Tallying the Conseqences of the IMBA of 2005 -- now in effect

[Journeyman]

As most everybody probably knows, the new IMB Act is now in effect.  :hairraising:

Did you finish furiously ordering your last few addresses before the big deadline?  :seething:

I just caught a rumbling about a possible injunction being filed.  Anybody else hear anything about this?  It should be interesting to see just how this all plays out over time.

I noticed that one of the American-based profile aggregators already suspend operations on this date (6 March).  I'm guessing that they can't efficiently get the permission signatures of the ladies before they release the address to the purchaser.  So, what can they do...... but shut down (maybe permanently)?

What else have you observed?  

Journeyman

[Journeyman]

Hopefully, the temporary injunction obtained by E.C. on March 3rd will be made permanent, and there won't have to be any postings on this thread.

Journeyman

[Turboguy]

Makes me happy that I did three tours with them.  The ten grand i paid them did some good.   GO EC.   They win this and I might even quit telling everyone Global Ladies is a rip off.

[ConnerVT]

Good info on the TRO, including documents:

http://www.russianladies.com/imbra.cfm

[al-c]

What is the status of the case now?  Elena's Models, where I am a client, has requested that I complete the disclosure form before they forward contact data of any ladies to me.  For me, it is moot since I now communicate only with Olga, but I was wondering if EM was acting in response to something happening with the TRO or if they were just being knee-jerk about March 6 coming and going.

[BC]

On March 3, 2006, The Federal District Court of Northern Georgia placed a restraining order to stop prosecution under IMBRA for one agency and a lawsuit on the Constitutionality of IMBRA is being heard on March 20, 2006 on a number of grounds including rights to speech, privacy and due process violations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_order_bride

[Bruno]

SEE OUR LEGAL PAGE FOR A COPY OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER - THIS ONLY AFFECTS GEORGIA FEDERAL JURISDICTION - WE NEED LAWSUITS IN EACH AND EVERY FEDERAL JURISDICTION

[/b][/size][/color]
Do this mean that agency can work with American men from Georgia like before and need to use the new law for other state ?

If each American state have his own regulation, the business will be very difficult for agency... this can lead to a rising of price for US citizen or agency who stop work with American...

Bruno, a happy European

[Killer-B]

I don't hold EC in very high regards (with apologies to TurboGuy LOL!) - and I think they're doing this ONLY so they can keep using their "token system" - For *IF* they are *forced* to actually submit REAL data to (and from) *REAL* women (vs. the spam "letters of interest" ala AnastasiaWeb, OxsanaLove, EC currently use) - well - heck yeah their revenues are gonna drop like a rock - and "costs" will indeed go up...

Personally, I see the (albeit over-reaching) intent of this "law" - and have NO problem supplying a few more personal details *IF that helps clean up the crooked agencies out there -

As I mentioned in another post - NONE of the "less reputable" agencies from Russia or Ukraine have even bothered to mention this to me - I've received "what to do" notes from Elena's  and recently got a "we can do business again" letter from Adam & Eva -

So Bruno (or whoever peeled off the part/paragraph that said it was for Georgia ONLY) - Well, I'm not a lawyer, but would think if it's a FEDERAL LAW (all STATES) and is being challenged at the FEDERAL LEVEL (the Attorney. Gen. was named in the complaint) that to me is "big leagues" - And also think the 9th circuit court is in Atlanta (which is just a coincidence) -

Point is - Per some agencies - It's back to "business as usual" - I really don't know...

Any lawyers out there care to chime in?

Cheers -

KILLER:crackthewhip:

[Turboguy]

I really didn't say I hold them in high regard.  I think their Global Ladies and E-700 are about the worst way to try and meet a good woman.  I am happy that they challenged the law.   It makes me not regret a penny of the over $ 10,000 I spent with them.

I did do three of their "Romance Tours" and I have no complaints about how they ran them.  I got to know Kyle Steckel pretty good.  He is a bit of a twit but he is ok.   I don't think I would ever do another romance tour with them, but that is more because I think they attract the wrong kind of woman not that their operation was bad.

As far as if the law would apply to only the Georgia region or the whole country, I am not a lawyer but I agree with you.   I would think if a Federal court holds the law to be unconstitutional it is unconstitutional everywhere.  The next step would be for the governnent to appeal the ruling to a higher court.   I have noticed that one organization that had announced they were stopping selling address has announced that they are resuming the address sales until the 19th and they are not in the Georgia courts region.   The final ruling is expected on the 20th. 

