill her ( here, no IMBRA for protect the RW ? )...

So, what is the killing rate of foreign wife ( only these kill by original husband, these who have fill the K1 )... Is the IMBRA have change something ?

Here in Europa, we have no IMBRA, and i can assure you that we have not foreign bride killed or victim of DV violence at each corner of the street... DV exist in Europa like everywhere but it seem not to be numerous like in US... maybe the difference is that the green card is not giving in case of complain of DV... that the accusator ( wife ) need to produce evidence... without evidence, the men accused of DV is not guilty...

Planned rule for the IMBRA II : American men cannot marry a foreign bride before he have try 500 kg of US wife ( mean 3 large wife )... Foreign bride are allowed to marry a US citizen only if her weight is equal or superior to the national middle for the US women ( over 80 kg ) 

Gator wrote :

And who will challenge the government?

Maybe Russia can challenge the US IMBRA... it is again the free circulation of commercial product ( russian bride )... with these law, russian mafia associate with 'Fat Yuri" have more difficult to promote their scam... no fake address and no fake personal data for send the money via Western Union... This can lead Russia to loose million of $$$ each year...

 

[Gator]

Bruno,

You are a hilarious man.

On a more serious side, it sounds as if Europe has a different and better justice system for DV cases.  I imagine that some Euro-feminists are scheming to change your system.

[Bruno]

On a more serious side, it sounds as if Europe has a different and better justice system for DV cases.  I imagine that some Euro-feminists are scheming to change your system.

Our system is not specially beter but it work...

I don't fear the Euro-feminist... feminist don't mean feminazi ( extremist feminists )... by example, i think that RW are the best feminist in the world... strong character, fight for own right but they stay women and don't become some pale copy of men... men and women are not the same... both have quality who are particular to own sexe...

Now, a interesting quote related to Intimate Partner Violence ( IPV ):
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm

- Nearly 5.3 million incidents of IPV occur each year among U.S. women ages 18 and older, and 3.2 million occur among men. Most assaults are relatively minor and consist of pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, and hitting.
- In the United States every year, about 1.5 million women and more than 800,000 men are raped or physically assaulted by an intimate partner. This translates into about 47 IPV assaults per 1,000 women and 32 assaults per 1,000 men.
- Estimates indicate more than 1 million women and 371,000 men are stalked by intimate partners each year
- IPV accounted for 20% of nonfatal violence against women in 2001 and 3% against men
- In 2002, 76% of IPV homicide victims were female; 24% were male
- The number of intimate partner homicides decreased 14% overall for men and women in the span of about 20 years, with a 67% decrease for men (from 1,357 to 388) vs. 25% for women (from 1,600 to 1,202 )
- One study found that 44% of women murdered by their intimate partner had visited an emergency department within 2 years of the homicide. Of these women, 93% had at least one injury visit
- A national study found that 29% of women and 22% of men had experienced physical, sexual, or psychological IPV during their lifetime

For what i see, killing of partner have lower in the last 20 years... long before all the IMBRA and VAWA... seem that education is something who work better in the long term that sanction...

Almost one murder women have visit a emergency department within the 2 years of the homicide... Action taken at the first time visiting the emergency department have can save 44% of women...

IPV during lifetime : 29% women and 22% men... seem that we are almost equal before the domestic violence !!!

You are a hilarious man.

What !!! I am a serious man... the quote below is a true story :

Phyllis Schalfly notes in her September 2006 column "Laughing at Restraining Orders" that the domestic violence injunction issued on David Letterman for sending subliminal messages to a woman 2000 miles away that he had never met, demonstrates the claim by Men's Rights advocates that many domestic violence injunctions do not even involve any actual physical violence, but are instead absurd exaggerations or fabrications

 :hairraising:

EDIT : article
http://www.glennsacks.com/letterman_case_shows.htm

A Santa Fe, New Mexico judge recently granted a temporary restraining order against TV talk show host David Letterman for a woman who alleges that Letterman—who works in New York City and whom she has never met--has mentally harassed her through his TV broadcasts.  According to Colleen Nestler, Letterman has caused her "mental cruelty" and "sleep deprivation" for over a decade, and has used code words and gestures during his broadcasts to show her that he wanted to marry her and train her as his co-host.

