The Mike and Olga Conroy Story

[Maxx2]

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

In what you wrote above we see each other the same.

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?!?

The friend came over for a visit when the wife was out. She came home. She must have known her husband was home. His car was there. She pulled her ruse and the evidence of that was her reaction to being discovered on the floor by the visitor and potential witness. Most anyone can understand what was really happening.

Dan, you remind me of a lawyer always looking for an argument no matter how weak for the defense of your client (RW MOBs).  

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).

This is your black/white judgment of me. I do not just try and "save" men but I do the same for the women whether they are American (I was talking with one last night. She American and her ex, Israeli) or Immigrant. I have a number of Russian women who are my friends. They do not see me as a portraying all of them as horrible. The horrible that you have described here in this thread is coming from the typing hands of a Russian woman. She knows they are not all angels (I'm using your tactics here) as you believe they are. She has seen horror story after horror story. She has skin in the game as you do Dan yet she is not afraid to go public time after time to speak the truth. I have seen her on FOX5 news laying out how the use of false charges of abuse are used by immigrant women to secure a green card. Right now she and a few others of my lobby group are on a Congressional committee to bring some balance on how Immigration Services adjudicates these cases of alledged abuse. Yet what do you do Dan? She's fighting for you and your business and her own by being honest by dealing with both the good and the bad of it. This is what Immigration Services thinks of you business and what we are trying counter balance.

A random sampling of the various websites provides insight into the motivations of both the American grooms and the younger women they pursue. For example, the site Goodwife.com features illustrations of 1950s style pinups in provocative poses, while lamenting the perceived trend toward Western women becoming radical “feminazis” who are unhappy performing stereotypical roles as housekeepers and mothers. Goodwife.com claims that there may be some “good women” left in the West, but that they are hard to find and that such women are plentiful in other countries. The site features a choice of brides from Latin America, Asia, and Russia, with profiles from young women like “Ellen,” a flaxen-haired, 23-year-old Russian from Krasnodar. In addition to a provocative photo, “Ellen” reveals in her profile that her religion is “New Age,” her profession is “journalism,” her occupation is “idol-magazine,” and that she enjoys animals and philosophy. Goodwife.com induces men to women like “Ellen” on “individual romance tours” that start at $500 and include “an electronic translator.” Scores of other websites offer similar inducements. Myforeignbride.com, for example, promises to “assist foreign ladies from around the world find suitable men for marriage,” while offering men a choice of “Russian and Euro,” “Latin,” “Asian,” or “Ebony.”

Although consular officers clearly are highly suspicious of American men who take part in mail-order marriages, the rule of thumb is that “if the American believes the relationship is real, then it is.” So consular officers only are responsible for trying to divine the motives of the American, not to explain the poverty and desperation that drive women to participate in mail-order marriages.

http://www.cis.org/marriagefraud  about 40% the way down under Can Buy Me Love: Mail-Order Brides

Dan, you would do yourself a whole lot of good to stop thinking of me as a small minded bumpkin on a crazed mission to save the world from horrible Russian woman.

[ECOCKS]

SMS60:

Could you please indicate which part(s) of IMBRA you feel is/are unconstitutional? Since it's a voluntary action (doubly so, firstly in seeking a foreign bride and then choosing to do so through a "broker"), I am at a loss as to how this could come about.

[Maxx2]

I spoke to Natasha and she said she will post on this subject a bit later.


Natasha and her agency was the target of the Tahirih Justice Center in DC in order to get a basis for the need for IMBRA  She knows this subject well.

[Turboguy]

SMS60:

Could you please indicate which part(s) of IMBRA you feel is/are unconstitutional? Since it's a voluntary action (doubly so, firstly in seeking a foreign bride and then choosing to do so through a "broker"), I am at a loss as to how this could come about.

I am as far as you can get from being an expert on constitutional law but two areas that seem grey to me are,

1.  A lifetime limit of 2 fiancees. 

It seems to me that if we are the land of the free and have a right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness the government should not be telling us if we make a mistake, which can happen easily that we are not allowed to marry.

