Granted VAWA petition, easy or difficult to get?

[max-one]

This come from one of those sites that Hudson so likes to give links to:

"Evidence of battery or extreme cruelty (self-petitioner's declaration can be enough)"

http://www.womenslaw.org/immigrantsVAWA.htm#31

That's the way I understood it when coming to this board. I have talked with a number of attorneys and past and present USCIS/BCIS/INS personel. Their concensus is an abuse claim is almost always granted and on the weakest of evidence. Here is some comments I have heard,

USCIS clerk behind the glass window.

"Your $crewed"

She throws away any evidence of fraud and with it the USC notorized withdrwal of AOS support. I talked with another guy and she told him "Next time buy American". She threw his notorized withdrawel of support awau also

adjudicator

Upon my challenge to what he posted on a immigration message board about the difficulty of getting an sbuse petition granted he went and asked his supervisor. He said
"My supervisor told me "the flimsiest of evidence grants them". and "It's easier to grant them (possibly that's why the USC is kept in the dark) than to deny them and go through a lengthy appeal process"

Special agent

"Many men with spotless records now have criminal records because they married Russian women" When asked why he said "Because they file false abuse charges on them so they can stay in the country"

District Director of three States, retired

"I used to get heartburn at all these cases of abuse coming to my office. In the past we could investigate them. Interview both parties and see who's lying. Then the rules changed. The Vermont Service Center contacted us and we would have to send the files to them. In every instance the cases were granted. When this first started I called Arlington and told them that this system was going to lead to allot of fraud and allot of innocent men were going to get hurt. They told me they knew this but they were going to go ahead with it anyway."

A woman Immigration Attorney very experience with VAWA petitions

"All it takes is a well written statement about the Abuse. The people in Vermont are specially trained to tell who is lying and who is not. They can read a statement and see if it comes from the heart. Besides if they are lying they are barred for life"

In the over 200 VAWA petitions she has handled only two were rejected. One because the women did not marry her original K-1 petitioner but married another man instead. The second because the petition failed to discose she had 14 arrests for prostitution.

A lesser experienced attorney with VAWA petitions

"It takes allot of mistakes to not have one of these granted. If only she had me help her with it from the begining" "Yes he got his petition approved. He was what I call a "professional immigrant". He knew all the laws and had his documents complete and in perfect order"

Now we have Sisadee's admission that her evidence of a granted petition only included:

-statements from 5 persons..
3 were my girl friends who currently live in US (GC holders),
1 was my USC friend also a CEO of a company.. knows me for years,
and 1 was my ex's former wife who also was abused with the same pattern... she helped taking me out of that house... got me on a flight "under protection" with assistance from one of her friends in NYPD.

And the specially trained VAWA staff only contacted the ex-wife.

The word is speading. Just get married and claim spousal abuse a month later. There is no need to be careful.

[max-one]

This come from one of those sites that Hudson so likes to give links to:

"Evidence of battery or extreme cruelty (self-petitioner's declaration can be enough)"

http://www.womenslaw.org/immigrantsVAWA.htm#31

That's the way I understood it when coming to this board. I have talked with a number of attorneys and past and present USCIS/BCIS/INS personel. Their concensus is an abuse claim is almost always granted and on the weakest of evidence. Here is some comments I have heard,

USCIS clerk behind the glass window.

"Your $crewed"

She throws away any evidence of fraud and with it the USC notorized withdrwal of AOS support. I talked with another guy and she told him "Next time buy American". She threw his notorized withdrawel of support awau also

adjudicator

Upon my challenge to what he posted on a immigration message board about the difficulty of getting an sbuse petition granted he went and asked his supervisor. He said
"My supervisor told me "the flimsiest of evidence grants them". and "It's easier to grant them (possibly that's why the USC is kept in the dark) than to deny them and go through a lengthy appeal process"

Special agent

"Many men with spotless records now have criminal records because they married Russian women" When asked why he said "Because they file false abuse charges on them so they can stay in the country"

District Director of three States, retired

"I used to get heartburn at all these cases of abuse coming to my office. In the past we could investigate them. Interview both parties and see who's lying. Then the rules changed. The Vermont Service Center contacted us and we would have to send the files to them. In every instance the cases were granted. When this first started I called Arlington and told them that this system was going to lead to allot of fraud and allot of innocent men were going to get hurt. They told me they knew this but they were going to go ahead with it anyway."