The woman, who also claims that Letterman and fellow celebrities Regis Philbin and Kelsey Grammer have been conspiring against her, requested that Letterman stay away from her, not “think” of her, and “release [her] from his mental harassment and hammering."

Letterman’s attorneys were able to get the order dropped, and the judge--who apparently never thought to suggest to Nestler that she use the “off” button on her TV--has made good fodder for gossip columns and news of the bizarre. However, the case also demonstrates a much larger though rarely discussed problem—it is far too easy to get a restraining order based on a false allegation.

 Beginning in the 1970s, restraining orders became a tool to help protect battered women. This is as it should be. However, in the rush to protect the abused, the rights of the accused are being violated on an arguably unprecedented scale. Many if not most domestic violence restraining orders are simply tactical maneuvers designed to gain advantage in high stakes family law proceedings. The Illinois Bar Journal calls the orders "part of the gamesmanship of divorce.”

A recent article in the Family Law News, the official publication of the State Bar of California Family Law Section, explains that the Bar is concerned that "protective orders are increasingly being used in family law cases to help one side jockey for an advantage in child custody.” The authors note that protective orders are “almost routinely issued by the court in family law proceedings even when there is relatively meager evidence and usually without notice to the restrained person....it is troubling that they appear to be sought more and more frequently for retaliation and litigation purposes.”

According to the Justice Department, two million restraining orders are issued each year in the United States. The vast majority of these are related to domestic violence allegations.  For example, according to California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, 243,401 of the 274,482 restraining orders currently active in California are related to domestic violence.

Such orders are generally done ex parte, without the accused's knowledge and with no opportunity afforded for him to defend himself. When an order is issued, the man is booted out of his own home and can even be jailed if he tries to contact his own children. This helps women position themselves as their children’s sole caretakers, which aids them in winning sole (or de facto sole) custody of their children in their divorce settlements. In California and other states, the order itself can be considered a finding of domestic abuse, making the restrained person ineligible for joint custody.

Despite these grave effects, many courts grant restraining orders to practically any woman who applies. District Judge Daniel Sanchez, who issued the restraining order against Letterman, explained "If [applicants] make a proper pleading, then I grant it."

Research shows that these orders often do not even involve an allegation of violence. Usually all that’s needed is a claim that the person to be restrained “acted in a way that scared me” or was “verbally abusive”—what’s known as “shout at your spouse, lose your house.”

A restrained person does have the opportunity to contest the orders at a hearing a couple of weeks later. However, these proceedings are often just a formality for which no more than 15 minutes are generally allotted. In fact, the State of California’s website gives the following advice for men who are contesting restraining orders:

“Practice saying why you disagree with the charges. Do not take more than three minutes to say what you disagree with. You can bring witnesses or documents that support your case, but the judge may not have enough time to talk to the witnesses.”

One study of restraining orders published in the Journal of Family Violence found that 94% of those brought by women in one Massachusetts district were extended.

Restraining orders turn ordinary men into criminals by forbidding many routine behaviors. Men are being arrested for violating their orders by such acts as: returning their children’s phone calls; going to their children’s school or athletic events; sending their kids birthday cards; or accidentally running into them at the park or the mall.

Cathy Young, author of Ceasefire: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, documented one case where a father of three was arrested for getting out of his car to pet his kids’ dogs when he picked them up for a visit. Later, he was fined $600 for returning a phone call from his son.

In another case, a divorced dad with no police record was convicted of a crime because he opened the door to the lobby of his ex-wife’s apartment building when dropping his then-five-year-old son off after a visit. When he refused to go to batterers’ treatment for this “crime,” he was sent to prison for six months.

Restraining orders generally only limit the restrained person’s contact with the protected person but not vice versa. As a result, husbands who have reconciled with their wives are being arrested during routine traffic stops for being in the same car with them. In one case, a father was arrested and jailed for three days for breaching a domestic violence order by taking his son to the hospital. The mother had called the father, said their son had been injured in a bike accident, and asked him to take the boy to the hospital. The conviction stays on his record and hurts his job prospects but he can’t get it undone.