2.  It seems to me that the law is unequal in its enforcement.  It targets only those who meet a foreign bride by a for pay site.  If the for pay site happens to be run by a church or charity it does not apply.   If they meet on a free site it does not apply.  It should preferably apply to any internet marriages or none

3.  It restricts our freedom of speach.  If we needed a background check to bring a fiancee to the US that to me would be fine but we need one to say hello to a woman from overseas. 

Maybe a constitutional lawyer would be laughing for hours at my thoughts but to me those are grey areas with IMBRA

[ECOCKS]

I am as far as you can get from being an expert on constitutional law but two areas that seem grey to me are,

1.  A lifetime limit of 2 fiancees. 

It seems to me that if we are the land of the free and have a right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness the government should not be telling us if we make a mistake, which can happen easily that we are not allowed to marry.

Hmmm, isn't this a CIS regulation with regard to K-X visas? Don't think that IMBRA establishes this situation? Putting that aside for a moment though, I thought there is an appeal process for a waiver?

Also, they don't actually remove your right to marry an unlimited number of foreigners, only to marry and relocate him/her plus minor children legally into the United States.

Do you believe that one citizen has the right to invite/marry an unlimited number of new citizens into the country? A prolific marrier/divorcer/remarryer could bring in dozens, even hundreds, of spouses and children into the country.

2.  It seems to me that the law is unequal in its enforcement.  It targets only those who meet a foreign bride by a for pay site.  If the for pay site happens to be run by a church or charity it does not apply.  If they meet on a free site it does not apply.  It should preferably apply to any internet marriages or none.

I agree with you there, although I believe it should apply to everyone as an option of the spouse to access the information prior to the marriage date - paid site or free, foreign or domestic, met at a Internet site or church social. However, how exactly does that interfere with any of our Constitutional rights? Which specific right does it violate? Due process maybe?

3.  It restricts our freedom of speach.  If we needed a background check to bring a fiancee to the US that to me would be fine but we need one to say hello to a woman from overseas. 

I don't think anything stops you from saying hello to anyone anymore than charging you for the call or the letter postage would stop you. It's a regulated industry which attempts to protect non-citizens from citizens. You voluntarily initiated it so I can't see how it is anymore restrictive of free speech than a drug test of a potential employee would be by an employer. You are certainly able to take your business elsewhere if you find the drug test or the questions regarding your criminal record to be invasive of your privacy or limiting of your actions.

Maybe a constitutional lawyer would be laughing for hours at my thoughts but to me those are grey areas with IMBRA

[Admin]

In what you wrote above we see each other the same.

The friend came over for a visit when the wife was out. She came home. She must have known her husband was home. His car was there. She pulled her ruse and the evidence of that was her reaction to being discovered on the floor by the visitor and potential witness. Most anyone can understand what was really happening.

Dan, you remind me of a lawyer always looking for an argument no matter how weak for the defense of your client (RW MOBs).  

This is your black/white judgment of me. I do not just try and "save" men but I do the same for the women whether they are American (I was talking with one last night. She American and her ex, Israeli) or Immigrant. I have a number of Russian women who are my friends. They do not see me as a portraying all of them as horrible. The horrible that you have described here in this thread is coming from the typing hands of a Russian woman. She knows they are not all angels (I'm using your tactics here) as you believe they are. She has seen horror story after horror story. She has skin in the game as you do Dan yet she is not afraid to go public time after time to speak the truth. I have seen her on FOX5 news laying out how the use of false charges of abuse are used by immigrant women to secure a green card. Right now she and a few others of my lobby group are on a Congressional committee to bring some balance on how Immigration Services adjudicates these cases of alledged abuse. Yet what do you do Dan? She's fighting for you and your business and her own by being honest by dealing with both the good and the bad of it. This is what Immigration Services thinks of you business and what we are trying counter balance.


http://www.cis.org/marriagefraud  about 40% the way down under Can Buy Me Love: Mail-Order Brides

Dan, you would do yourself a whole lot of good to stop thinking of me as a small minded bumpkin on a crazed mission to save the world from horrible Russian woman.

>>for the defense of your client (RW MOBs).<<

Actually, you will find plenty of information about RWD and our constituency and mission, and nowhere in that will you find any mention of "RW MOBs" as our "client." That Maxx, is a construct of your fertile imagination that is rooted nowhere in fact or action.

