get rid

[ecr844]

I see groov beat me to it - but I thought I would add:

You are correct that any illegal activity is a violation of the ToS. In this case, we have someone who is contemplating the commission of a crime. As far as I know, they have not yet committed that crime - although it certainly seems they have plans to do so in the future.

Except for a few instances, I do not think contemplation of a crime is prosecutable. Just saw Minority Report again (cool flick, BTW), and THERE they could arrest in advance of the commission, but I think we are not there yet.

Sometimes I wish I were an attorney (I am not) - because I'd like to know if the mere act of conspiracy is criminal, absent the underlying crime. I do not think so - but who knows?

Anyway - I honestly do believe it is educational. Imagine the newbie who comes along, has been approached by the Dad of a gal in the FSU to pay for his daughter's entry to the US (based on marriage) - and now he sees the references you have posted. That is invaluable stuff. Thanks.

- Dan

"Dan,"

Thanks for the respponse. Since you were curious and I was as well i did some quick research. Here is the legal definition of conspiracy.
Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)

Conspiracy to defraud
Although most frauds are crimes, it is irrelevant for these purposes whether the agreement would amount to a crime if carried out. This gives the prosecution a choice whether to charge statutory or common law conspiracy where the agreement would amount to the commission of an offence if carried out. If the victim has suffered any financial or other prejudice, there is no need to establish that the defendant deceived him or her. But, following Scott v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1974) 3 All ER 1032, it is necessary to prove that the victim was dishonestly deceived by one or more of the parties to the agreement into running an economic risk that he or she would not otherwise have run, if the victim has not suffered any loss. For the mens rea, it is necessary to prove that "the purpose of the conspirators (was) to cause the victim economic loss" (per Lord Diplock in Scott). For the test of dishonesty, see R v Ghosh (1982) 2 All ER 689.

 
Legal definition of Conspiracy
Conspiracy. A combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is lawful in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful.

A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he: (a) agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or (b) agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime. Model Penal Code, § 5.03.

Crime of conspiracy is distinct from the crime contemplated by the conspiracy (target crime), Corn. v. Dyer, 243 Mass. 472, 509, 138 N.E. 296, 314, cert. denied, 262 U.S. 751, 43 S.Ct. 700, 67 L.Ed. 1214. Some jurisdictions do not require an overt act as an element of the crime, e.g. Corn. v. Harris, 232 Mass. 588, 122 N.E. 749.

A conspiracy may be a continuing one; actors may drop out, and others drop in; the details of operation may change from time to time; the members need not know each other or the part played by others; a member need not know all the details of the plan or the operations; he must, however, know the purpose of the conspiracy and agree to become a party to a plan to effectuate that purpose. Craig v. U. S., C.C.A.Cal., 81 F.2d 816, 822.

There are a number of federal statutes prohibiting specific types of conspiracy. See, eg., 18 U.S.C.A.  371. See also Chain conspiracy; Co-conspirator's rule; Combination in restraint of trade; Confederacy; Seditious conspiracy; Wharton Rule.

Chain conspiracy. Such conspiracy is characterized by different activities carried on with same subject of conspiracy in chain-like manner that each conspirator in chain-like manner performs a separate function which serves in the accomplishment of the overall conspiracy. Bolden v. State, 44 Md.App. 643, 410 A.2d 1085, 1091.

Civil conspiracy. The essence of a "civil conspiracy" is a concert or combination to defraud or cause other injury to person or property, which results in damage to the person or property of plaintiff. See also Civil conspiracy.

Overthrow of government. See Sedition.

Seditions conspiracy. See Sedition.

Conspiracy in restraint of trade. Term which describes all forms of illegal agreements such as boycotts, price fixing, etc., which have as their object interference with free flow of commerce and trade. See Antitrust acts; Clayton Act; Sherman Antitrust Act.

Conspirators. Persons partaking in conspiracy. See Conspiracy.

