The Mike and Olga Conroy Story

[SMS60]

Re-read the Conroy story paying particular attention to his two previous convictions.

Im aware of that story Ed. I was referring to the 4 incidents Dan posted.

Most people dont have hang ups about IMBRA. But what I worry about is where it leads. Whats next?  Federal Taxes started at about 5% and would never change. The good ole days.

[Turboguy]

Where will it lead next?   Think of the problems it could solve if it was applied to all internet dating.   The thing is we are a small minory and the government does not have to worry about upsetting us.  If it was applied to all internet dating the outcry would be something our fearless leaders would not want to deal with.

I think since foreign brides are required to get a police report doing the same for the men is only fair, but as I said before I don't think the place for it is before you contact a women.

[ECOCKS]

Im aware of that story Ed. I was referring to the 4 incidents Dan posted.

Most people dont have hang ups about IMBRA. But what I worry about is where it leads. Whats next?  Federal Taxes started at about 5% and would never change. The good ole days.

Wasn't clear, damn the dangling modifiers1, wondered how you could miss the Conroy convictions.

I have no problem with IMBRA though. We used to have to get blood tests before marriage, lately I have no problem with the thought of requiring the background checks be disclosed to both parties prior to domestic party marriages though.

Yeah, they can listen in on my phone too, no problems from me.

[Admin]

The 4 accounts listed above could not have been stopped by IMBRA. Unless Im reading wrong all the abuse happened after the woman arrived in the states. It does not say if the petitioners had previous records of abuse.???? Does not sound like it.

If the present laws were enforced some of the above would not have reached the critical points. Some of what I read seems as if crimes of abuse were committed but not punished the way the laws state.

I still say No.

We must enforce the laws we have and forget about new ones.

At the risk of sounding like a proponent of the legislation (which I am NOT for several reasons), allow me to present a soundbite from GAO-06-735, which states:

At least 398 convicted sex offenders filed petitions for spouses, fiancé(e)s, children (those under the age of 21), and other relatives in fiscal year 2005. They filed a total of 420 of the approximately 730,000 family-based petitions filed in fiscal year 2005. While most of the beneficiaries were spouses and fiancé(e)s, we determined that at least 60 were unmarried children under 21. Fourteen of the 398 sex offender petitioners were classified in the FBI’s NSOR as sexually violent predators, defined in federal law as offenders who have been convicted of a sexually violent offense and are likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses again. At least 3 of the 14 sexual predators had filed petitions for children.

Submitted for further debate.

- Dan

[ECOCKS]

So, I'll pour still more chum in the water.

Does IMBRA go far enough? Should there be legislation to protect other countries from known predators and violence-prone individuals? What financial disclosures are appropriate?

How many convicted sexual predators or domestic violence-prone individuals travel into other countries and visit their predations on others that we don't catch because they aren't stupid enough to file a K-X visa?

How many deadbeat dads shift into another country and go into the black or gray economy to avoid their responsibilities to their children/former spouses?

What if your boyfriend/girlfriend owes back taxes? Had a bankruptcy within the last X years?

Women don't seem to be saying much on this topic either. Why is that I wonder?

Ladies, what do you think you should have a "right" to know at the introduction stage, the proposal stage and the 5 minutes before saying, "I do" stage? What should your husband to be know about you beforehand?

[kievstar]

Ecocks, I can speak on my wife's behalf she believes it is best that any foreign man passes the smell test from her parents and friends.  She also believes that a foreign man should have his parents meet with her family prior to marriage preferably in her home country. 

I think if foreign women required this there would be less problems and divorces. 

Last year on a different forum (maybe this one as well) there was that dirt bag from Lousiana.  That is another one to revisit.  They have a child as well.  Women ended up working in strip bar and man was a lazy son of a.

[Admin]

So, I'll pour still more chum in the water.

Does IMBRA go far enough? Should there be legislation to protect other countries from known predators and violence-prone individuals? What financial disclosures are appropriate?

How many convicted sexual predators or domestic violence-prone individuals travel into other countries and visit their predations on others that we don't catch because they aren't stupid enough to file a K-X visa?

How many deadbeat dads shift into another country and go into the black or gray economy to avoid their responsibilities to their children/former spouses?

What if your boyfriend/girlfriend owes back taxes? Had a bankruptcy within the last X years?

Women don't seem to be saying much on this topic either. Why is that I wonder?