 

 

[Killer-B]

Hey Turbo :dude:

Good thoughts and insight all the way around .... My apology was sincere - for I had feared that you might take some offense to my comments RE: EC... But on the other hand, I was pretty much addressing their token system - Never been on any of their tours - But even with AFA, AW and suppose EC - you run the risk of attracting the "wrong girls" - I dunno - I can't speak to it - Just regurgitate what I've heard from other guys that have done the tour thingy.... Worst case, you get to meet some gals - and get to see a new country - Right?

FWIW - On that "other board" I had posted about a *very* bad run-in with EC/RW in Atalanta - and it grew into a 16 page post monster - I think it even made the all time greatest posts (whatever that means?!) - and is referenced now on several other RW sites as to what MAY be the trouble with EC... but that was like 2 years ago - and is long in the past...  So I raise again just to say I too have spent my fair share of shekels with EC - and have some experience dealing with them - Some good - Some not so good.... But I'll digress...

I too got a note from AFA saying they're "selling" again - so - I'll assume it's at the national level for now - My current gal is from 2005 - so am not really worried about it -

Thanks again for the feedback -

Cheers-

 

[Turboguy]

No problem Killer.   I only spent $ 100.00 with their token system and decded that it was a big waste and a probable rip off and that was when they first introduced it.   one of the guys I met on the tours averaged $ 800.00 a month with the tokens.

I think the tours are nice for someone who has never traveled out of the country and is nervous about it and some of the gals who wander in are probably ok.  I have made some good friends with the guys who were with me.  One is at his 21st day of real happiness, but not with a gal he met on his tour.  Actually I hooked them up. 

I am hoping I have found my girl too and I did not meet her through an agency either.  Actully I would never have expected to meet anyone the way I met her but I won't say too much till we meet face to face in a three weeks.  Right now I will just say I will soon be meeting someone who seems to be the nicest person I have ever met in my life and I hope it all works out.

In less than a week we will have the final ruling on that stupid law.  I hope it bites the dust and I hope no one picks it up and tries to rework it.  The government seems to be doing a lot of stupid laws these days.

When I get some free time I will try to find your post on the other board.  It sounds like a must read.

 

[Jack]

"In less than a week we will have the final ruling on that stupid law."
 
 
I wish that was the case Turbo. I think "we" win round one but then it will go to a higher court. That could take a year or so plus or minus 6 months. If the ruling is upheld in this higher court the new addition to the existing law will probably be sent back to Congress to be re-worded.
 
I think this will be in the court system for a couple more years.

[Leslie]

"In less than a week we will have the final ruling on that stupid law."


I think there is a serious misunderstanding here.  The temporary injunction relates only to specific sections of IMBA(2005) which are related to the definition of a marriage agency and background disclosure requirements.   All the other sections are law.  You can be certain that the USCIS is enforcing the new K visa restrictions imposed by IMBA right now.  Connor posted a link to the actual legal depositions and rulings upthread.

My personal opinion is that the feminist lobby has "over egged" the pudding in trying to force the agencies out of business.  No matter how they reword these sections of IMBA, forcing background disclosure BEFORE the K visa application is IMHO unenforceable.  I reckon there will be a year or two of legal wrangling then these sections will be quietly dropped.

My reasoning is quite simple.  This is how the law is evolving in Europe.  Enforcement is workable as it is entirely the responsibility of a government agency (USCIS).  Of course this will do nothing to stop sex tourism.  Legislation on this is the responsibility of the foreign government. 

Look at how the legal position on child sex tourism has changed.  Ten years ago there was a long list of countries a pervert could visit to have sex with minors.  Now this list is almost gone.  Gary Glitter was "gob smacked" when he was sentenced to 3 years jail in Vietnam recently.  If he ever returns to the UK, he will face further prosecution.

If a foreign government wants to stamp out sex tourism within it's borders it can.  I have worked in the middle east.  You think it is a good idea to play sex tourist games in Saudi Arabia LOL!!

In Ukraine the government knows all about the sex tourism and does nothing to stop it.  OK, the local "militsia" extract "squeeze" from the participants when they can but that is part of the culture.  What happens in a foreign country is not in the remit of Congress.  No matter how much certain senators and representatives wish it to be....