Conspire. To engage in conspiracy. Term carries with it the idea of agreement, concurrence and combination, and hence is inapplicable to a single person or thing, and one cannot agree or conspire with another who does not agree or conspire with him. See Conspiracy.

SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADL American Defense League
dedicated to American interests
www.AmericanDefenseLeague.com  

CONSPIRACY - 18 U.S.C. 371 makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense. So, under this law, a 'conspiracy' is an agreement or a kind of 'partnership' in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member.

In order to establish a conspiracy offense it is not necessary for the Government to prove that all of the people named in the indictment were members of the scheme; or that those who were members had entered into any formal type of agreement; or that the members had planned together all of the details of the scheme or the 'overt acts' that the indictment charges would be carried out in an effort to commit the intended crime.

Also, because the essence of a conspiracy offense is the making of the agreement itself (followed by the commission of any overt act), it is not necessary for the Government to prove that the conspirators actually succeeded in accomplishing their unlawful plan.

What the evidence in the case must show beyond a reasonable doubt is:

First: That two or more persons, in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment;

Second: That the person willfully became a member of such conspiracy;

Third: That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or 'overt acts') described in the indictment; and

Fourth: That such 'overt act' was knowingly committed at or about the time alleged in an effort to carry out or accomplish some object of the conspiracy.

An 'overt act' is any transaction or event, even one which may be entirely innocent when considered alone, but which is knowingly committed by a conspirator in an effort to accomplish some object of the conspiracy.

A person may become a member of a conspiracy without knowing all of the details of the unlawful scheme, and without knowing who all of the other members are. So, if a person has an understanding of the unlawful nature of a plan and knowingly and willfully joins in that plan on one occasion, that is sufficient to convict him for conspiracy even though he did not participate before, and even though he played only a minor part.

Of course, mere presence at the scene of a transaction or event, or the mere fact that certain persons may have associated with each other, and may have assembled together and discussed common aims and interests, does not necessarily establish proof of a conspiracy. Also, a person who has no knowledge of a conspiracy, but who happens to act in a way which advances some purpose of one, does not thereby become a conspirator.

A combination or agreement of two or more persons to join together to attempt to accomplish some unlawful purpose. It is a kind of 'partnership in criminal purposes,' and willful participation in such a scheme or agreement, followed by the commission of an overt act by one of the conspirators is sufficient to complete the offense of 'conspiracy' itself even though the ultimate criminal object of the conspiracy is not accomplished or carried out. To establish the offense of 'conspiracy' the Government must prove:

(1) That two or more persons in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment; (2) That the person willfully became a member of such conspiracy; (3) That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or 'overt acts') described in the indictment; and (4) That such 'overt act' was knowingly committed at or about the time alleged in an effort to effect or accomplish some object or purpose of the conspiracy.

A person may become a member of a conspiracy without full knowledge of all of the details of the unlawful scheme or the names and identities of all of the other alleged conspirators. So, if a person has an understanding of the unlawful nature of a plan and knowingly and willfully joins in that plan on one occasion, that is sufficient to convict him for conspiracy even though he had not participated before and even though he played only a minor part.

Of course, mere presence at the scene of a transaction or event, or the mere fact that certain persons may have associated with each other, and may have assembled together and discussed common aims and interests, does not necessarily establish proof of a conspiracy. Also, a person who has no knowledge of a conspiracy, but who happens to act in a way which advances some purpose of one, does not thereby become a conspirator.

An agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act or an act which may become by the combination injurious to others. Formerly this offence was much more circumscribed in its meaning than it is now. Lord Coke describes it as 'a consultation or agreement between two or more to appeal or indict an innocent person falsely and maliciously, whom accordingly they cause to be indicted or appealed and afterwards the party is acquitted by the verdict of twelve men.'

The crime of conspiracy, according to its modern interpretation, may be of two kinds, Damely, conspiracies against the public, or such as endanger the public health, violate public morals, insult public justice, destroy the public peace, or affect public trade or business.