Ladies, what do you think you should have a "right" to know at the introduction stage, the proposal stage and the 5 minutes before saying, "I do" stage? What should your husband to be know about you beforehand?

I wonder if they (and others) are fully informed of the consequences/restrictions of IMBRA? We have a topic about it here -- http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=9082.0, and a flowchart describing the process is found here -- http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?pid=46.

Between the two, it should be fairly clear about the intrusions and implication of IMBRA. Additionally, I am in close contact with a forum owner whose mission it is to defeat IMBRA, found here -- http://onlinedatingrights.com/.

Clearly, there *are* some pernicious elements to the legislation.

And yes, I am aware that I seem schizophrenic in my changing positions in this topic .

- Dan

[Blues Fairy]

Ladies, what do you think you should have a "right" to know at the introduction stage, the proposal stage and the 5 minutes before saying, "I do" stage? What should your husband to be know about you beforehand?

Ladies have the right to know which resources they can use to obtain relevant information in case they are not satisfied with what their future husband is telling them, or if they have suspicions about his past behavior.  There are databases such as Intellius etc. which, for a small fee, provide full records about any person.  Other than that, there's no substitute for personal communication and trust that builds with time.   

[Mike78]

I think the K visa interview should inform the foreign partner about any previous violent/sexual convictions of the US petitioner. Am I correct assuming that IMBRA only applies to the paid sites/agencies? So if you use free dating sites, or just meet the woman on the street you are off the hook? Why would any sexual predator ever use these agencies knowing he wouldn't pass IMBRA?

[ECOCKS]

Guys (and gals) I have to say, I see nothing wrong or even more than a very mild inconvenience in the IMBRA system. If anything, I think it should be strengthened to require fingerprinting prior to the K-X..

I see little or no intrusion in your life or privacy, no cost factors (except for an agency owner, and that relatively minor) and only a minor headache with remembering your marriage/divorce information. This is a voluntary activity and everyone can cheerfully choose to limit themselves to their home country or forego the convenience of an agency by using all the highly-touted free sites or even climbing on a plane and flying somewhere to hunt a relationship on my own.

Of course, if I was a sexual predator looking for some new territory(-ies) to prowl, I can see it would be a major headache and I would curse the government's attempt to forestall hunting in greener pastures.

[Maxx2]

she met through a Maryland-based IMB with a “satisfaction guaranteed” policy. Throughout their one-year marriage, John repeatedly physically and emotionally abused Nina, shaking her violently and insisting that she repeat the commands he gave her. He choked, raped, and beat her on several occasions, ripped a tooth out of her mouth, and threatened her with a knife. When Nina informed the president of the IMB about the abuse, the president said that Nina’s experience was normal and that many girls had the same problem. The president said domestic violence is “just the American culture,” and abuse is “very hard to prove.”


- Dan

The president of the "IMB" (International Marriage Broker) (in red) above is Natasha Spivak a friend of mine.

She wrote the following:

Quote from another RW

I speak about protection in general, no matetr which. And woman without knowing english cannot call to 911.

I thought the same and I've been living in America for more than 20 years. I thought that a woman "without knowing English cannot call 911" until one day I was enlighten by one Russian woman, who has arrived in the USA on a fiancée visa and shortly after her marriage decided to get rid of her husband. She called 911 and hang up without saying a word. Then she laid down on the floor at the front door of her American husband's townhouse while her husband was out on the deck. Unexpectedly for this Russian woman though, a family friend (and a potential witness!) came out of the back yard deck into the house. He saw this Russian woman lying on the floor and became very concerned. All of a sudden in front of this man's eyes the Russian woman jumped up from the floor, rushed outside and disappeared. Both the husband and the family friend were very puzzled for a couple of minutes until the police knocked at the door telling the husband that they received 911 call made from his house. First the husband thought that it was a mistake, then he put together his wife's strange behavior and the police visit. You don't need to have a crystal ball to realize that it was an aborted Russian woman's attempt to get "protection" from deportation(or "protection in general", as you say) after getting rid of her unassuming husband.

The bottom line is that lack of English does not prevent you from bringing the police to your rescue at any time. Just call 911 and hang up. The police will find your address and rescue you from any abuse, unless, of course, you are too embarrassed to face them like the young Russian lady in this case.