A woman Immigration Attorney very experience with VAWA petitions

"All it takes is a well written statement about the Abuse. The people in Vermont are specially trained to tell who is lying and who is not. They can read a statement and see if it comes from the heart. Besides if they are lying they are barred for life"

In the over 200 VAWA petitions she has handled only two were rejected. One because the women did not marry her original K-1 petitioner but married another man instead. The second because the petition failed to discose she had 14 arrests for prostitution.

A lesser experienced attorney with VAWA petitions

"It takes allot of mistakes to not have one of these granted. If only she had me help her with it from the begining" "Yes he got his petition approved. He was what I call a "professional immigrant". He knew all the laws and had his documents complete and in perfect order"

Now we have Sisadee's admission that her evidence of a granted petition only included:

-statements from 5 persons..
3 were my girl friends who currently live in US (GC holders),
1 was my USC friend also a CEO of a company.. knows me for years,
and 1 was my ex's former wife who also was abused with the same pattern... she helped taking me out of that house... got me on a flight "under protection" with assistance from one of her friends in NYPD.

And the specially trained VAWA staff only contacted the ex-wife.

The word is speading. Just get married and claim spousal abuse a month later. There is no need to be careful.

[max-one]

"Apparently USCIS in their infinite wisdom decided to open another door to fraud."

Yes the immigrants have another reason to laugh. I talked with a Russian women I know and she told me that I.C.E. busted a pros titution ring of Russian women in New York. Immigration asked them if they were victims of trafficing and if so they could help them. They said "Sure!" The reality is that many of these women choose this ( I am NOTsaying all or most Russian women are this way) as it is what they know from their former lives in the FSU. For then $300 an hour beats $7.50 an hour as a store clerk. Those in the USCIS wanting to find evidence to support their theory about trafficing via International matchmaking organizations jump all over this. The truth is the reason these women are here is not from some diabolical plot to import prost itutes but rather it's because some well intentioned lonely middle aged men wanting wives used the translation and contact information these agencies provided. The women range between being honest sincere women looking for love and a better life (nothing wrong with that) to completely cold blooded mercenary criminals willing to do anything. "Stepping on the corpses" as one legal immigrant told me about them. Yes, there is a number of loser/abuser type men bringing in women as well. The USCIS is either totally unsophisticated in it's handling of these cases or is knowingly biased and prejudiced. I strongly believe it's the latter.

[Hudson]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
I hate to say it but I think your right. I also called a couple immigration attorneys in the San Diego area. The general consensus is its the easiest path to a GC for any women immigrant. Even immigrant men are trying it and are succeeding. Perhaps if enough USC women get burned the NOW (National organization for Women) gang will take notice and re-think their strategy. I would hope the womens rights groups would at least want to stick up for women in their own country. But who knows. Since NOW is lead by l e s b i a n s they may have a taste for fresh Russian.


But wait that is not all. On the site listed by max there is another link. Apparently USCIS in their infinite wisdom decided to open another door to fraud. Now any immigrant can claim a criminal act against them by a USC and get a green card. Doesn't have to be the husband or wife. So now the neighbors have something to worry about.

http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrele...a_05Sept07.pdf

Explora has this posted as well along with some comments from a USCIS person. The comments,.. Basically said they are concerned this may motivate immigrants to file false charges. Really... Gosh Gomer did ya come up with that on your own. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The lawyer is selling his/her services. Of course it is easy from their point of view. I have heard the same thing, but when push comes to shove, the lawyer will then change the story and say, "this was to be expected" while several hundred or thousand dollars in fees already paid. A good attorney will tell you "maybe" and schedule a consultation. You pay the consultation and the lawyer will give you their opinion. But no, you called. You probably did not pay and got the short answer you wanted to hear. And if you called an accountant asking if starting and operating a business is eary with the accountant affirming your answer, you probably would think the accountant is full of horse ****.

Is there some fraudulent claims? yes, but you really never hear of them unless you closely monitor the DOJ announcements. Most USC men who come to this board, claiming they have been scammed by foreign women, are not what they appear to be. Most want to selectively tell their side, use their facts, and ignore "the rest of the story." They are trying to see what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. Most, if not all, will never blame the smallest infraction on themselves while portraying the woman heartless, vindictive, manipulative, egotistical, conniving, wicked, etc, will portray themselves as innocent victims, and want only the to hear the selected facts, misrepresent other facts, and completely not state other relevant facts.

The regulations you have posted have been anticipated since 2000. This will be the immigrants being used for drug smuggling, prostitution in this country, forced labor, etc. You have mentioned those "indentured servants" of the J1 visa program, Davdah? Well, this regulation will help them break form the strict legal requirements of the J visa which they also feel betrayed by both the US and their own government. Not a good felling, is it?

