Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Abused Men, Defrauded USC, Marriage, Immigration, VAWA Fraud Thread

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 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 don't think they would care about tax info since its all about a GC and reputation.

    Even if it were similar to an unemployment claim in procedure that would be good enough. They write something. You write something. Both submit to a phsyc eval. Have some assemblance of an appeal process with perhaps a 2 motion max. I'd vote for that if it were a ballot measure. Probably best to keep in informal to minimize lawyer interest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    Anytime when the IRS is used, most people hit the panick button, the shock button, or the conspiracy button. The reason why I said only to verify the address is becasue the IRS generally has the most current and prominent address available. Most people know that IRS info is safeguarded to the upmost degree.

    <span class="ev_code_RED">As for the process, I do not think we want to use the unemployment agency analogy. To my understanding, it is one of the least enforced. </span>And I am more familiar with innocent spousal relief which tends to look at obth sides. This is just from my experience. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I agree that IRS will probably have the most current address of all the agencies for a notification. Innocent spouse is straight forward and the split is accomplished based on the tangible evidence.

    I agree with Davdah on using the unemployment process. I disagree that it is one of the least enforced. Evidence is presented from both sides Employer and Employee. An Adjudicator looks over the evidence and decides the case. There is an appeals process . In many states, a special deputy is brought in to hear the evidence and witnesses to give a final ruling.

    This process would be the most fair in a VAWA ruling. The current practice is totally unacceptable.

    Comment


    • #47
      Maybe so Davdah, but in all seriousness, a true victim of abuse, something like that could be very traumatic, and going through yet another form of trial or whatever, can be very damaging.

      I am not sure whether the person would want to go through it all again.
      I know I wouldn't, couldn't.

      Unless they could maybe do some of it through live videolink.
      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      God Bless America - God Bless Immigrants - God Bless Poor Misguided Souls Too

      National Domestic Violence Hotline:
      1.800.799.SAFE (7233) 1.800.787.

      Comment


      • #48
        Davdah, you have no clue I'm sorry. So far in my court hearings its just us, no spectators.
        Just being in the same room as him, terrifies me, gives me flashbacks, and when he talks makes my skin cruel.
        He is so full of charm and bull krap that I find it ever so hard to not break down and run out of the room.
        You have to be a victim to understand what is feels like Davdah..sorry but it is a HUGE deal for us.
        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        God Bless America - God Bless Immigrants - God Bless Poor Misguided Souls Too

        National Domestic Violence Hotline:
        1.800.799.SAFE (7233) 1.800.787.

        Comment


        • #49
          I'm sorry again, it is no where near like that at all, nothing close to it.
          It is a fear, not anger.

          It doesn't necessarily have to be face to face, they do some court hearings through videolink, why not this one, in some cases?

          For a real victim, having to go through divorce, protective order hearings and anything else is already traumatic, and long process.
          If there was a way where there could be less stress and face to face encounters with the accused abuser, the better.
          Of course I think this should be case by case scenario, depending on the extent of the abuse.

          Real abusers tend to intimidate the victim, just by saying some words, knowing it will push victim over the edge, and make out the victim is mentally ill.

          The only way you or anyone else can even get a glimpse what it is like, you should spend some time with real abused women/men and see for yourself.
          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          God Bless America - God Bless Immigrants - God Bless Poor Misguided Souls Too

          National Domestic Violence Hotline:
          1.800.799.SAFE (7233) 1.800.787.

          Comment


          • #50
            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
            The irs address info is good but wouldn't uscis also have good addresses on both? As long as there is a procedure to insure both parties have knowledge of the hearing dates and are well informed it could work. The example of unemployment was to keep it simple, legal, and lawyers out of it. That process does work. Although it is very one sided against the employer in the decision process. Concerning procedures it would function very well. Both parties get a chance to present evidence. Both get to examine evidence and cross examine. Appeals process is in place. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
            USCIS requires more of a physical address than mailing address as well as only requiring only the immigrant to change the address, not the USC. And from my experience IRS info tends to be more accurate than most Federal Agencies.

            To 4now,
            With only 14 states requiring mandatory pay stubs for employee wage and statement, unemployment verification is wreaked with inconsistencies. If one pays someone but does not show withholding on a paycheck, then it is quite easy to always make it appear that one is an independent contractor, not an empllyee. And only a few states require unemployment taxes, state only, to be paid on befalf of such worker classification. And the only recourse an individual has is to file form SS-8 to make a determination. Once the IRS completes its review a year later, a $50 fine is imposed on the empllyer as well as back ss and medicare tax. All in all, ranges from a few hundred to several thousand dollars. But all the empllyer has to do is rename its business under another LLC and more than likely, the tax goes unpaid. So pardon me.

            The big problem about the court proceedings besides what Sprint brought up, is who will pay. More than likely, the immigrant does not have the financial means to pay several thousand dollars for a court proceeding while the USC does. Again, VAWA is an administrative review and should be handled as such.
            "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

            Comment


            • #51
              <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 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 irs address info is good but wouldn't uscis also have good addresses on both? As long as there is a procedure to insure both parties have knowledge of the hearing dates and are well informed it could work. The example of unemployment was to keep it simple, legal, and lawyers out of it. That process does work. Although it is very one sided against the employer in the decision process. Concerning procedures it would function very well. Both parties get a chance to present evidence. Both get to examine evidence and cross examine. Appeals process is in place. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
              USCIS requires more of a physical address than mailing address as well as only requiring only the immigrant to change the address, not the USC. And from my experience IRS info tends to be more accurate than most Federal Agencies.