Quote from another RW:

This is of course in the case if she has access to phone

Thinking that women do not have access to the phone in America is similar to thinking that Russian bears walk on the streets of Russia waiting to attack American tourists. This type of thinking was popular back in the 80s on the dawn of the fall of Iron Curtain. I would be very surprised if somebody either in Russia or in America still thinks in these terms. There is only one typical "abuse" story creation that is more ridiculous than "phone access", and that is a Russian woman being "locked up". Yes, yes, yes. I've heard that too. An American looser-abuser has a dream to have a woman locked up in his closet. He can not realize this dream and lock up an American woman and therefore this looser-abuser sells his last possessions (accept for the closet), goes to Russia, finds a woman, seduces her into coming to America with him, sells his car to have enough money to buy her a ticket and -- bingo -- she is locked up (without an access to the phone, of course). The dream of an American looser-abuser came true.

If you know any stories of "abuse" more ridiculous that these please share them with us. By the way, the latest and this time true story goes like that. A young Russian wife of an American looser-abuser met and befriended another Russian wife of another American looser-abuser. Both decided to declare themselves lesbians. They fled to Canada and asked for political asylum from American government that prosecuted them as lesbians and denied them sexual freedom from their husbands. I've heard that these Russian "lesbians" succeeded in their scam.

By the way, I've heard that from their concerned parents in Russia who did not hear from these girls for a while and worried if their poor darlings were alive or dead of the hands of American losers-abusers.

[/size]


Oh BTW the ripped out tooth was rotten and it fell out. You can judge how true the rest of the story is from this.




Maxx



 

[ECOCKS]

There is only one typical "abuse" story creation that is more ridiculous than "phone access", and that is a Russian woman being "locked up". Yes, yes, yes. I've heard that too. An American looser-abuser has a dream to have a woman locked up in his closet. He can not realize this dream and lock up an American woman and therefore this looser-abuser sells his last possessions (accept for the closet), goes to Russia, finds a woman, seduces her into coming to America with him, sells his car to have enough money to buy her a ticket and -- bingo -- she is locked up (without an access to the phone, of course). The dream of an American looser-abuser came true.

[/size]

You mean sort of like Mike Conroy's dream?

[Admin]

Maxx,

Sorry . . . but I cannot help it . . . I *have* to respond to a couple of things in your post.

Firstly, my singular encounter with Natasha Spivak was a positive one. She seemed very gracious and polite.

Next, I want to address some of what you posted in attribution to Ms. Spivak - and, of course, you are welcome to invite her here to address her comments.

I thought the same and I've been living in America for more than 20 years. I thought that a woman "without knowing English cannot call 911" until one day I was enlighten by one Russian woman, who has arrived in the USA on a fiancée visa and shortly after her marriage decided to get rid of her husband. She called 911 and hang up without saying a word. Then she laid down on the floor at the front door of her American husband's townhouse while her husband was out on the deck. Unexpectedly for this Russian woman though, a family friend (and a potential witness!) came out of the back yard deck into the house. He saw this Russian woman lying on the floor and became very concerned. All of a sudden in front of this man's eyes the Russian woman jumped up from the floor, rushed outside and disappeared. Both the husband and the family friend were very puzzled for a couple of minutes until the police knocked at the door telling the husband that they received 911 call made from his house. First the husband thought that it was a mistake, then he put together his wife's strange behavior and the police visit. You don't need to have a crystal ball to realize that it was an aborted Russian woman's attempt to get "protection" from deportation(or "protection in general", as you say) after getting rid of her unassuming husband.

The bottom line is that lack of English does not prevent you from bringing the police to your rescue at any time. Just call 911 and hang up. The police will find your address and rescue you from any abuse, unless, of course, you are too embarrassed to face them like the young Russian lady in this case.

In the second sentence, we see this proclamation; "I was enlighten by one Russian woman, who has arrived in the USA on a fiancée visa and shortly after her marriage decided to get rid of her husband."

Is this a matter of speculation or did the Russian woman divulge her plans to Ms. Spivak?

The paragraph closes with this claim; "You don't need to have a crystal ball to realize that it was an aborted Russian woman's attempt to get "protection" from deportation(or "protection in general", as you say) after getting rid of her unassuming husband."

While true I do not need a "crystal ball," I darn sure would like something more substantive in the way of compelling evidence the RW was planning nefarious action.

Is there something more to the story - like an actual separation or divorce?