But in order for this law to work, UScIS must have the proper assets so that the agency can hire the right people, train them, and fairly apply the regulations, but we all know that will not happen. Congress will find other pet peeve projects, use USCIS for political gains, and eventually blame everything on everybody but themselves. Such is our way of life in a democracy.

[max-one]

Quote from Hudson

"Most want to selectively tell their side, use their facts, and ignore "the rest of the story.""

If he was calling for a hearing of both sides by the Vermont Service Center so that they don't have to rely on one's side of "selective story telling" I would say the boy is making some sense. But rather he attacks the guy (me) making sense. I sure hope he can send me a link to the women's shelter website where he works at. I would like to read anout their efforts to screen out women who make false claims. I have read many feminist/shelter websites and have yet to see one of them admit to this problem.

Here's another Quote from Hudson

"I have to admit, the immigration officer did a pis s poor job. At least, they should have interviewed your friends and asked for hard evidence such as a police report or expert testimony from the NYPD. The testimony from your friend who got you when you were abandoned should have been confirmed with hotel, gas cards, etc."

http://discuss.ilw.com/eve/forums/a/...1410200241/p/2

The guy doesn't get it. Pis s poor job is all they can do with only hearing one side of the story. Why should they expend any effort undercovering fraud when the system encourages fraud? He should stop posting about how tough it is in getting a VAWA petition approved.

davdah you make allot of sense. People should pay special attention to you

You wrote:

"The way that rule is written 'extreme cruelty' seems to be interpreted as anything above a soft whisper."

The VAWA staff at Saint Albans goes to special training on how to adjudicate these cases. It's sensitivity training hosted by feminists. The congressional staffers who brought in VAWA with the help of N.O.W. keep close tabs on them. It's really sad and pathetic how a justice system that worked well for 220 years is now subverted into this mess.

[Hudson]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by max-one:
If he was calling for a hearing of both sides by the Vermont Service Center so that they don't have to rely on one's side of "selective story telling" I would say the boy is making some sense. But rather he attacks the guy (me) making sense. I sure hope he can send me a link to the women's shelter website where he works at. I would like to read anout their efforts to screen out women who make false claims. I have read many feminist/shelter websites and have yet to see one of them admit to this problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you want to present both sides, then it will be done in a criminal proceeding. This means that most, if not all the evidence, you will atempt to portray the immigrant wife for fraud will probably not be admissible. The charge will be that you abused your wife. The evidence will be directly related to the charge, no extraneous evidence. if convicted, you face a longer prison sentence than you would in a state district court. Once in prison, you will be on the low end of the todem pole.

The process is an administrative process; therefore, no 4th, 5th, or 14 amendments will apply here. It is difficult to prove fraud. Circumstantial evidence, such as she married me and divorced me within two years, does not fly, particularly the average first marriage is less than three to five years when divorce is granted.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The guy doesn't get it. Pis s poor job is all they can do with only hearing one side of the story. Why should they expend any effort undercovering fraud when the system encourages fraud? He should stop posting about how tough it is in getting a VAWA petition approved. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I believe in being thorough in my research and completing a job. That is what I expect. I did not indicate the case was indicative of fraud. But lets take a look at Sisadee's statement, "She was the one who helped getting me out when my [b[ex stranded me in the middle of nowhere without food, without money....[/b] it's winter in NY."

Now, you can take this statement on of three ways: you can accept it at face value, you can reject it at face value, or you can take a neutral position. A good investigative officer will take a neutral position. You will probably reject it, and her immigration officer handling the case took the statement at face value. And if you think about the statement, and lets presume it was true, then what evidence would you, the accused present? You had an argument? In a fit of rage you just dropped her off knowingly that without food or availability of shelter, she could possibly die? If it was false, then the details will indicate so. When people make up stories out of thin air, or misconstrue the facts, like you do constantly, you seem to forget those nasty little details. Again, a trained investigative officer can detect these things.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The VAWA staff at Saint Albans goes to special training on how to adjudicate these cases. It's sensitivity training hosted by feminists. The congressional staffers who brought in VAWA with the help of N.O.W. keep close tabs on them. It's really sad and pathetic how a justice system that worked well for 220 years is now subverted into this mess. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hate to tell you this son, but ALL government employees go through sensitivity training when hired and on a yearly basis. But all new immigration officers attend the Federal Law Enforcement training center, either in Charleston or in Atlanta. The training includes knowledge of the law, case analysis and audit, and the sensitivity training as you describe. Not only does NVC process domestic violence cased, but so do the 4 service centers, which the I-751 for a battered spouse and child are filed.