>>This is your black/white judgment of me.<<

I will remind you that it was YOU who, once again, recently returned to RWD with your characterization of the "good guys" and bad guys routine - something I find extraordinarily shallow and self-serving - not to mention insulting.

I clearly have formed an opinion of you and your crusade over many years. While sympathetic, yours is not - in my opinion - a credible or balanced crusade. And BTW, your feet stink too (j/k  ).

>>She has skin in the game as you do Dan yet she is not afraid to go public time after time to speak the truth.<<

You presume facts not in evidence.

Quite clearly Natasha Spivak has a vested interest in protecting her revenue interests - such as they may be at this time. As I understand it, after she lost the court case she sold her agency, so at least on paper, she shows no revenue interest at this time - though reality is probably something different than what can be traced through the financial records.

In terms of my "skin in the game" - I assure you my interest is nowhere close to an agency owner's interest - and very often is a net negative.

>>Yet what do you do Dan?<<

I do my share - just see no need to have my name 'in the lights' or hear my voice on the radio or television. I receive plenty of personal recognition through my primary vocation, and feel no need to gain more from my community service projects.

I am often asked for interviews - probably weekly. I have given only two, and they were more than a year ago and documented here at RWD complete with photos. To their credit, the TV journalists conducting the interview concluded they could not proceed with their project and maintain intellectual honesty after having finished the interviews. The program never saw the light of day - and that is quite OK with me. The fact that my contribution led to one less TV program casting cross-cultural marriages in a derogatory light was, IMO, a grand success.

I also contribute from RWD by sponsoring such worthwhile projects as the Agency Code of Ethics and the Survey of Cross-Cultural Marriage and Divorce. But those projects tend to disturb your attribution of my "skin in the game" - don't they Maxx?

>>She's fighting for you and your business and her own by being honest by dealing with both the good and the bad of it.<<

Gotta admit to having a guttural reaction (not a positive one) when told that someone whom I have never met and have never asked is somehow "fighting" on my behalf. I am perfectly capable of fighting for myself and I reserve that prerogative for those occasions when I alone feel it is warranted. If someone has somehow deluded themselves into thinking they are fighting for me - they are only that - deluded.

>>Dan, you would do yourself a whole lot of good to stop thinking of me as a small minded bumpkin on a crazed mission to save the world from horrible Russian woman.<<

Maxx, I sincerely believe you are well-intended. I also believe you are misguided in many many ways.

- Dan

[Jack]

I wish you guys would stop using red. 

This red is most often, and primarily used to warn, to alert,  forewarn, signal, notify, advise, acquaint, convey, express, indicate, instruct, specify, enlighten and caution that the poster is a commercial member. 

If you guys want to highlight something please use another color

Thank you.

[Admin]

This is what Immigration Services thinks of you business and what we are trying counter balance.

http://www.cis.org/marriagefraud  about 40% the way down under Can Buy Me Love: Mail-Order Brides

>>Immigration Services<<

REALLY?!?

Surely you did not mean to mislead readers to believing the citation was from the USCIS?

Surely you KNOW that the link and text you provided is to a website whose owners describe themselves as; "an independent, non-partisan, non-profit, research organization." - AND - has nothing to do with the US Government. Right Maxx?!?

- Dan

[Boethius]

IMBRA's already survived two constitutional challenges.  Though in lower level courts, the reasoning in both decisions was quite compelling.

I am as far as you can get from being an expert on constitutional law but two areas that seem grey to me are,

1.  A lifetime limit of 2 fiancees.  
It seems to me that if we are the land of the free and have a right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness the government should not be telling us if we make a mistake, which can happen easily that we are not allowed to marry.

But you could go abroad to meet and marry a woman.  The law doesn't restrict that.  

2.  It seems to me that the law is unequal in its enforcement.  It targets only those who meet a foreign bride by a for pay site.  If the for pay site happens to be run by a church or charity it does not apply.   If they meet on a free site it does not apply.  It should preferably apply to any internet marriages or none

It is regulating commercial service providers, so it's not unequal.

3.  It restricts our freedom of speach.  If we needed a background check to bring a fiancee to the US that to me would be fine but we need one to say hello to a woman from overseas.  