I find it rather odd that a neighbor would have free run of the house to come and go as they please. I can imagine some pretty awkward situations that would have created for Olya and me in the early days after our marriage. For that matter, it would STILL pose a problem, just maybe not quite as frequently  :evil: .

Maybe it is just me, but that accounting of events and conclusions is not at all persuasive.

FWIW

- Dan

PS - Am I one of the "bad guys" in your black-and-white castigation of our membership?

[Gylden]

I agree with the intent of IMBRA (the core intent IMO is the prevention of abuse), but this would only provide a partial solution as Mike78 posted. This type of background check should be done in such a manner as to include anyone preparing to marry. Why afford this protection just to a foreign national?
There are two separate issues which should be addressed in regard to this matter. The first is providing information to unsuspecting people before marriage or relations. The second is providing information to unsuspecting marriage partners upon immigration to the US.

[ECOCKS]

I agree Gylden.

This information should be available to anyone, foreign or domestic, about to get married. Most folks would have to agree though that those who did not grow up in a country, understand it's laws, it's measures of justice and corruption (or lack thereof) deserve an bit more assistance since they don't know the numbers to call, questions to ask or oprtions available for support.

[Maxx2]

Maxx,

Sorry . . . but I cannot help it . . . I *have* to respond to a couple of things in your post.

Firstly, my singular encounter with Natasha Spivak was a positive one. She seemed very gracious and polite.

Next, I want to address some of what you posted in attribution to Ms. Spivak - and, of course, you are welcome to invite her here to address her comments.

In the second sentence, we see this proclamation; "I was enlighten by one Russian woman, who has arrived in the USA on a fiancée visa and shortly after her marriage decided to get rid of her husband."

Is this a matter of speculation or did the Russian woman divulge her plans to Ms. Spivak?

The paragraph closes with this claim; "You don't need to have a crystal ball to realize that it was an aborted Russian woman's attempt to get "protection" from deportation(or "protection in general", as you say) after getting rid of her unassuming husband."

While true I do not need a "crystal ball," I darn sure would like something more substantive in the way of compelling evidence the RW was planning nefarious action.

Is there something more to the story - like an actual separation or divorce?

I find it rather odd that a neighbor would have free run of the house to come and go as they please. I can imagine some pretty awkward situations that would have created for Olya and me in the early days after our marriage. For that matter, it would STILL pose a problem, just maybe not quite as frequently  :evil: .

Maybe it is just me, but that accounting of events and conclusions is not at all persuasive.

FWIW

- Dan

PS - Am I one of the "bad guys" in your black-and-white castigation of our membership?

Dan, I've spent hundred if not thousands of hours talking to Natasha. I have even spent about 2 months visiting with her and her cousin Inna when I was out East filming Avi's story and several other stories. Natasha always had a number of people for me to interview. Even now she wants me to come out and document some other stories stories including her own in regard to this IMBRA thing. I know lots and lots of details in regard to these horror stories. I've seen police reports and documents, medical records and photos, talked with "abusers" and victims, talked with their families and friends. One thing that strikes me in all of this is how inaccurate the official stories usually are. When Natasha writes like she does she does so because she is frustrated how gullable the general public is and with people like us who should know better. She has told me this.

In regard to your first question, "Did this woman divulge her plans to Natasha". Natasha talked to the husband and his friend. What happened was the friend was there visiting and was on the back porch with the husband. The RW wife came home and never went to the back of the house. When the friend entered the house to go somewhere (bathroom possibly) he seen the RW was lying on the floor. When he spoke to her she jumped up, grabbed her car keys, ran to the car and sped off. A few minutes later the police arrived because she had dialed 911 prior to being discovered. The marriage ended right after that.

Yes you are one of the bad guys in regard to Amerikanski's concern. I am not arguing he was out of line. But for him he should realize that you and several others had your teeth set against him. What I was suggesting was that he should behave himself then dialog only with those like Jookie, GQ, Facetrock etc who were respectfully asking him questions to learn what he had to say.

Here's more Natasha:

The best protection for women in a strange country with an abusive husband and no friends around is to go back to the warm home of her family and friends, where she can speak her language and be comfortable with her culture. The best protection is to provide her with the ticket back home so that she would forget the horror of her abuse in a strange country without support of friends and family.