To remedy these evils the guilty persons may be indicted in the name of the commonwealth. Conspiracies against individuals are such as have a tendency to injure them in their persons, reputation, or property. The remedy in these cases is either by indictment or by a civil action.

In order to render the offence complete, there is no occasion that any act should be done in pursuance of the unlawful agreement entered into between the parties, or that any one should have been defrauded or injured by it. The conspiracy is the gist of the crane.

By the former laws of the United States, a willful and corrupt conspiracy to cast away, burn or otherwise destroy any ship or vessel with intent to injure any underwriter thereon, or the goods on board thereof, or any lender of money on such vessel, on bottomry or respondentia, is made felony, and the offender punishable by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars and by imprisonment and confinement at hard labor not exceeding ten years.

By the old Revised Statutes of New York it is enacted that if any two or more persons shall conspire either: 1. To commit any offence, or; 2. Falsely and maliciously to indict another for any offence, or; 3. Falsely to move or maintain any suit, or; 4. To cheat and defraud any person of any property, by any means which are in themselves criminal, or; 5. To cheat and defraud any person of any property, by means which, if executed, would amount to a cheat, or to obtaining property by false pretences, or; 6. To commit any act injurious to the public health, to public morals, or to trade and commerce, or for the perversion or obstruction of justice, or the due administration of the laws; they shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. No other conspiracies are there punishable criminally. And no agreement, except to commit a felony upon the person of another, or to commit arson or burglary, shall be deemed a conspiracy, unless some act besides such agreement be done to effect the object thereof, by one or more of the parties to such agreement.

When a felony has been committed in pursuance of a conspiracy, the latter, which is only a misdemeanor, is merged in the former; but when a misdemeanor only has been committed in pursuance of such conspiracy, the two crimes being of equal degree, there can be no legal technical merger.
    --b--  

Hope this helps,
ECR844

[ecr844]

"Maxx,"

   Thanks for the thoughts and opinions-examples. I look forward to seeing your documentary in the ffuture! Good luck and best wishes for continued success.
ECR844

[Mir]

Baby

Unfortunately for you Hieronyma Spara has closed his school, otherwise you could have dispatched your husband and inherit his wealth. Still there is hope, does he have a taste for Fugu?

(Hieronyma Spara was a 17th century businessman who ran a school in Rome. This institute taught wealthy young wives how to become wealthy young widows, with help from Arsenic)

[srsol]

BABY??? 

C'mon, perhaps a response??  This is better than some of those "telanovelas" I see.

[Maxx2]

Maxx,

Everything you have done sounds great and I am sure all of it is true but in all honesty you are pissing in the wind.

TigerPaws

I agree but I will be pleased to have something I or the next person can show that tells the truth of this situation. The USCIS likes to give the impression they have a firm hand on everything (see the statements from their PR spokespersons)  I have an American women recorded telling of her being scammed by her foreign husband. She did a background check on him with the aid of a retired FBI agent. He found out that her husband falsified his INS documents and was involved in major drug manufacturing and distribution in his former country. Together they put together the irrefutable evidence in a format the INS could use for an investigation. They did nothing. I have the victims crying out and their families for justice. It's a big project that will take most of the year to complete.

Maxx

[joe rockhead]

Anyway - I honestly do believe it is educational. Imagine the newbie who comes along, has been approached by the Dad of a gal in the FSU to pay for his daughter's entry to the US (based on marriage) - and now he sees the references you have posted. That is invaluable stuff. Thanks.

- Dan

Funny you mention that... 'bout three years ago, I was offered 20K USD by a vietnamese family to marry their daughter and get them into Canada.  It does exist.

[groovlstk]

ANY guy here who is looking for a Russian bride who believes baby is real, and not a troll, then buddy, your in for a loooooong, hard, expensive journey.

Baby may be a troll; "she" may also be a RW who wandered in here thinking Russian Women Discussion was populated primarily by Russian women.

Regardless, this type of woman certainly exists and solicits such advice without even the faintest aura of shame. My wife reads several Russian language forums for women and variations of this type of query pop up with depressing regularity.