[Hudson]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
For any women who is a real victim they should be screaming foul since others are making a mockery of their pain. For the frauds I hope they experience the very thing they lied about. Maybe then they will think twice about treating it so nonchalantly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, that is the problem. Sisadee case may be questionable, not indicative of fraud, if you assume, at face value, that her ex left her in the middle of winter in NY, abandoned without money or clothes.

[max-one]

I am heading out the door in about 2 minutes so I don;t jave much time other to skim read Hudson's, I have lots to say but I want to say this for now. I do not judge Sisadee's case as one of fraud. She very well have been abused and if what she says is the truth I am certain she was. Therefore deserving of a granted VAWA petition. The rest later.

[max-one]

It's the "flimsiest of evidence that grants them" that Hudson does not want to acknowledge. So he leads the subject off on to whether Sisadee was abused or not. It's called dragging a Red Herring across the trail. He needs to admit that VAWA self petitions are easy to get otherwise we will be going over the same groubd with him.

I should have said the VAWA staff goes through ULTRA sensitivity training. With ULTRA sensitivity training any disagreement or temporary restriction can ne interpreted into "extreme cruelty".

[Hudson]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
Even if sisadee's story is true does that one incident deserve the extreme cruelty label? Not likely. What probably happened is they were arguing in the car and she told him to let her out. A common ploy by young women. And he probably did. Instead of calling him back she called her friend to cry boo hoo. It was probably a set up. Worse, if what she said is true about the lack of investigation its no wonder so many get away with it.

Criminal or not the outcome gives the accused a bad record they carry forever. The affects are pretty much the same as having a criminal conviction. No one working in HR at some big Co. is going to care or probably even know the difference between an administrative or criminal decision. They certainly won't give the job applicant the chance to educate them on the difference. They will just say, sorry, next. Is that justice, is this USA or old Moscow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
We are not talking about someone leaving her in a Walmart parking lot for an hour, Davhad. Are you that daft? What probably happened is that they had an argument, a heated argument. What made this heated argument different from the others is that he made good on his "promise" by having her get out of the car and leaving her. Unless you want to argue that she left on her own free will and made up the story, well have at it if you can provide some small scap of evidence. But you won't.

A common ploy? Common Davdah, you can do better than that. Women do have some dignity, even when they are completely bad. Otherwise, you will use the argument that she was stupid, or something to that degree. Or maybe she should have planned it better, like having a "witness" to the event. Is that right davdah. Or is she just a dumb foregn broad? Is that how you feel really? And just how many circumstances like the one described by sidsadee should anyone be allowed to make befeore the law goes into action? Two? Three? Five? Ten? None?

Of course, I could "accidentally" ***p into you and the aftermath your legs are broke. And when I go before the judge and tell him my story, I could use your excuse. And besides, he is from Kalifornia, the land of fruits, nutcakes, and honies. He deserved it since showing up in Texas

[Hudson]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
As far as getting out of the car. She never said where she was at. Could very well have been at Walmart. There were no details given. I based it on the lack of evidence she gave. Usually if a person has something to offer to support their position its offered, she didn't. If he would have abandoned her on the side of the road in the middle of the night when it was -20 I'm sure she would have added that.

If you have ever been in that position you would know. I have. Usually if you stop and say, 'Ok, if you want out, go.' They won't. It depends on how far a person wants to push it. Or how angry they are.

The last paragraph you wrote. Its kind of funny because there was a situation similar to that. It was in Misouri. A former wive's X husband showed up and I stood in front of his car blocking the driveway. He did strike me with the car and that was part of his defense. That I was from CA and somehow that justified it. Didn't fly.

However, if it was in Texas my argument would be that since I contribute so much to the states economy I should be granted special disponsation. If you hit the car I have in Texas you would also have a very high repair bill. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
davdah, this was her statement, "ex stranded me in the middle of nowhere without food, without money...." Posted September 07, 2007 02:01 AM. It was part of the affidavits she was telling when she responded. Go check it out, or here is the entire quote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Quote from Sisadee
Rose......
I had an interview for I-485 at Los Angeles office, which the officer asked me 2 questions:

Do you work?

I said YES

Do you have a medical report? (It was over 2 years from the date of entry to US... so I needed a new one. )

and that's all.