The protection that you are talking about is the protection from deportation, the protection to remain in the USA, not the protection from abuse. Also this is the protection from being poor in this "strange" country. Of course, who wants America, if you are better off in Russia? So, every such woman who receives protection from deportation needs to be protected financially. That means that the looser-abuser man who brought you to this country has to pay to keep you in this country until you find a new man. It is a one way street for a man while it is a two way street for you, since you have the choice to remain in this "strange" country or to go back to your home country. It is you, who decides that, not a man.

Of course this decision is easier to make if the "strange" country tells you that it will bend over backwards just to keep you here and make you a citizen. Moreover, it assures you that it will make your looser-abuser man pay for everything, so that you don't have to worry. Enjoy! As for going back, you can always do it later with a Green Card in your pocket. You don't have anything to loose by calling 911. You have a looser husband for that. Let looses pay! Long Live American Feminists!

Now, who will protect an American man from loosing his home that he worked for most of his life or his job that pays future alimony for you -- just because you want protection from deportation? Forget that he is a citizen of this country. He has no rights of protection. Probably his US citizenship would be the only thing that he will keep at the end of the litigation with you, a foreign alien protected by feminists in the American court system. That is of course, if he does not lose his life and his citizenship along with that. Remember poor looser-abuser Frank Sheridan? So the question is what is more important -- to be protected from deportation or to be protected from loosing everything including health and life in some cases?

Your answer, of course, is that protection from deportation at any cost has always been the top priority. I agree. But you need to agree that American men whose lives were ruined or who lost their lives like Frank Sheridan (losers are humans too, you know) for the sake of protecting you from deportation have the right to complain if they are still alive. That is about the only right they have left at this age of American feminists' reign.

Of course, we all know that every people deserve their own government. So, may be we don't have to be compassionate to all these American looser-abusers and they deserve being ruined by their government in the name of protecting you from deportation. This is surely a convenient train of thought that will release any sense of guilt that somebody in a position of this Russian Sheridan may have. Then again, we can say that Russian intelligentsia and military commanders deserved mass executions during the KGB's reign in Russia. Stalin did that for the sake of "protecting" Russian people from "traitors".

Oh, well, let the history be the judge. Let the history decide who deserves to be deported and who deserves to be protected from deportation. But please do not confuse protection from abuse and protection from deportation. Women are protected from abuse by multitudes of American laws. VAWA is about protection from deportation, not abuse. Please keep it in mind when you discuss this Russian face Sheridan, Maxx's story or any RW abuse story at all.

[/size]

[Maxx2]

Here's some more what Natasha said about Katrina Sheridan. Note how these details are missing from the version Dan posted. Not picking on you Dan just notice how the details change.

"The day Frank died, Katerina reacted differently from the others. She was driving home from work when Jeff called her cellphone and told her to pull over. It would take days for her to absorb what he said. But at that moment, sitting in her car alongside the road, she cried."


She reacted differently because she knew that it was her who pushed him over the edge. In other words, she knew that she killed him and his blood will remain on her for ever.

Of course, she did not expect such shocking ending when she stabbed her husband in the privacy of their home. She did not expect such ending when she tricked him to bail her out of jail while sneaking through the back door into the arms of rejoicing feminists. She did not expect it when she was playing "stalking games" with him while pretending being paranoid of his truck. She went too far playing feminists' games with ambush at the airport, witch hunt and such while having fun with her handsome boy friend.

There is nobody out there to tell Frank's side of the story. I hope Frank's spirit will continue haunting this Russian woman Sheridan. I know that the joy of buying American citizenship at the price of blood is similar to the joy of Biblical Judas. They say, that Judas hang himself on the Aspen tree. I hope that Sheridan's "different" reaction is only the beginning of her repentance, however her tears are interpreted in the story.

* Shortly after Katerina Sheridan, a young woman from Siberia, married Frank Sheridan, he kept her a virtual prisoner, forbidding her to keep her own set of house keys, and taking away her visa, passport, and birth certificate. Later, he also took away her cell phone and cut all the phone lines in the house. He flew into violent rages, on one occasion beating Katerina and dragging her around the house by her legs. After several such incidents, Katerina told him that she wanted to go back to Russia. In retaliation, Sheridan stabbed himself and then accused her of doing it to get her thrown in jail. Later, Katerina managed to make it to a women’s shelter, but Sheridan stalked her relentlessly and tried to get her detained and deported. When police went to arrest Frank for aggravated stalking, they discovered he was in Russia looking for a new bride. Months later, when an officer went to arrest Sheridan for another stalking-related crime, he shot the officer. The deputy returned fire and killed Sheridan.