[TigerPaws]

I agree but I will be pleased to have something I or the next person can show that tells the truth of this situation. The USCIS likes to give the impression they have a firm hand on everything (see the statements from their PR spokespersons)  I have an American women recorded telling of her being scammed by her foreign husband. She did a background check on him with the aid of a retired FBI agent. He found out that her husband falsified his INS documents and was involved in major drug manufacturing and distribution in his former country. Together they put together the irrefutable evidence in a format the INS could use for an investigation. They did nothing. I have the victims crying out and their families for justice. It's a big project that will take most of the year to complete.Maxx

Maxx,

All of that is GREAT but unless you will be able to air your film on a major TV program no one and I mean no one will care, not to say you work is bad or not worth while but if you expect any results you are mistaken.

TigerPaws

[BillyB]

I've gotten to hear some of Maxx's stuff and it's good stuff. Hopefully good enough it'll get passed around the internet for a long time through forums and other sites such as youtube. Maybe get picked up by one of those shows that like to shock it's viewers. It's the only way it'll make an impact. Maxx, are you ready to go on the Jerry Springer show? 

erc844, most of that immigration stuff you've shown to prove laws are tough against immigration crime is just PR stuff. The truth is they can't catch everybody because they don't have enough funds or will to do it. I read some Vietnamese and Russians have been caught for immigration fraud by getting citizens to marry paying customers overseas. Well.... just about everybody does it, the Chinese, Ukrainians, Africans, Latin Americans and so on. They can't catch everybody. Immigration laws remind me of the kind of laws on VHS tapes where it is illegal to make copies and punishable by jail time and hundreds of thousands of dollars. That warning stops very few people from commiting a crime. Have you ever copied a VHS tape or downloaded internet music for free? A few people are caught and the key word here is "few".

Jazzy, I have no problem with old marrying young. But I also understand couples with big age gaps marry many times with a selfish agenda. All young girls as yourself don't want a young guy that they have to baby sit since they may not be responsible or wise with life experience. Younger men seem to want to play the field more and won't settle down. Most of what I'm saying isn't my thoughts, it's what I heard from other women at the forums including a 19 year old who isn't looking for a man younger than 30.

Baby's biggest loss here is her lack of character and integrity. She doesn't have patience or even confidence in her own Boyfriend to eventually get her to America. Her boyfriend will let her marry the old man since he can't do it himself and needs his sex partner now instead of waiting for her but he will forever look down at Baby for being the con that she is. If he doesn't look lown at Baby, then he is probably a con himself and they deserve each other. Life is tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid.

[ecr844]

I've gotten to hear some of Maxx's stuff and it's good stuff. Hopefully good enough it'll get passed around the internet for a long time through forums and other sites such as youtube. Maybe get picked up by one of those shows that like to shock it's viewers. It's the only way it'll make an impact. Maxx, are you ready to go on the Jerry Springer show? 

erc844, most of that immigration stuff you've shown to prove laws are tough against immigration crime is just PR stuff. The truth is they can't catch everybody because they don't have enough funds or will to do it. I read some Vietnamese and Russians have been caught for immigration fraud by getting citizens to marry paying customers overseas. Well.... just about everybody does it, the Chinese, Ukrainians, Africans, Latin Americans and so on. They can't catch everybody. Immigration laws remind me of the kind of laws on VHS tapes where it is illegal to make copies and punishable by jail time and hundreds of thousands of dollars. That warning stops very few people from commiting a crime. Have you ever copied a VHS tape or downloaded internet music for free? A few people are caught and the key word here is "few".

Jazzy, I have no problem with old marrying young. But I also understand couples with big age gaps marry many times with a selfish agenda. All young girls as yourself don't want a young guy that they have to baby sit since they may not be responsible or wise with life experience. Younger men seem to want to play the field more and won't settle down. Most of what I'm saying isn't my thoughts, it's what I heard from other women at the forums including a 19 year old who isn't looking for a man younger than 30.

