IMBRA Upheld and EC Case Dismissed....

[Admin]

For those of you following the developments in Georgia where European Connections filed suit to challenge the IMBRA legislation, today Judge Cooper issued his ruling and has dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.

What this essentially means is that there are no active cases to challenge the IMBRA legislation, and for the foreseeable future, IMBRA will exist intact - or grow.

More to come once the decision is further analyzed.

- Dan

[Admin]

Summary page of the ruling today:

IMBRA is highly likely to reduce domestic abuse – and may actually save
lives. The health and safety of foreign women that IMBRA seeks to protect
substantially outweighs any pecuniary harm that IMBRA may cause to some IMBs.
When balancing the harms in this case, the Court is confronted with the classic
“blood-versus-money” analysis, and the safety of foreign women coming to the
United States clearly is the more vital interest.
IV. Public Interest
In this case, the public interest has been vindicated – through the public’s
representatives in Congress – through the enactment of IMBRA. The public has a
keen interest in having its representatives enact legislation to protect women from
domestic violence, and the public also has an interest in avoiding the wisdom of
such legislation second-guessed in a judicial forum. Domestic abuse is a significant
public concern, and the public interest will be vindicated by denying Plaintiff’s
request for a permanent injunction that would bar the enforcement of IMBRA.
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s request for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. All motions
presently pending on the Court’s docket are DENIED as moot. The Court
DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court
to mark this case closed.
SO ORDERED this 23rd day of March, 2007.
s/ CLARENCE COOPER
CLARENCE COOPER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In addition, EC was ordered to pay for Defendant's legal fees.

- Dan

[BC]

Big fuss over nothing I guess..

[BillyB]

How did the judge find that IMBRA reduces domestic abuse???????? IMBRA does not take violent abusers off the street and put them in jail. If an abuser can't marry and beat a foreign woman, he'll marry and beat local women.

[Jet]

I expect that any serious challenge is going to have to wait until such time as data accumulates (probably a couple of years). If at that time, it can be shown that there is no significant drop, it may have a ghost of a chance at being overturned, not sooner.

[William3rd]

CONGRESS will have to make the change. It isnt going to come from the judiciary. They can always appeal to the circuit court of appeals but after that, it is up to the lawmakers to make the change. .

That opinion is farily short as opinions go. . .

[Admin]

My bet is that the next challenge will come NOT as a result of a plaintiff action, but instead, in the form of an enforcement action with an IMB - probably a smaller one so that Justice and TJC can make an example.

We'll see.....

- Dan

[Bruno]

I expect that any serious challenge is going to have to wait until such time as data accumulates (probably a couple of years). If at that time, it can be shown that there is no significant drop, it may have a ghost of a chance at being overturned, not sooner.

Or they will justify the "no significant drop" by the fact that the IMBRA is no strong enough... so, they will create the IMBRA II

[BC]

How did the judge find that IMBRA reduces domestic abuse???????? IMBRA does not take violent abusers off the street and put them in jail. If an abuser can't marry and beat a foreign woman, he'll marry and beat local women.

Billy,

I don't think that was the point of this legislation.. - which I believe is to afford foreign women at least a bit more information about what they are getting into and maybe deter a few serial K1'ers who are likely thinking business and not marriage anyway.

The local woman already knows what she can do (or should).

Other than the initial startup hiccups it doesn't seem to have had much negative impact, at least from what we have seen here.

[jb]

While I oppose any laws and regulations which restrict my freedom, I see a need for laws like IMBRA, those men who beat up women need to weeded out.  Not just from seeking a foreign woman, but from marriage entirely.  As I see it, about the only negative for the good men out there seeking a foreign bride is the 3 strikes (3 K-1 limit) and your out clause.  And even that may not be so bad if it deters the One Week Wonders.

[Gator]

JB,

Actually the limit is two K-1s, not three.  And yes, I agree with you that it is good because it should compel a man to take his time.  Some men still plow ahead at full speed with that second and final opportunity.

[jb]

So its 2 K-1's, I stand corrected.

[William3rd]

Actually it is 2 lifetime and then a waiver is needed. so far- all waiver requests taht I know of have been granted. No waivers to batterers but K visa is OK for a batterer.

[Jack]

If a guy was to use his two K-1's he could always marry the woman in her country and be able to get her to America, sooner or later.

As far as the K-1 visa goes a guy could always elect to never use the K-1 visa to marry and bring over a woman.

Is that as you understand it as well William?

[William3rd]

That is my understanding.