CIS did not contact any of my 3 girl friends, or my CEO friend... but they called my ex's former wife. She was the one who helped getting me out when my ex stranded me in the middle of nowhere without food, without money.... it's winter in NY.

By the way, you will be asked for another police clearance.. if they ask for it, then you will get the result of your I-360 in less than a month.

Good luck... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you see the entire quote now? Middle of nowhere means what, Davdah? Does it mean she left him in Walmart? or a gas station, or just on the road? Does it mean she voluntarily left him when he asked? Not exactly the common ploy as you want to describe it. Facts in this case are probably much different, than the one situation you alluded too. Don't jump to conclusions simply because you had that experience once and probably applies to this situation. That worst case scenario mentality does not work in an investigation atmosphere.

Affidavits are in fact testimony evidence, per the general established rules of evidence. When signed, the affidavit, for it to be legal, but be signed under penalty of perjury. The three affadavits from her friends were probably testifying to her character and that she was indeed married to a USC. The final one, probably gave some detail of the event and what former ex wife did precisely. The former ex wife probably gave what his temperament was like, probably abrasive and verbally abusive. If I was a lawyer, I would have gotten sworn testimony from the NYPD who escorted her for added measure.

the question is whether to believe or not believe the statement Sisadee provided. As an investigator, depending on how former ex wife answered my questions will help determine whether she was telling me the truth. Investigators generally get training at detecting whether one is truthful or not. I cannot give you any precise details on how investigators make that determination considering it is classified.

NOTE: the statement I gave about the breaking of legs was sarcastic and playing with the current event of a Oklahoma man facing assault charges for beating another man wearing a University of Texas t-shirt.

[max-one]

Oh Hudson, the immigrants I have talked to think affidavits from friends as "evidence" is only evidence for the naive and foolish. They can't get over how stupid government bureaucrats are. I know of one who commited identity theft with another immigrant that decided not to stay in the US. The INS based on her word alone that the names were a mistake just crossed off the original name and wrote in her's. She and her immigrant girl friends just laughed about how naieve and foolishly trusting you guys are. This loyality of your's to women has blinded you to reality.

[sisadee]

Hudson Pls check your PM

Thanks.

[Hudson]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
The middle of nowhere could be anywhere she wasn't familiar. The only point I was making is usually when someone has something to add to their story to enforce the point they add it. Or in some cases leave out if it dilutes the drama.

She didn't say how she left. If he threw her out of the car we would have heard that. We would have heard she got bruises from the manhandling or frost bite.

The without food or water was a nice touch and is what made me suspicious. If it happened the way I initially said it probably did. She wouln't have food or water. Was it the same as being dumped off in the Sahara desert? Or more like she got out and didn't bother grabbing the snickers bar and bottled water when she stomped off. Both still qualify truthfully as not having food or water. In this modern world I would lean more towards the snickers bar scenerio.

Wouldn't the X's testimony be assumed prejudiced? Her's would not be admitted for most any other judicial process for that reason.

The CEO that knew her really well, Hmmm how well? What is their involvement. A former boss? Probably not, would have said so. His would have been dismissed as well. Prejudice of a different sort. All in all there wasn't much giving it credibility. Most of it added to the suspicion of fraud. The way she wrote it came across as if to say 'look how easy this is'. I didn't get a sense of any struggle. Did you?

I don't doubt a high percentage of the applications are probably valid. Its the ones that aren't and how seemingly simple it is to fake it that is troubling. This along with a few other issues make me wonder what our Gov. is up to. I don't think this is just an oversight. There are too many smart people in DC for that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
let me tell you a story on how to catch a monkey. What you do is you obtain a log or something with one opening just luong and wide enough for a monkey hand and arm to potentially grab the object. The object can either be something shiny with some fruit. You place the log, with the shiny object and fruit, near a tree, but just above the ground. When the monkey grabs the object, it cannot get its hand out because the hand grasping the object is too big. The monkey will be become obsessed with getting the object out with its hand, losing the rationale and sense of surroundings. That is how to can catch a monkey.

What does this story have to do with your reply? Plenty. First, you want to believe that VAWA claims are easy because that is what you want to hear. Despite there is no evidence to prove this claim, one way of the other, you chose to believe this simply because of the lack of rationale. the choice to believe VAWA claims are easy to get is the shiny object or fruit that monkeys like, the log is the immigration provess, and your continuing belief is what makes this a logical trap.