Some men have been arrested and jailed after being tricked into violating their restraining orders. In one Seattle case, a man was jailed for three months after returning phone calls from his ex-wife, who showed the police the phone screen with the man’s number on it.  The man explained that when he received the messages he worried that something might have happened to his kids. He asks “what kind of parent would I be if I didn’t return those calls?”

Restraining orders have a particularly devastating impact upon law enforcement and military personnel. Under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, individuals, including police officers and armed forces personnel, are prohibited from possessing a firearm if they are subject to a restraining order issued at the behest of a spouse or an intimate partner.  The 1996 Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban expanded this prohibition to bar officers and service personnel from carrying weapons as part of their jobs. As a result, many police officers who are hit with restraining orders lose their careers.

The judicial system must devote far more time and resources to investigating abuse claims that are made in order to obtain restraining orders. Divorce proceedings should not be prejudiced by restraining orders, either as indications of guilt or for the purpose of setting custody precedents. And real punishments are needed for those who employ false claims.

Restraining orders are a legitimate tool to help fight domestic violence. Their use should not be permitted to turn our judicial system into a series of Kangaroo Courts. 

[BC]

Bruno,

You are a hilarious man.

On a more serious side, it sounds as if Europe has a different and better justice system for DV cases.  I imagine that some Euro-feminists are scheming to change your system.

Gator,

From everything I have seen here so far in Court, - the law counts but common sense still rules.

When legislation mandates which actions Judges should or even will take what is really left to judge?

Instead of common sense, 'no tolerance' rules in the US.

That is what ails..

Just IMHO

[BillyB]

http://www.endabuse.org/resources/facts/

Interesting site. The ranges of intimate partner violence a year seem to range between 960,000 to 3 million depending on the different studies but the site also states women are less likely to be victims of violent crime overall compared to men.

The truth is men need protection from violent crime more than women since men are subject to it more. But I'm against special laws for special groups of people and would oppose any men's advocate groups if there are any in existence. We have laws against violence and it should be applied equally across the board and punishment administered accordingly. But "special laws" such as the laws of DV are not equal between a man and woman. A man can't get a woman convicted for DV unless there is real evidence. A woman could get a man convicted of DV based on her word, evidence is not needed.

[Maxx2]

I recently talked to a member here and he told me he read Maxx's court transcripts and the judge said he believed Maxx did no wrong but based on law, he had to convict Maxx of DV.

That must be TomSend or "Stkatn" a friend of mine. Tom's a South Minneapolis cop so I asked him to do computer background check on me as well. I'm spotless clean except for a couple of speeding tickets over the years. But I am considered a "batterer" or an "abuser" by the system because of one civil trial conviction for "pushing and shoving". As William3rd mentioned I couldn't get a waiver granted because of having a history of domestic abuse. Tom also seen the papers of my visiting the lawyers and preparing to exit my marriage during the brief 4 months we were together. He also seen my divorce filing at the County Courthouse and her filing for a protective order 12 days later. She no doubt used that with the judge's ruling to file the I-360 self petition.

Maxx

[BillyB]

No Maxx, it wasn't Tom but an ex-lieutenant colonel.

[Maxx2]

No Maxx, it wasn't Tom but an ex-lieutenant colonel.

You must be joking. Why would anyone go through the trouble to check me out?

[Maxx2]

No Maxx, it wasn't Tom but an ex-lieutenant colonel.

You must be joking. Why would anyone go through the trouble? Perhaps there is question out there about me? I just can't see why anyone would care. I am a nobody. Just one guy in thousands (soon to be 10's of thousands) of men married to immigrant women that is accused of this every year.

What I meant by my previous post in my efforts to exit my marriage is something my woman lawyer told me. "Abusive men do not file divorce and let their wives go. They use abuse to hold on to them". I filed divorce and separated from her. I worked from almost the very beginning of  her arrival to let her go. It was my telling to the court during my trial of my step by step efforts (names, dates and places) to let her go that saved me. If the judge believed her I could be still serving time.

Maxx