[ECOCKS]

Odd, I hope Frank Sheridan's spirit is resting and his judgment mitigated by his mental state. As for Katerina, I truly hope the woman finds some peace in her new life.

[Maxx2]

I agree with you Ecocks. For Frank it was suicide by cop. Somebody wrote this. I do NOT see this as justifying what happened but possible what his twisted state of mind was.

Someone I don't know wrote this:

Honestly some of the posts in this thread disgust me. Even if she did stab him, why would he start stalking her? A sane man would stay the hell away from a woman who stabbed him.

He wasn't thinking straight. Here is my best guess at his mental state.
- He was nuts about her. He got jealous, then he got angry, probably because he realized that she had used him.
- She stabbed him. She could have killed him. That's a big deal.
- The criminal justice system, together with women's advocates tricked him into posting bail for her by lying to him, pretending again that she loved him.
- He was left utterly alone, raging in his home, literally stabbed in the chest, knowing that he could trust absolutely nobody. The police had participated in tricking him.
- He was out of his mind with rage, shame, and paranoia. He was left with nothing to get his self-respect back except to find out what she was really doing. He found her married to another man. He had been used, his savings drained, his heart broken, with a literal chest wound and scar.
- So, he decided to get his money back. Notice the amount that he defrauded her of. It was almost exactly the amount he had spent to bail her out of jail. Want to bet that she didn't jump bail on him so he couldn't get it back?
- Now, not also that IF he had posted bail on her, that made him her jailer, legally. He was, therefore, legally empowered to use any force necessary to return her to prison. He was also legally empowered to watch her, and track her movements as necessary to enforce it. Somehow I doubt that was brought up in any hearings. Probably, he did not have a decent attorney. They are hard to find.
- He goes on a trip, perhaps to try to find another woman, perhaps to seek revenge on all Russian women, who knows. When he gets back, he is arrested. He is already raging, out of his mind, and paranoid. Getting arrested for getting his money back from the vicious blank that nearly stabbed him to death, finding himself painted as an evil monster was the last straw.
- He was packing, perhaps to leave town, who knows. He sees another cop driving up, and probably he had already made a decision that he was not going to let them win. In his rage and hurt, he shot at the poor cop who happened by, when he really wanted to shoot her.
- Bang. He's dead. He was probably relieved to die at that point.

Look, men and women, both - they commit murder for far less than this, regularly. People kill just out of jealousy. Someone who has never been seriously shafted has no idea what would go on in their own head. Rage and totally justified paranoia - it's a terrible combination. Put someone there, they'll get themselves killed. I've known other men who came very close. But they had good friends who stayed with them and talked them down, talked them through it.

"There but for the grace of god go I."

[acrzybear]

Well Max if he was everything like you described, then in my opinion he would have had some serious mental issues.  But speaking as a cop and a Supervisor-this guy made his decision when he shot at the Officer/Deputy.  It is a shame that so many other hads to suffer because of this persons's weaknesses and that he forced another to do what he did have the nerve to do.

 Being angry about being "dumped" is normal, stalking and physical and mental abuse are not normal.

[Maxx2]

In my opinion this guy did EVERYTHING wrong. He fought when he should have fled. His Flight Fight responce was set only on fight. He was self employed as a plumber. Probably an independent sort that had little regard for authority.

[boaterguy]

I think the K visa interview should inform the foreign partner about any previous violent/sexual convictions of the US petitioner. Am I correct assuming that IMBRA only applies to the paid sites/agencies? So if you use free dating sites, or just meet the woman on the street you are off the hook? Why would any sexual predator ever use these agencies knowing he wouldn't pass IMBRA?

I know of a couple that was informed. He was wrongly accused(???) of improperly touching his ex's stepdaughter. Ended up doing a plea deal...he is listed as a sexual offender. She was informed of this at her K1 interview in 2004.

[Admin]

Dan, I've spent hundred if not thousands of hours talking to Natasha. I have even spent about 2 months visiting with her and her cousin Inna when I was out East filming Avi's story and several other stories. Natasha always had a number of people for me to interview. Even now she wants me to come out and document some other stories stories including her own in regard to this IMBRA thing. I know lots and lots of details in regard to these horror stories. I've seen police reports and documents, medical records and photos, talked with "abusers" and victims, talked with their families and friends. One thing that strikes me in all of this is how inaccurate the official stories usually are. When Natasha writes like she does she does so because she is frustrated how gullable the general public is and with people like us who should know better. She has told me this.