Baby's biggest loss here is her lack of character and integrity. She doesn't have patience or even confidence in her own Boyfriend to eventually get her to America. Her boyfriend will let her marry the old man since he can't do it himself and needs his sex partner now instead of waiting for her but he will forever look down at Baby for being the con that she is. If he doesn't look lown at Baby, then he is probably a con himself and they deserve each other. Life is tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid.

"BILLYB,"

     Are you openly condoning immigration and Visa fraud??

[BillyB]

"BILLYB,"

     Are you openly condoning immigration and Visa fraud??

No, I'm just more realistic to the reality of the situation. I admire your faith in the justice system pertaining to crimes less than murder but you too need to wake up and realize reality too. The justice system has only so much money to punish people who commit crimes. They routinely let out prison drug pushers, people convicted of DUI and other smaller crimes early. Many times judges just give warnings. That happened with a teenager a few years ago after being guilty of multiple grand theft auto. He never saw any jail time.

If you only understood the truth, you should be asking if immigration is condoning immigration and visa fraud. Wait till Maxx puts out his movie full of interviews. He does not believe that PR stuff you posted from immigration. That is why he is gathering up evidence so people like you will understand the truth. From the mouths of people reporting marriage fraud, you will hear the answer immigration gives about catching people who commit immigration fraud. Immigration is not so enthusiastic as you are about catching frauds who break the law.

Remember the legal immigrant who raped and killed a Ukrainian girl? Immigration should of sent him back years ago when he commited a similiar crime of incest. If immigration couldn't send this guy home back then, they certainly won't spend much time hunting down Baby even if she's reported fo using a man for marriage.

Here's another immigrant who may get off the hook for child rape.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290603,00.html

Should we start beefing up the borders more or focus on catching, detaining, and expelling immigrants who commit rape and murder or focusing on immigrants who commit marriage fraud? There's only so much money to go around. Choose wisely but you need to start realizing you can't have it all.

[wxman]

BillyB,

I agree with you. The US government neither has the time or money to go after 2 bit criminals who scam to get a GC. Costs the government more to hunt down, prosecute and then deport. Much cheaper for the government to give them CG, and in return they get another taxpayer in the system. They could care less if the ex husband has to pay alimony and/or give up half his assets even though he may be the victim. There are 300 million Americans in this country and by some estimates 15 million illegals, but just a handful of people working for the government investigating all matters relating to those who are here illegally, those who are legal immigrants but have commited a felony, and so on.  CG scammers? Small potatoes not worth the time of day to hunt down.

[ecr844]

"BillyB,"

   In my profession and being in that I work in an urban area I see many of these things up close and personal on a near daily basis. I deal with all facets of society. As such I am quite familiar with the realities of the system and the resulting personal and professional apathy which can result. It still doesn't erase the mere fact that a part of this reality is in place because we tolerate and allow it to continue. Part of the mechanism for change is that we stop the apathy and begin to speak up. Pretty soon when the roar gets loud enough things will get more attention and it will snowball.

     Would you walk into a police station and walk up to the first cop you saw and assault him simply because you were 'pissed at the police?' If indeed you took this action do you think they would 'tolerate' it? How would the system then treat you. You hit a cop.. Why do you think that is? It is part of the same mechanism.

      Simply because I see something that is wrong, illegal, amoral, etc... and choose to speak up and bring attention to the fact that it is happening does not make me naive, or unrealistic, or ignorant of the system. It may be in fact for other reasons like I am bringing attention to the fact that it is indeed wrong and should not be tolerated. That by bringing attention perhaps there will be enforcement or appropriate just action. Perhaps this may not sit well with the love everyone, who condone the it's never my fault mentality, and allow the poor me crowd to continue to do despicable things. Fact of the matter is change has to start somewhere and oftentimes it begins with awareness. Which incidentally, "Maxx," <as a great example> has spent a considerable amount of time and effort doing in regards to educating us and the newbies about the 'dark potential realities and pitfalls' of this endeavour as a result of his own experiences.