It is not restricting your freedom of speech.  It is regulating the commercial activities of service providers.

Human trafficking is now bigger than the drug trade.  It is also on the UN radar.  I suspect at some point in the future, the "providing" countries will start banning international commercial sites altogether.  The Phillipines is already looking at how it can achieve this.

[Turboguy]

1.  A lifetime limit of 2 fiancees. 

Hmmm, isn't this a CIS regulation with regard to K-X visas? Don't think that IMBRA establishes this situation? Putting that aside for a moment though, I thought there is an appeal process for a waiver?

Also, they don't actually remove your right to marry an unlimited number of foreigners, only to marry and relocate him/her plus minor children legally into the United States.

No, Ed, that is definately an IMBRA regulation and yes there are alternatives.  You can apply for a waver which I had to do with my wife or you can marry there and do a K-3 without the limit of two.

Do you believe that one citizen has the right to invite/marry an unlimited number of new citizens into the country? A prolific marrier/divorcer/remarryer could bring in dozens, even hundreds, of spouses and children into the country.

Do you think an Amerian man or woman has the right to marry 6 or 12 times?  If no, why not and what is the difference?  Should we limit everyone to two marriages?
Our former member William the immigration attorney was on his 5th K-1.  They were over a long period and if they were legitimate marriages and not for illegal immigration what is wrong with that?   

2.  It seems to me that the law is unequal in its enforcement.  It targets only those who meet a foreign bride by a for pay site.  If the for pay site happens to be run by a church or charity it does not apply.  If they meet on a free site it does not apply.  It should preferably apply to any internet marriages or none.
I agree with you there, although I believe it should apply to everyone as an option of the spouse to access the information prior to the marriage date - paid site or free, foreign or domestic, met at a Internet site or church social. However, how exactly does that interfere with any of our Constitutional rights? Which specific right does it violate? Due process maybe?

Not due process but I would need to do some research to answer this question but I do think there is an answer.

3.  It restricts our freedom of speach.  If we needed a background check to bring a fiancee to the US that to me would be fine but we need one to say hello to a woman from overseas. 
I don't think anything stops you from saying hello to anyone anymore than charging you for the call or the letter postage would stop you. It's a regulated industry which attempts to protect non-citizens from citizens. You voluntarily initiated it so I can't see how it is anymore restrictive of free speech than a drug test of a potential employee would be by an employer. You are certainly able to take your business elsewhere if you find the drug test or the questions regarding your criminal record to be invasive of your privacy or limiting of your actions.

Actually Ed, IMBRA does stop you.  It is a violation of IMBRA to buy a ladies address from an agency and write her a letter saying hello without going through a background check.

Jack,  You happy, lots of colors and no red!

[Jack]

Jack,  You happy, lots of colors and no red!

Yes Turbo, you made your points quite well, and without having to use commercial members red.

[Turboguy]

It is not restricting your freedom of speech.  It is regulating the commercial activities of service providers.

Well IMBRA is actully trying to regulate the commercial activities of businesses that are not American owned or operated and over which it often has no jurisdiction.  The only real penatlies it can enforce is to not allow the visa to be approved and that hurts the US citizen and not the agency.  IMBRA tells me who I can communicte with and under what conditions to me that is interfering with my free speach.   If someone was a convicted rapist wouldn't it be potentially more harmful for him to be able to say hello to Jane from Chicago than the Olga from Kiev?

[Admin]

On the off-chance that Maxx is finished with his tirade - and leveraging on something SJ posted upthread

I wanted to pose a slightly *different* question about the Mike and Olga Conroy story - as follows:

What Part Did Olga Play?

I don't mean that she was in any way responsible for the heinous events of August 28, 2004. Rather, I mean how did Olga find herself in the situation? Were there indicators she might have acted on that would have kept her or led her out of jeopardy?

Do you see anything in Olga's description of her background that might have contributed to her plight?

Couple of things that gave me pause are:

* Her characterization of the emotional 'distance' with her family and with others. It was both sad, and a warning indicator of possible emotional intimacy issues.
* I was REALLY struck by her comment that even after all she has been through, she considers the time spent in her marriage happier than her teen years! One can only imagine the struggles she must have felt during those years.