He can always marry abroad and go with an alien relative petition and never file a K. Or even do more than 2 K visas in his lifetime - so long as he hasnt been convicted of domestic violence related crimes. 3 waiver cases filed and 3 waivers approved. #4 and 5 go in this week.

[BillyB]

While I oppose any laws and regulations which restrict my freedom, I see a need for laws like IMBRA, those men who beat up women need to weeded out.  Not just from seeking a foreign woman, but from marriage entirely. 

It's hard to weed out the bad men from marriage entirely, just as it would be hard to weed out the bad women who don't deserve to be married. It's so easy for men to be convicted of DV that it's hard to tell who's really beaten a woman and who's innocent. I've tried to believe the men who come to the forums that complain about a DV conviction they receive are deserving of it but the more I read about what DV pertains to, the more I think many men are not deserving a conviction.

People don't realize this but if a woman fears she will be harmed, the man she fears can be convicted of DV. As an example, read here: http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/domviol/what.htm  There is no need for physical evidence or witnesses. Just a woman's word alone. I recently talked to a member here and he told me he read Maxx's court transcripts and the judge said he believed Maxx did no wrong but based on law, he had to convict Maxx of DV. As a society, we now can't distinguish between men who are guilty or innocent when it comes to real DV. Feminist have made "fear of physical harm" included in DV which in turns makes almost every man guilty based on a woman's words alone.

Just as the feminists lobbied(money) hard for IMBRA to a Senator from my State to push it, they help create VAWA(violence against women's act). Both IMBRA and VAWA sounds good on the surface but if a man knows what he's up against, he'll probably not want to marry any woman. A few months ago, for the first time in America, less than 50% of the women in America live with a spouse. More women are without partners than women who have Partners. In the 60's 65% of the women lived with a spouse. Marriage is not as important anymore and certain special interest groups aren't helping.

Ever notice how feminists never give out pamphlets on how to create a more loving relationship with a husband? They just tell women on how to get away from a husband.

Sorry guys, I still don't buy IMBRA no matter what good things about it are pointed out. When our congressmen create laws, it should benefit the American citizens, taxpayers and at a minimum, benefit all people equally. IMBRA does not do it. It reminds me of the "hate crime" law. We already have laws against violence and murder. Why should things get tougher on the criminal because the victim has a different skin color?  The penalties for all violent crimes should be tougher across the board to deter crime. We don't need special laws for special groups. BTW, the #1 killer of blacks are black and the #1 killer of whites are white. It would make more sense to penalize criminals harsher to deter crime and save lives if they had the same skin color as their victim.

I forgot the name of it but IMBRA replaces something that came out in 1996 to protect foreign women. At the time, the justice department conducted a study and found out domestic women were subject to DV at a higher percentage rate than foreign women! If the goal is to protect one group of women who are subject to abuse much more than another group, then our government should focus on protecting domestic women first. I believe all women should be protected equally from abusive men. But again, with our screwed up system, we don't have the means to distinguish men convicted of DV who are actually violent between the ones who were set up based on a woman's words.

Foreign women will not only be given the basics to learn to dial 911 which I encourage, they will be armed with info such as "claim abuse equals a green card". Certainly this info will be abused at the expense of an innocent man. The only thing worse than letting a criminal go free is to convict an innocent man.

I know men who search for foreign women get a bad rap but consider this, most losers can't fool a foreign woman to marry him, most nutcases never get on a plane, and most abusers don't marry a foreign woman and end up with domestic women. Even if men who abused substances and people wanted to marry a foreign woman, he most likely couldn't afford it. There's a higher criminal element in poor society.

The average man who searches for a foreign woman would very well baby his wife and spoil her compared to a man who marries a woman at home.

[William3rd]

Hate to say it but, in the couple dozen VAWA petition cases that I have worked on, there wasnt any doubt about what had happened. Good solid arrest reports, medical records, etc. Couple parole violations for prior felony DV. . . .

It may not be the best way to deal with the situation but that is how it is being dealt with.

Now- will there be an appeal?

[Admin]

Hate to say it but, in the couple dozen VAWA petition cases that I have worked on, there wasnt any doubt about what had happened. Good solid arrest reports, medical records, etc. Couple parole violations for prior felony DV. . . .

It may not be the best way to deal with the situation but that is how it is being dealt with.

Now- will there be an appeal?

I understand that Preston has a lot to consider right now - and appeal is only one of the possibilities. He could sell EC - he could appeal (assuming he has the resources) - and he could consider funding a different litigation which might have a greater chance of success. There are a lot of possibilities - and an appeal is only one - and it needs serious consideration given the nature of the ruling.