[dwfunk]

Folks,

Regarding lawsuits against a federal law.  Any case when filed, states whom and how the party suing is being harmed.  Only that entity is protected by the initial restraining orders.  When the case is FINALLY resolved, at that point in time, it will be determined that the ruling applies to the entire federal system.  At the moment, the injunction only protects the Plaintiff who filed the lawsuit. 


-david

[Killer-B]

Like I said LOL - I'm no lawyer! :?

Well, this is interesting... I'll assume then that ONLY E.C. has "clearance" to resume "business as usual" - and everyone else - would still be out of compliance if they "introduce" me to someone after March 6th without my pertinent info?

Wow!

Thanks for the insight.

[Turboguy]

It seems to me that if there is a court order that stops enforcement of a law because it is unconstitutional, it would stop enforcement for everyone.  Since a number of agencies who can afford good legal advice have resumed operations, I think the poster is not correct.

[RacerX]

You can be certain that the USCIS is enforcing the new K visa restrictions imposed by IMBA right now.

Actually, there is no sign the USCIS is enforcing any of the provisions, for example, their website still lists only the old I-129f and there is no mention of the Act.One might expect that the USCIS folks will lay-low and wait until the challeges make their way through the federal court system - quite possibly taking several years.

[dwfunk]

It  seems to me that if there is a court order that stops enforcement of a  law because it is unconstitutional, it would stop enforcement for  everyone.  Since a number of agencies who can afford good legal  advice have resumed operations, I think the poster is not correct.

Nope!  The court order, the injunction says nothing about  unconstitutional.  The lawsuit is claiming the unconstitutionality. The  injunction prevents the government from enforcing the law against the  Plaintiff and only the Plaintiff until such time that the suit goes to  trial and it is proven one way or the other.  Then and only then, does  it apply to everyone.

-david

[Jack]

Ok guys, let me intervene here for a minute.
 
By law each and every marriage agency in the district where the TRO was issued is allowed to continue business as normal. The rest of the agencies in the country do not have this same right, however it is widely accepted that while the TRO is in place the Government is not going to enforce this new law anywhere until the issue is resolved. They could but it would be highly unlikely that they will. The rest of the agencies in the country also feel this way (except maybe Hot Russian Brides) and have continued business as normal.
 
The hearing is tomorrow. It is expected and hope that round one goes in our favor and if so then it's onto a higher court.

[BC]

I think I'll take sides with David.

Common sense tells me that an injunction is something similar to a temporary restraining order.  Otherwise it would be like an AW getting a court order to keep all women away from her husband.

[Jack]

BC, it is a temporary restraining order (TRO) that is in effect.

The court order for the TRO does NOT stop enforcement of the law outside the district where the motion was filed, however while the TRO is in effect it is the opinion of many lawyers that the goverment will not try to enforce the law anywhere until the issue has been decided.

[BC]

Jack,

Yes, but in the end whether or not to enforce is up to DOJ and they are very patient.  If for any reason this law is upheld some time in the future only the plaintiff will be able to claim relief imho.

If anything these efforts will only help to refine the Governments position and change the laws accordingly..  maybe even making the law even more restrictive than it already is.

The intent is clear so I can only suggest that 'industry' gets used to the basic concepts involved.

[Jack]

BC, it is the opinion of many lawyers, and my congressman, that the Home Land Security is not going to enforce this law until it has gone thru the appeals process currently in place.
 
It is widely expected that this is headed to the circuit court of appeals in Atlanta's jurisdiction. Here it is also expected it will be seen as an un-enforceable law and in it's current wording, unconstitional and as such is expected to be sent back to the Congress to be re-worded. Will it take 12 months, 18 months, two years? Who knows but I feel the law will be re-worded and until such time it's business as usual.

[BC]

Kinda strange when you consider that the majority of those who voted on and passed this law are/were also lawyers.. anyone want to explain thist to me?

I dunno.. I'll stick to 'it ain't over till it's over'.

[Jack]

BC, Preston Stekels congressman in Atlanta, my congressman in Dallas, many congressman across America were at home with their families over the Christmas break and had NO idea as to the new wording of this existing law. They DO now.  This was something that was slipped into an already existing law. My congressman, Preston's congressman, did NOT vote on this, many congressman did not. But they have been alerted to it's wording now and one of the reasons why I feel it is headed back to congress to be re-worded.