We often see posts about desparate RW seeking any opportunity to escape their circumstances. Is this one such instance of abject emotional desparation seeking escape?


For those seeking additional information about the IMBRA debate, there is a re-opened topic here -- http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=6241.0. I plan to update it with a recent publication received from the Tahirih Justice Center about upcoming IMBRA enforcement. [Yes Maxx, I am in contact with TJC - even held face-to-face meetings with them - as one of those things I do to make a contribution, or advance my "fight" as it were]

[Maxx2]

[Yes Maxx, I am in contact with TJC - even held face-to-face meetings with them - as one of those things I do to make a contribution, or advance my "fight" as it were][/size][/i]

Scary, considering how balled up you get with things with me. 

[ECOCKS]

Too much in the previous posts to quote so you'll have to refer back to the upstream posts.

1. Yes, I see now that IMBRA regulated the K1 (fiance') filings, but not the K3 (married spouses) and, as I said, there is a process for applying for a waiver. I agree they slipped that in since it obviously is more of an Immigration issue than a regulation of marriage brokers. That's why I asked about it. As for the limits on the number of times you can file fiance' visa versus unlimited K3's, I see little or no problem. You're free to marry who you will as many times as you wish, sounds Constitutional to me. Could be worse, you could be forced to marry and then file afterward like Canada.

As for whether I beieve that each citizen should potentially be able to bring in a hundred or more new citizens, well somewhere between common sense and the heritage of America lies a reasonable decision. My thought? Truly don't know. There should be a limit and resources are finite but again, you aren't limited, just go marry them and file to bring them home. I am not sure though that there is a Constitutional right to become engaged to an unlimited number of women and expecting the US government to process them in, cover them with benefits and such.

2. Yeah I agree every soon-to-be spouse should have the option tp receive a full background check of their future spouse. However, as I said, I'd be curious to know which "right" this violates. Let me know what your research makes you think.

3. Hmmmm, I still don't see a restriction of the right to freedom of speech. If you honestly think this limits that freedom though then you should trot over to the ACLU or some of the pro bono civil rights lawyers out there and get them to help you correct this injustice? No sarcasm intended there, but as pointed out above, this doesn't seem to be drawing the attention of those legal scholars who continually seek to redress the wrongs of the governed at the hands of the government.

[boaterguy]

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

He did a plea deal(some addmission of guilt I suppose)...had been in jail for awhile...not sure of all the details. It was in California if that tells ya anything(guilty until proven innocent!) We have no idea if they are still together. We met them 5 years ago...we had issues. The point of my post was that his fiance was informed of his sex offender listing at her K1 interview...this was before IMBRA. Yes they were married and she had an 8 year old son.

[Maxx2]

It was in California if that tells ya anything(guilty until proven innocent!)

I was contacted by a Russian/American woman attorney in California. She was representing a RM USC who was accused of attempted spousal rape. He according to the attorney was asleep in the house when the police came. She told me that it was very likely he was going to be found guilty as that is what is usual in that county. That is presumed guilty until proved. He was found guilty and served about a year and a half until his conviction was overturned. He contacted me thanked me for trying to help. BTW she was seeing another man and her conditional green card was about to expire. Anyway I can back you up boaterguy about California.

[Maxx2]

This is new


Carey Roberts column
Abusegate: teaching women to falsely accuse

Carey Roberts
February 16, 2010

"Oh, I just got raped."

With those five words, Danmell Ndonye turned the lives of four innocent men into a living nightmare. For several days last September, Stalin Felipe, Kevin Taveras, Jesus Ortiz, and Rondell Bedward were publicly branded as rapists, mauled by jail guards, and threatened with 25 years behind bars.

"I'm not even 25 years old. I'm just 19," a relieved Felipe said later, following news that the tryst had been taped on a by-stander's cell phone, which showed the encounter to be entirely (and enthusiastically) consensual.

Afterwards, classmates were "calling my daughter the sister of a rapist," explained Ramiro Taveras, father of one of the falsely accused men. "Unfortunately, everything doesn't stop because the DA says go home and drops the charges."

Ndonye, a freshman at New York's Hofstra University, had been spotted by her new boyfriend following a raunchy bathroom romp, and she didn't want him to think she was a "slut." So she conjured up the rape ruse to conceal the truth.