     If we followed the example you imply "Ahh..it happens they can't catch everyone, there's only so much we can do, whatever type mentality." Where does it stop? I had an encounter a few weeks ago which included a heinous act of child abuse. The kid ended up seriously injured ; should I, and law enforcement have turned a blind eye because of the statistics and frequency of this? Should we 'mind our own business' because it's not our family and the DSS system is overburdened and often is forced to take 'half-measures'? Yes, it is abit of an extreme example but  one which highlights the type of sentiment you have expressed many times here.

      So yes, I had an issue when a CRIMINAL and someone who openly expresses that they are in pursuit of this activity comes here and further taints this board. We have a few open researchers which read the board here, and the board has been actively trying to show them a different side of the group of men and women who undertake this process and that there is a 'quiet majority' who are actually decent people. Then they see some people who are encouraging this individual, and others condemning it; or that it is a tolerated behaviour. What does that say about our previous statements, and the veracity of the aforementioned? I stand by my previous posts in the thread; I even stated it was my opinion; and I fail to see how you came to the conclusion I am either blind to reality or unable to comprehend anything. Perhaps these are your character traits and your projecting them on others here?

Food for thought,
ECR844


     

[Maxx2]

BillyB,

I agree with you. The US government neither has the time or money to go after 2 bit criminals who scam to get a GC. Costs the government more to hunt down, prosecute and then deport. Much cheaper for the government to give them CG, and in return they get another taxpayer in the system. They could care less if the ex husband has to pay alimony and/or give up half his assets even though he may be the victim. There are 300 million Americans in this country and by some estimates 15 million illegals, but just a handful of people working for the government investigating all matters relating to those who are here illegally, those who are legal immigrants but have commited a felony, and so on.  CG scammers? Small potatoes not worth the time of day to hunt down.

Pretty much sums up the situation.

One of the reasons I am doing what I am doing is to create a thorn in the side of the USCIS. I am tired of hearing their propaganda go unchallenged. I don't expect this to go big as in National news big (who cares about us anyway?") just a small circle of several hundred thousand people with immigration interests (including the Moscow, Kiev embassies, Arlington, and the VAWA staff at Vermont).


Maxx

[Maxx2]

ecr844 there is no one I respect more than BillyB on his stand with this issue. There seems to be a misunderstanding between you two. After reading both of your posts here I can say you are not only on the same page but the same paragraph if not the same sentence with this issue. Billy hates this type of fraud and is always first and foremost in speaking out against it.


Maxx

[BillyB]

 Part of the mechanism for change is that we stop the apathy and begin to speak up. Pretty soon when the roar gets loud enough things will get more attention and it will snowball.

   

erc844, we just had a big debate over immigration and you still don't get it. Most of America is in an uproar over illegal immigration and they speak loudly but not much happening. When Americans are willing to speak with their wallet, then politicians will act. I've said it before and I'll say it again. I will accept a tax increase to hunt down rapists and murderers and lock them up longer or forever. I will not accept increasing taxes to enforce other lessor crimes. What are you willing to spend?

You think I'm encouraging Baby? But I think you are hurting any chances of immigration improving which encourages more people like Baby. While I gave the reality of the situation, the readership and researchers you say are reading will be alarmed. Your postings showing immigration has a handle on fraud, which is false and is not helping raise the alarm to the readership.

Maxx, you are correct and erc844 probably not has read enough of my postings to understand I'm very much against women who use men as mules for a GC and if one could read into my previous posts in this thread towards Baby, it was to shame her, not encourage her. The biggest problem with GCG's is that the government doesn't have time or money to judge in a court of law if a GCG did manipulate her man and the system. Her defense attorney, probably paid by the taxpayers as is the judge, would claim her husband is disgruntled and is trying to throw her out of the country. As wxman said, it's just easier for the govt. to hand her the GC.