When people lie, they tend to either over exxagerate or tell half truths. We can look at halflife, helpvicim, sonofmichael, and a few others. How many times have you seen they don't exactly tell the whole story up front? Every time. They come here with payback on their minds or believe the wife married them for the green card or its an immigrant chess game. They believe that the audacity of the immigrant wife wants a divorce because the marriage has failed. In some instances, physical or emotional abuse, or even both, occurred. Physical abuse is fairly easy to detect, but emotional abuse is not. But the effects of emotional abuse is just as damaging as physical. You don't want to believe that this happens, but sadly it does, more often than you realize.

With Sisadees situation, you may think its suspicious, but it is probably not. Why would she lie outright? Do you really think that obtaining a green card is that callous? If she really wanted one, she could have gotten a fake. That would only cost two or three hundred dollars. A lot more cheaper and less heartache tan going through the legal process of getting one, especially with the risk of detection ever present for fraud. Middle of nowhere means nowhere. The location is fairly irrelevant, but one can reasonably assume it lacked any place where authorities are present or can be easily obtained and difficult to get help of any kind. You might be thinking, she could go in and ask to use the telephone, right? Well, who will she call? Dial 911? What law was broken? What about a toll free number? I guess you have not been at the service stations or anywhere else. Even in the city I live, I had a difficult time getting help for a phone call. Public phones are a complete disgrace now that we have the availability of a cell phone. Then you might think, she had one? Well, again who will she call and get her? Who will she bother and trouble with her predicament and embarrass herself? You might have been in a situation where you were stranded by your car or other conveyance? But what about a place where no car was visible? Or being a female in a very, very vulnerable situation. Want to put your girlfriend in this little experiement? I doubt you would be that cruel, but I could be wrong.

You also said the ex wife could be predudiced? Well, does that describe you, Davdah. You are a person who has admitted being divorced three times, if I recall. And my presumption was that the divorce was very bitter and draining. Aren't you also prejudiced? And your prejudice is what makes you believe a VAWA is easy to get.

You said the CEO friend is prejudiced and you even alluded to some romanticism is involved. Apparently, you are an all or nothing guy, Davdah and do not know how to set limits on being friends with the opposite ***, IMHO. I have 12 female friends whom I am friends with. No romantic involvement, no hotel rendezvous, no hidden agenda, nothing at all. I make it a point to meet their husbands, became at least acquaintances or casual friends, and leave it to the both of them to continue the relationship. The 12 are the ones who chose to keep the friendship, several others broke it off and I respected their prvacy. To those I kept in contact with, we talk on the phone every once in a while, sometimes we e-mail each other. And as friends, we support each other. Happy to know I am a three time Godfather to three different sons. The CEO friend could be a boss or a friend that owns their own company. There are circumstances where the boss and employees become good friends, particularly with small companies. And in todays day and age, with the number of S corporations, LLC, and traditional corporations, it is quite possible that one can be friends who owns their own business. You may think there is something going on, but you are really grasping at straws there.

The point is, you cannot have it both ways Davdah. Wit the number of guys who come on this board with payback on their mind, assuming way too much of the marriage while not looking what really caused the relationship to collapse, and with you and max-one urgng them on on what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear, you too are part of the problem and not the solution. The choice is yours Davdah, but I don't expect miracles.

[max-one]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
I can't speak for Max but for myself there needs to be balance and reason. Too many assumptions that support a one sided view isn't the way to go. Especially when they deviate far from the norm. The guy isn't always guilty is how I feel. The women isn't always plotting and scheming for a GC either. I think I made that point a couple times already. A fake GC used to be worth something. Try using one now for just about anything. Its a fast way to get locked up.

What do you think those guys need to hear? That they are the worst thing that crawled out of the gutter. Everything they say is an obvious lie to cover their abusive tendencies. A bit harsh don't you think? What if they are telling the truth. You want them to feel guilty for it? Since vawa is one sided what can they do? Its unfair since they have no real voice. Why do you think they come here. Maybe because most of their outlets are cut off by the same sort of reasoning. Your a man, therefor guilty.
Do I really urge them on? Re-read it again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good words Davdah. Some people can't be reasoned with. Anyone who believes all women claiming abuse are liars or always telling the truth are unbalanced period. I am still waiting for Hudson to post a link from a womens shelter website on their efforts to sort out those who make false claims of abuse. From the 3500 year story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife, probably one of the oldest stories of a false claim of rape, till today of Nifong witholding exculpitory evidence so as to get a guilty conviction of innocent men the injustices goes on. So what is Hudson's reaction to Nifong? He bemoans that he got caught as it "sets back things 10 years". Yes the truth has a nasty habit of doing that to those who work off the big lie.