False accusations of rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence are not an anomaly.

Sociologist Eugene Kanin did two studies of rape claims among university students. The first found a 50% false accusation rate, the second reported 41% of women later recanted their stories.

Studies of domestic violence accusations paint a similar picture.

One analysis of protective orders in West Virginia found seven of 10 orders were unnecessary or false. A Massachusetts inquiry found over half of protective order petitions did not even allege physical abuse.

Another study, "Prosecution and Conviction Rates for Intimate Partner Violence," published last year in Criminal Justice Review, found only one-third of persons arrested for domestic violence are convicted of the crime. Considering one million Americans are arrested every year for DV, that's a whale of a lot of persons tossed into the back seat of a squad car without probable cause!

Lawyers are well aware of the problem. Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, revealed, "Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply." And Casey Gwinn, a nationally-known domestic violence prosecutor, admits, "If we prosecuted everybody for perjury that gets on a witness stand and changes their story, everybody would go to jail."

The federal Violence Against Women Act — VAWA — bears much of the responsibility for this legal travesty. VAWA teaches women to bear false witness in five ways:

First, VAWA subscribes to the dubious proposition that any slight — physical, psychological, or financial — is a form of "violence." That includes raising your voice, furrowing your brow, even sticking out your tongue. In most states, any woman who claims to be "fearful" — no evidence required — is entitled to a protective order.

Second, VAWA-funded public awareness programs bombard the public with images of violent men, leaving women hyper-vigilant and fearful. These feminist indoctrination campaigns dishonestly veil the fact that women are equally likely to strike their male partners. And don't expect them to murmur a peep about former NFL star quarterback Steven McNair, shot four times in the chest by his ex-girlfriend last July.

Third, VAWA hires so-called "domestic violence advocates" to work in police departments and courthouses. These persons coach women to gussy up their stories so judges become convinced they are victims of abuse.

Fourth, the system offers loads of bennies to women who have ascended to the cult-like status as "survivors" of domestic violence. Not only do they get free legal help, they are also entitled to preferential treatment by the family law system, welfare services, and public housing.

Fifth, there are no penalties for women who manipulate the system. If a woman wants to make a man's life miserable, she can keep going back to the courthouse, rehashing her sob-story about being "harassed" or "stalked" or "abused." No evidence is required, not even an allegation of actual violence.

I have known good, upstanding men who have been broken by the calumnies of their vindictive exes. Their reputations savaged and savings depleted, their lives have become filled with court hearings and legal consultations to the point they can no longer find steady employment.

In a disturbing sense, these men are the lucky ones.

Freddie Peacock of Rochester, NY was convicted of rape in 1976 and sentenced to hard time. Six years later he was released on parole. For the next 28 years, Peacock fought to prove his innocence.

Two weeks ago Mr. Peacock became the 250th person in the United States to be exonerated through DNA testing. "Freddie Peacock was released many years ago, but he hasn't been truly free because the cloud of this conviction hung over him," explained Olga Akselrod, the attorney handling his case.


Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Mr. Roberts' work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show. Besides serving as a regular contributor to RenewAmerica. com, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell. com, ifeminists.net, Men's News Daily, eco.freedom. org, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.

[kievstar]

For men to get scammed by women in there own country you really have to be a fool. Marry in your league and get to know a woman first and your not going to be a piece of meat.  To many stupid men out there. 

[BillyB]

I have a series of questions for our members as they read the account of Mike and Olga.

First of them is: A Case for IMBRA?

IMBRA is poorly designed and they should throw it out. It was designed by feminists not to protect foreign women entirely but to make it harder for men to marry overseas. Many crime free men don't want the extra hassle of IMBRA in the way so they give up on the endeavor. Most America women do not use marriage agencies when finding love overseas so they won't have all the hassles the men here will have to go through.  IMBRA is loaded against men, period.

In the same why American women find love overseas through a dating site, I used a dating site too to find my ex fiancee. We did not have the hassle of IMBRA.  

If IMBRA's goal is to protect foreign women, they are not protecting all foreign women equally and that is why it's poorly designed and why I believe it's not actually created to protect women because it fails at doing it's job.