I don't expect Maxx's work to change the way immigration handles marriage fraud. But what I do think is that Maxx will give food for thought for every individual who is about to marry a foreign woman or man. With knowledge that GCG's are out there and ready to use you and the fact your own government will not help and even make you pay for your mistake with extra spousal maintenance and marital property, one will be a little wiser when he's about to marry a foreign woman and be more willing to dump women presenting red flags. Since our government will not send cons back home, at least Maxx will help people out there make better choices, limiting GCG's in this country and increase the flow of sincere girls.

[Rvrwind]

I don't expect Maxx's work to change the way immigration handles marriage fraud. But what I do think is that Maxx will give food for thought for every individual who is about to marry a foreign woman or man. With knowledge that GCG's are out there and ready to use you and the fact your own government will not help and even make you pay for your mistake with extra spousal maintenance and marital property, one will be a little wiser when he's about to marry a foreign woman and be more willing to dump women presenting red flags. Since our government will not send cons back home, at least Maxx will help people out there make better choices, limiting GCG's in this country and increase the flow of sincere girls.

And that gentlemen is the bottom line!!!
I know the frustratin I feel over having to contnually compete with bad agencies. Agencies who if there were laws enforced their owners would be in jail & their businesses gone forever as it should be.
However that is not the reality. I continue to critizes & bring them to everyones attention that I can, but am dismissed out of hand because I am a competing Agency & therefore my word is not valid. It doesn't matter how many others have stated the same things as I, my opinion is invalid.
Truth be told I grow weary of the fight, weary of trying to right wrongs that most don't give two sh*ts about.
When good people fail to act then the bad will flourish!
Sorry, but thats just the way I feel!
Maxx, you go Dewd.
As Russell Crow said in the opening scene of the movie Gladiator, "At my signal, unleash hell!!"

[Maxx2]

As Russell Crow said in the opening scene of the movie Gladiator, "At my signal, unleash hell!!"

LOL I'll remember that Richard.

Here's a taste:

Here is some with and about immigration attorneys

Interview with a Russian women immigration attorney who's filed over 200 I-360 spousal abuse petitions. 12 of those were for men claiming to be abused by their American wives. Every one of those petitions were approved except for two. One was rejected because the RW filing the petition made a 'fiancee swap' (married another man) once she got here. The other rejection was a RW who was found to have 14 arrests for prostitution and didn't disclose this on her application. All of this filmed in the interview.


Interviewer: "Does the INS investigate spousal abuse claims?"

RW Attorney: "I'm sure they do."

Interviewer: "Do you know of any such cases?"

RW Attorney: "Yes, just last year more than 20 exotic dancers filed joint I-360 (spousal abuse) petitions each with the same story. They all worked at the same strip joint and had identical stories. The INS decided there must be something wrong so they decided to investigate. I don't know how it turned out but they did investigate."   


RW Attorney: "There is a Russian language radio program where callers call in and ask questions to this (Russian/American) immigration attorney. This one woman calls in and says "My husband has never abused me but if I call the police on him will I get a Green Card?" (The RW attorney rears back in her chair and laughs) and he said "Yes you will!" (more laughter)" 

(the above is quoted from memory)

Below is an interview with an American woman who was a victim of marriage fraud.

American woman: "When I first was doing my legal research I ran into a class mate an old college class mate at the law library. She put me in touch with a lawyer she dated in the past. He was now working on immigration law and since I was a friend of a friend when I came into his office the first thing he stated kvetching (Yiddish) about was the woman who just walked out of his office. She just sent two women on a plane to Jordan to marry two men, two strangers and now he had to start the process to bring them into the country. She was obviously a marriage broker and this was his client and his office was in this seedy Newark, New Jersey neighborhood and it felt like it was out of this pulp fiction novel." "That was some of my first exposure working with an immigration attorney. Granted not all immigration attorneys are like that but you do have a large number of immigration attorneys working on marriage broker deals, marriage fraud deals and they do tell their clients to claim abuse so they can bypass the system, the marriage based system if the marriage isn't working out or if they can't figure a way for an immigrant to enter the country they will say "Is there an American you can marry?" And this isn't stuff I am making up. This is clearly documented in Congressional hearings, in the media and with and in all types of evidence that we are working with"