I don't think there is a clear-cut path forward just yet.

- Dan

[BillyB]

Now- will there be an appeal?

I think EC will look into an appeal since they have to pay defendants costs. But it's not always financially smart to appeal just because one feels bad after losing. EC would need to show the trial judge didn't interpret law correctly in his ruling to win an appeal. If I'm not mistaken, the same evidence used in the first trial must be used in an appeal and no new evidence could be introduce.  For a judge to overturn IMBRA, he would be saying a whole lot of people in Congress were wrong. That doesn't do him any good if he has future political ambitions. It's best if he joins the politically correct bandwagon and say IMBRA protects women.

Here's what the court/judge said as posted by Dan earlier:

"IMBRA is highly likely to reduce domestic abuse – and may actually save
lives. The health and safety of foreign women that IMBRA seeks to protect
substantially outweighs any pecuniary harm that IMBRA may cause to some IMBs.
When balancing the harms in this case, the Court is confronted with the classic
“blood-versus-money” analysis, and the safety of foreign women coming to the
United States clearly is the more vital interest.
IV. Public Interest
In this case, the public interest has been vindicated – through the public’s
representatives in Congress – through the enactment of IMBRA. The public has a
keen interest in having its representatives enact legislation to protect women from
domestic violence, and the public also has an interest in avoiding the wisdom of
such legislation second-guessed in a judicial forum. Domestic abuse is a significant
public concern, and the public interest will be vindicated by denying Plaintiff’s
request for a permanent injunction that would bar the enforcement of IMBRA.
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s request for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. All motions
presently pending on the Court’s docket are DENIED as moot. The Court
DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court
to mark this case closed.
SO ORDERED this 23rd day of March, 2007.
s/ CLARENCE COOPER
CLARENCE COOPER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE"

Al Gore once said on national TV that he believes capital punishment reduces crime and saves lives. I too believe greater punishment reduces crime and thus saves lives. Giving out info to women on what to do after DV takes place sounds great, but the fact is DV will probably take place before IMBRA's benefits take place. Crime will still happen.

William, I believe you had to deal with cases dealing with real bad men that are 100% guilty of their actions. IMBRA will now limit their amount of times they can get married to foreign women but does not limit the amount of times they could get married to domestic women. Regardless, if these men are hellbent to get married, they will get married and beat the crap out of a woman again. The best solution is to focus on punishing the man who creates the crime instead of preventive measures against a single group of women. I'm willing to give up more tax dollars to keep those guys in jail and off the streets. I don't like giving my tax dollars to fund IMBRA. There are clearly better solutions to protecting all people than the feminists hasty solution when riding the publics reaction to Anastasia King's death.

[Jet]

Giving out info to women on what to do after DV takes place sounds great, but the fact is DV will probably take place before IMBRA's benefits take place. Crime will still happen.

William, I believe you had to deal with cases dealing with real bad men that are 100% guilty of their actions. IMBRA will now limit their amount of times they can get married to foreign women but does not limit the amount of times they could get married to domestic women. Regardless, if these men are hellbent to get married, they will get married and beat the crap out of a woman again. The best solution is to focus on punishing the man who creates the crime instead of preventive measures against a single group of women. I'm willing to give up more tax dollars to keep those guys in jail and off the streets. I don't like giving my tax dollars to fund IMBRA. There are clearly better solutions to protecting all people than the feminists hasty solution when riding the publics reaction to Anastasia King's death.

Billy,
I understand your passion but you're talking to a brick wall. A year before IMBRA was passed I argued the relative merits vs pitfalls on a few feminist blogs (along with some notable others including Elena Petrova). What I found was that IMBRA has relatively nothing to do with protecting foreign women and everything to do with shutting down international agencies, IE making it too restrictive, expensive, and time consuming for them to continue doing business. My point of contention to the feminist bloggers was to make the law comprehensive. You want women to be informed, fine, make background checks a prerequisite for the marriage license for EVERYONE. For marriages involving foreigners have it available to both parties at the time of petition or at the time of consular visa application. For AM/AW marriages have it run at time of application for the marriage license (like the 7 day waiting period for handgun purchases). It was unanimously, vehemently opposed! They were outraged that anyone would suggest such a ridiculous idea  So again, don't be so naive as to think this is about protecting anyone, it's not.

As a sidenote, I once bumped into the Palm Beach County assistant DA at a party. She believed at the time, that at least 60% of the DV charges coming through  their office were BS charges most often trumped up as a means to exact revenge on the accused for any number of reasons having NOTHING to do with abuse.