An ex criminal has the right to marry. To protect women the government should do background checks of all k-1 applicants and if a criminal record exists, the fiancee of the applicant should get a call from the embassy notifying her of the criminal record and they should notify her of her rights in America in case abuse happens. Why do agencies have to assume responsibility and have their business get hurt? A simple police style background check should do the trick.

If this is a good thing to do mandatory background checks before marriage, why stop there in only protecting foreign women? Let's make a law where all citizens have to give full disclosure of their past before allowing to marry. Should criminal records, credit rating, bankruptcies, and all dirty laundry should be brought out?

What is the right/good thing to do? If it's so good, how far should we take this law? To be totally fair all people should have access to obtaining a background check on others. Is that a good thing?

I think a simple police style background check is sufficient and the fiancee of the applicant should be notified if she's engaged to a man with a criminal record or not.

The obvious glaring issue is that Mike Conroy was a violent sexual predator. He preyed on others prior to meeting Olga, and he was physically abusive to Olga in their marriage.

Some people are alarmed about the age difference. Mike was sexually assaulting people his own age back in his younger days. Age has nothing to do with violence in a marriage. If anything a younger immature man would behave more violent than an older man.

[ECOCKS]

Billy:

I have a question about this statement:

 "Why do agencies have to assume responsibility and have their business get hurt?"

How exactly does it "hurt their business"? Aside from a relatively minor cost factor and time delay before posting I see nothing that "hurts" them. Tell me what I am missing please.

[shakespear]

Myke was smooth, very smooth.  Everyone gives Olga crap for not seeing through him.  Let me tell you, of the 15-20 guys I know who met him and Olga from 2000-2005, not one thought he was a fraud or dangerous. He claimed to be a decorated USMC officer, wounded in Vietnam, etc. He was active in the OK Military groups, and attended military functions in uniform. 

While that's pretty much true Joe, you'll remember we talked about how I "smelled a rat" when first meeting Myke.  Although he was outgoing and friendly, and he had certainly been in the USMC, I was getting indications he was never an officer and probably served as an enlisted man.  As a former USMC officer myself, there are certain mannerisms and expressions that allow Marines to identify one another.

This was pretty much verified when the Prosecuting Attorney did his background checks on Myke during the criminal prosecution.

As a retired Lt Col with 25 years of active duty service, he would have had a handsome monthly pension, yet he NEVER seemed to have any money.  He told me that the government was sending 100% of his pension to his x wife and would continue to do so until after their child turned 21.  All lies of course.       

[BillyB]

Billy:

I have a question about this statement:

 "Why do agencies have to assume responsibility and have their business get hurt?"

How exactly does it "hurt their business"? Aside from a relatively minor cost factor and time delay before posting I see nothing that "hurts" them. Tell me what I am missing please.

If a guy had a choice to pay to use an agency or pay to use a dating site, he will probably choose the one that has less hurdles to climb.

There are various reasons men don't get in this endeavor although they are attracted to RW. All these reasons add up. Costs of trips, time to complete the visa process, lots of paperwork involved, cost of visa, and time one has to invest in a woman. IMBRA is now another hurdle. I'm not up to speed on it but I believe some agencies have left USA to be based in other countries to get around what IMBRA requires them to do. They understand IMBRA reduces their potential customers.

ECOCKS, look at it this way, add more barriers to this process and less people will be looking for love overseas. Remove more barriers and more guys will be bringing RW home. If the cost was less or free, more guys would seek foreign women. If the visa process didn't take so long, more guys would participate. If visas were not necessary at all, this country's population will multiply pretty fast.

Keep in mind, most the language of IMBRA is written by special interest groups who lobbied the idea to a Senator from my State who pushed it through Congress to pass. Do you really think Congressmen read what it had to say? They knew it was to protect women so it was easy to vote "yes" on a "feel good" issue and prove to voters bipartisanship can happen in Congress.

Before IMBRA, the governent has enough info on a guy doing a k-1 to check him out. Simple. If they can't accurately verify the background of the citizens who are applying for visas for foreigners, they've got bigger issues to solve than DV. If by chance the government finds an ex con doing a k-1, they can notify the fiancee themselves and if she chooses to marry the ex con, they can hand her a pamplet at her interview educating her what the definition of DV is, how to report it and where to go for help.