In regard to your first question, "Did this woman divulge her plans to Natasha". Natasha talked to the husband and his friend. What happened was the friend was there visiting and was on the back porch with the husband. The RW wife came home and never went to the back of the house. When the friend entered the house to go somewhere (bathroom possibly) he seen the RW was lying on the floor. When he spoke to her she jumped up, grabbed her car keys, ran to the car and sped off. A few minutes later the police arrived because she had dialed 911 prior to being discovered. The marriage ended right after that.

Yes you are one of the bad guys in regard to Amerikanski's concern. I am not arguing he was out of line. But for him he should realize that you and several others had your teeth set against him. What I was suggesting was that he should behave himself then dialog only with those like Jookie, GQ, Facetrock etc who were respectfully asking him questions to learn what he had to say.

>>One thing that strikes me in all of this is how inaccurate the official stories usually are.<<

Well, if you mean by "inaccurate" that they are not replete with detail - that may be. It seems, however, that you persist in wanting to present one side of the argument rather then the simple facts of what transpired. A condensed version of the facts as determined by the courts after hearing ALL the evidence in gory detail, is what is presented - rather than focusing on the defense attorney's arguments.

Do you dispute that the "official stories" accurately reflect the courtroom decisions?

>>Natasha talked to the husband and his friend. What happened was the friend was there visiting and was on the back porch with the husband.<<

Even more curious then -- why would a RW elect to pull such a ruse with a friend of her husband's "visiting" their home? Would it not make more sense that a conniving RW who was looking to take advantage of her "unassuming husband" would wait for a more opportune time than when one of his friend's was staying in their home?!? Maxx, the story is laden with holes and/or built upon presumption rather than evidence. It is not an uncommon condition - though not a persuasive argument by a VERY large distance.

>>Yes you are one of the bad guys in regard to Amerikanski's concern. I am not arguing he was out of line. But for him he should realize that you and several others had your teeth set against him.<<

Maxx, it is nice to see that some things are immutable. You persist in your campaign to save the world (or at least, unsuspecting AM from those horrible RW), and you do so from a simplistic Boolean perspective seeing the world through a filter of black-and-white (bad and good).

I know your heart is very much into what you are doing (sincerely). I just find your logic and persuasion, at times, lacking in substance.

- Dan

PS - Do you now think I have my "teeth set against" you?

[Admin]

I know of a couple that was informed. He was wrongly accused(???) of improperly touching his ex's stepdaughter. Ended up doing a plea deal...he is listed as a sexual offender. She was informed of this at her K1 interview in 2004.

First off - I have written in the past about my views regarding sex offender laws and registration. On the one hand, I am grateful there is some information available to me to do more to protect my children from sick and perverted people. OTOH, I have personal knowledge of abuses of the sex offender laws that brand people for life for relatively innocent actions. The issue of sex offender registries and unintentional branding of people is something that is beginning to get needed attention from the legislators.

In terms of your comments - I have to wonder how someone who was wrongly accused was then listed as a sexual offender? One would expect that a wrongful accusation would not result in a conviction and consequent registration in the sex offender registry.

Did the couple end up marrying? If so, are they still together?

- Dan

[SMS60]

This IMBRA law is vague. You dont hear a lot about it. It will eventually get completely swept under the rug. Reason being is it has issues as being a legit law. I dont think it can stand up to the Constitution. Once a good organization challenges it will be deemed Unconstitutional and fade away.

Some things dont make sense.

Any time you apply for certain types of permits from the Goverment be it Federal or State they run background checks. You cant get some types of permits if you owe taxes. Same with felonies. IE gun permits. Even bartender permits require a background check for some states to issue it. If you are involved with any business involved with explosives you really get checked out.

You will not be able to get a passport if you owe child support in some states.

When you file a petition with the USCIS you are asking for a type of permit. By law they can do a full background check on the petitioner.

So, why are they not taking the reins? Could it be they would be over reaching their authority?

The USCIS has the ability to do something. They know your background. They know when you last took a dump. Why are they sitting on their hands?

Could it be because of the constitutionality of the law? Maybe??