[William3rd]

Got the same feeling expressed by a couple of judges in the Superior Court last year for several motivating reasons- a leg up on custody, magic green cards, payback, leverage by damage to reputation, etc.

That does leave 40% that are potentially real. Better to just walk away from the marriage than to hurt each other. . . .

[Gator]

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

If a judge were to acquit a man who later killed his wife, the public outcry would end the judge's career.  With that overhang, the scales of justice are probably not balanced and, in effect, require a man to prove his innocence.

Also, can we agree that some men who pursue RW are doing so because they are screwed up?   No AW will have them and/or they are looking for a compliant wife.  We also know that RW are not compliant women - they are stubborn and determined.  Some even have a hidden agenda.  When you mix two such personalities in marriage, sparks will fly.  While many of the DV charges filed by RW are seemingly false, many are probably real.  William mentioned his experience.

IMBRA does nor prevent a man with a record of abuse from marrying a woman, it simply informs the woman of his background.  I see nothing wrong with that.

Live with IMBRA.  Over time, it will probably become even stronger.

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

[Admin]

IMBRA, on the face, appears not unreasonable. It boils down to a couple of basics:

1. Regulation (with penalties) for "International Marriage Brokers"
2. Disclosure of information to the immigrant spouse.

In the case of the IMB's, it seems clear the industry needs some form of regulation.

In the case of disclosure, the information being disclosed is the sort of thing which *should be* disclosed prior to marriage anyway.

Looking at it simply, one would conclude it is a good thing.

It is when you delve into some of the more pernicious angles, that the hard issues begin to emerge.

For example - while disclosing one's criminal past to a prospective spouse is good - IMBRA requires it prior to just saying "Hi" to someone. Most people who have a criminal record would not want to disclose that without ample reason - and the opportunity to merely say "Hello" is not ample enough reason to tell the world about issues that really are nobody's business at that point.

The fact that a company like Match.com is exempt from the legislation bespeaks a not-level playing field and calls into question the underlying agenda for the legislation. As Jet stated upthread, it appears fairly clear that one of the motivations is to undermine the organizations which currently provide the service of international introductions.

The law of unintended consequences applies in both instances.

In the first, we now have a law which requires that American men place personal information into the hands of perfect strangers - just in order to have the opportunity to say "Hi". In this day and age of identity theft - that is NOT what most would consider a really great idea.

Next, the IMB's are moving offshore - which is largely out of reach of the American jurisprudence system, hence, when they step out of line, there is very little legal recourse available.

There are numerous other issues at stake - such as the right to associate with whomever we please. That right is being trampled.

IMBRA was rushed through Congress on a voice vote immediately prior to a holiday break. It is flawed legislation, and it is only a matter of time till it is challenged successfully.

Still, for now, it *is* the law - and guys should be aware of it and its implications.

- Dan

[Gator]

Dan,

You are a very smart fellow, but I have some questions about what you just wrote. 

It is flawed legislation, and it is only a matter of time till it is challenged successfully.

This sounds as if you believe it will be overturned.  Is my inference correct?

And who will challenge the government?  This takes money and the IMB's are not Fortune 500 comapanies. 

Or if challenged, would you think the eventual outcome would be no more severe than correcting the flaw of when and how to disclose one's relevant past?

And how is our "right to associate with whomever we please" being "trampled"?

[Admin]

Dan,

You are a very smart fellow, but I have some questions about what you just wrote. 
 

This sounds as if you believe it will be overturned.  Is my inference correct?

And who will challenge the government?  This takes money and the IMB's are not Fortune 500 comapanies. 

Or if challenged, would you think the eventual outcome would be no more severe than correcting the flaw of when and how to disclose one's relevant past?

And how is our "right to associate with whomever we please" being "trampled"?

Challenges can, and will, take many forms. I doubt IMBRA will be overturned, but I am convinced there will be successful challenges to numerous elements of the legislation.

What the GA case (and OH) demonstrated is that the IMB may not be the best plaintiff for a successful challenge.

And you are correct that ANY challenge will require money - and a LOT of it.

As for Freedom of Association, the First Amendment has an implicit right to associate, in order to exercise the explicit right to freedom of speech. Further, the Supreme Court has recognized the Constitution to protect the right to association in "Intimate Associations" which considers that personal liberty includes the right to choose to enter into and maintain intimate human relations.

IMBRA contains the provision which, at a minimum, has the effect of chilling the freedom to choose those associations.

Admittedly, I am not a lawyer and someone with a much deeper understanding of the law would need to be consulted - but I feel confident there are some VERY serious issues in this legislation which need to be, and will be, addressed.

- Dan