If a guy was sitting on the fence debating whether to use an agency or dating site, the fact they don't have to deal with IMBRA at a dating site may tip the scales in favor of choosing a dating site... especially if the guy is an ex convict. IMBRA sounds good to most people but it's not the solution and does not solve the problem of DV and it creates problems for other women. Even if we find a way to stop all ex convicts and violent men from marrying foreign women, we will not stop the DV. Those convicts will just focus on domestic women and take it out on them instead. I can admit IMBRA helps foreign women to some extent but it hurts domestic women.

[ECOCKS]

Hmmmm, I don't see that much business impact myself. Personally, if I was an agency owner, I'd rather not have those who were put off by the 8 minute hassle of filling out the IMBRA questionnaire but maybe it's significant to some.

Here's another question, how is Elena's different than freepersonals except in the use of the word marriage in their advertising and web page presentation?

If IMBRA is such a problem for the agency owner(s) why wouldn't they re-label themselves as dating sites and still implement or try to implement control of the communications by the same methods? I noticed a site yesterday which labels itself as a dedicated matchmaking service yet despite haviong a US phone nuymber on their website, apparently allows an individual to send their first letters without IMBRA information. They have been in business a little over 10 years. Has anyone ever heard of how CIS polices this area? Do DoJ investigators go in undercover? Are complaints investigated by the FBI? How does international compliance get monitored or policed?

[BillyB]

Hmmmm, I don't see that much business impact myself. Personally, if I was an agency owner, I'd rather not have those who were put off by the 8 minute hassle of filling out the IMBRA questionnaire but maybe it's significant to some.

Here's another question, how is Elena's different than freepersonals except in the use of the word marriage in their advertising and web page presentation?

If IMBRA is such a problem for the agency owner(s) why wouldn't they re-label themselves as dating sites and still implement or try to implement control of the communications by the same methods? I noticed a site yesterday which labels itself as a dedicated matchmaking service yet despite haviong a US phone nuymber on their website, apparently allows an individual to send their first letters without IMBRA information. They have been in business a little over 10 years. Has anyone ever heard of how CIS polices this area? Do DoJ investigators go in undercover? Are complaints investigated by the FBI? How does international compliance get monitored or policed?

This is not an 8 minute hassle as you think.

Below is a summary of IMBRA and you will understand why Elena's models is different than FreePersonals as they describe the definition of an International marriage broker.

http://www.tahirih.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/imbrasummary.pdf

Below is a story of a man's experience and he describes the hassles he and the  ladies at the agency go through.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/10/24/imbra-completely-stops-communication-between-adults-background-checks-are-a-secondary-concern/

Below are two agency sites describing what their customers have to do to contact their ladies and if I was a potential customer reading that, I would just say "no" and use a dating site.

http://angelika.net/imbra.shtml

http://www.colombiansweethearts.com/what_is_the_imbra_law,_and_how_does_it_work.php


In accordance with the IMBRA law, all customers of COLOMBIAN SWEETHEARTS are asked to submit their background information for signed release by the foreign partner before any E-Mail, personal or agency or tour group contact takes place.

Here's a scenario. It's late night and I want to make contact with a beautiful lady by sending her an email and hopefully soon chat with her on the phone. After reading the above agency requirements to conform with IMBRA, it would sour my mood. I'm not in the mood to go down to the local police department and pay to get a background check on myself to gain the right to send a foreign lady an email. I'm sure the RW get tired having to come in the agency everyday to sign a release form saying she read the background check of every man who's writing her before she can respond to their email. Some of those model looking women get 20 men a day writing to them! Do you think some of those ladies enjoy signing 140 release forms a week? I don't think they'll be in the mood for love as much as they use to with foreign men.

If an agency followed those IMBRA rules, customers would not sign up as often and the ladies there will get tired coming into the agency all the time.

With all the hassle, I'm sure a lot of IMBRA rules are being broken now by the ladies, by the men and by the agencies. IMBRA is a joke but I'm sure some special interest group is getting government money to handle it. Anybody with some recent agency experience doing IMBRA requirements properly or not at all?