There is a partyline, many immigration officials don't admit that marriage fraud is a problem. Many do but kind of off the record and in little comments. Like the first immigration investigator I talked to "If I had a nickle for every story I heard like this I would be a rich man" Or one of the supervisors at the Philadelphia office "Oh marriage fraud is out of control, We can't handle the cases we already have". There are certain government documents that still say it is rampent and out of control. But once you talk to the press office or other offices they say "Why should you expect immigrant marriages be more successful than marriages between two Americans?" That is their partyline. But when I ask for the statistics "OK what is the average length of these immigrant marriages?" and compair them to the census numbers they just don't keep track. So it's a partyline based on nothing on no evidence and I have seen nothing out there and I have done allot of research, legal research, research in the media, investigative research and I have seen nothing on how to combat marriage fraud"       

There is much much more including those individual cases supported by documentation that clearly shows the fraud. I interlace the interviews with closeups of these documents and show still photos. I show interviews with other people associated with the case (there are several cases) and show attorneys' assessments and so on. It is about half done and should take up most if not all of this year. Then I can retire.


Maxx

[BC]

Maxx,

I'm not trying to piss on your parade, but sounds like your documentary is likely to become a great 'how to' source of info.

Like with other forms of illegal immigration, the problem is probably so large that the government is simply incapable of changing or enforcing anything..  Heck, they can't even produce all the passports needed for regular, law abiding citizens in a timely fashion..

I used to have a big sign over my desk.. it read "Don't bring me problems, I have enough of them.. but bring me a solution and I'm all ears!"

Does your effort only describe the problem or does it suggest solutions that have any chance whatsoever to work?

[baby]

I am not a troll. I am from Russia, so I do speak Russian. I asked foreign men for advice because they know laws better then ex-Russian women.
I do not see anything wrong in my actions. I have seen a lot of photos of couples, in which young women are married to old men, on this site. I am aware their reason was like mine- escape from Russia to a better life.
Perhaps you are right, my young boy friend has g/f-s. I am for free love. Besides he knows that I'll live with that old man for some time. Everything is honest in our relationships.

[catzenmouse]

I am not a troll. I am from Russia, so I do speak Russian. I asked foreign men for advice because they know laws better then ex-Russian women.

Don't you mean "how to break and/or get around the laws"?

I do not see anything wrong in my actions. I have seen a lot of photos of couples, in which young women are married to old men, on this site. I am aware their reason was like mine- escape from Russia to a better life.

You sound like the poster child for troll with that statement. You have spoken personally to these women so you "know" what their reasons are? Uh, yeah, right. Okay, I take back the troll comment. I would say that you are much worse than a troll. A liar, a manipulator, a GCG of the first degree.

Stick around. Plenty of newbies should see what kind of woman is out there if they do their thinking with their pants.
 

Perhaps you are right, my young boy friend has g/f-s. I am for free love. Besides he knows that I'll live with that old man for some time. Everything is honest in our relationships.

So that means you've told this "old man" that you plan on leaving him in 2 years after you get your green card right? Being so honest and all. And planning on committing fraud is okay too since you don't see anything wrong with your actions right? Yeah. Okay.

I will say that you are honest about your intentions to commit fraud and being a manipulative GCG.

You go girl! WooHoo! Ride 'em cowgirl! Rope that Mule! WooHoo! 

Ken

[wxman]

I find this all amusing. In the end, her boyfriend will dump her for something younger and better. She will go from man to man, never meeting one that loves her, end up having to work for a pimp to make ends meet, and by the time she is 40, dying of aids.  She may break US laws intitially, but in the end, the law of averages will catch up to her. Pretty much justice served. 

[jb]

Please don't feed the trolls.

[wxman]

Good point.

[baby]

Do you think local old men's young wives married them because of love? Do not make me laugh. Old men who marry young women are only for one aim- escape to a better life.