              To 4now,
              With only 14 states requiring mandatory pay stubs for employee wage and statement, unemployment verification is wreaked with inconsistencies. If one pays someone but does not show withholding on a paycheck, then it is quite easy to always make it appear that one is an independent contractor, not an empllyee. And only a few states require unemployment taxes, state only, to be paid on befalf of such worker classification. And the only recourse an individual has is to file form SS-8 to make a determination. Once the IRS completes its review a year later, a $50 fine is imposed on the empllyer as well as back ss and medicare tax. All in all, ranges from a few hundred to several thousand dollars. But all the empllyer has to do is rename its business under another LLC and more than likely, the tax goes unpaid. So pardon me.

              The big problem about the court proceedings besides what Sprint brought up, is who will pay. More than likely, the immigrant does not have the financial means to pay several thousand dollars for a court proceeding while the USC does. Again, VAWA is an administrative review and should be handled as such. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

              NOPE! USC Cannot Afford it Anymore.
              Who Can Afford $450 Hr Attorneys?? Relative to My location.
              USC and Legal, Honest Immigrant Alike Must Fight Against Those That Deceive and Disrupt A Place Of Desirability! All Are Victims of Fraud, Both USC and Honest Immigrant Alike! The bad can and does make it more difficult for the good! Be careful who y

              Comment


              • #52
                <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
                I am in one of the lucky few of the 14. CA is so tightly regulated its no wonder many are leaving the state, self included.

                How did this go off into a tangent about withholdings, independent contractors, LLC, and $50 fines? Hudson, you need a hobby, LOl.

                Anyhow, one way or the other there is a way to insure all parties concerned are properly notified. The cost of it could and should be kept to a minimum. The only impact I can see to the accuser is the additional cost of postage. BTW, its 42 cents now. To mail correspondence back and forth. Postage pre-paid envelopes could be supplied

                As it is now a hearing is held albeit without the accused present. With that the cost is already there. And neither party is sent a bill. Something like this may actually reduce it. Currently the adjudicator has to use a crystal ball and guess concerning the accused. Some time is (I would assume) spent trying to make that guess. If their voice were heard no guessing required. The current cost is part of DOH or USCIS budget and would have little or no affect if a change like this were implemented.

                I don't think a lawyer would necessarily be useful either. The arguments are very narrow and encompass just a few points of law. Instructions could be given to both as to what arguments can be submitted. It might actually be helpful to rid the complaint of the usual exaggerations that often accompany an attorney submitted motion.

                The video link Sprint suggested would be a good idea. Ok, now we to pay for internet. Here is the $15.00 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
                It is your choic to have legal counsel or not, not matter how formal or informal the process is. But of course, the more formal the process, the more likely legal representation would be necessary to ensure a proper defense or action.

                Also, any administrative adjustment does not necessarily mean one is accused or not. Any impact should be kept within immigration whether it is in favor of the immigrant or USC. However, when immigration is concerned, any denial of an immigrant benefit has a more direct impact than that of an unfavorable administrative immigration hearing on a USC, in a majority of circumstances. This is why an administrative hearing is the only option when presenting evidence and that evidence has to be central to the central claim.
                "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

                Comment


                • #53
                  Question? Is It Advisable To Not Have Legal Council In "SOME" Areas Of Top Notch Attorneys That Are Pros At Manipulation Of Right and Wrong Within The Law????

                  Big City's, Etc. Where The Norm Is Double The $$$$ Because They Are So Well Versed. Most Often Even Simple Disputes Cost Far Greater Than Other Areas. And The Court Visits Become A Big Circle Of Zero Resolution And Lots Of $$$$ Spent To Get Resolution.

                  The Average Person Could Never Enter A Court Where I Reside And Expect Positive. Instant Death!!! The Courts So Very Backed Up!! The Judges See You As a #. Another Docket Satisfied, ASAP!
                  USC and Legal, Honest Immigrant Alike Must Fight Against Those That Deceive and Disrupt A Place Of Desirability! All Are Victims of Fraud, Both USC and Honest Immigrant Alike! The bad can and does make it more difficult for the good! Be careful who y

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MakeItRight!:
                    Question? Is It Advisable To Not Have Legal Council In "SOME" Areas Of Top Notch Attorneys That Are Pros At Manipulation Of Right and Wrong Within The Law????

                    Big City's, Etc. Where The Norm Is Double The $$$$ Because They Are So Well Versed. Most Often Even Simple Disputes Cost Far Greater Than Other Areas. And The Court Visits Become A Big Circle Of Zero Resolution And Lots Of $$$$ Spent To Get Resolution.

                    The Average Person Could Never Enter A Court Where I Reside And Expect Positive. Instant Death!!! The Courts So Very Backed Up!! The Judges See You As a #. Another Docket Satisfied, ASAP! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
                    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    God Bless America - God Bless Immigrants - God Bless Poor Misguided Souls Too

                    National Domestic Violence Hotline:
                    1.800.799.SAFE (7233) 1.800.787.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 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 irs address info is good but wouldn't uscis also have good addresses on both? As long as there is a procedure to insure both parties have knowledge of the hearing dates and are well informed it could work. The example of unemployment was to keep it simple, legal, and lawyers out of it. That process does work. Although it is very one sided against the employer in the decision process. Concerning procedures it would function very well. Both parties get a chance to present evidence. Both get to examine evidence and cross examine. Appeals process is in place. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
                      USCIS requires more of a physical address than mailing address as well as only requiring only the immigrant to change the address, not the USC. And from my experience IRS info tends to be more accurate than most Federal Agencies.

                      To 4now,
                      With only 14 states requiring mandatory pay stubs for employee wage and statement, unemployment verification is wreaked with inconsistencies. If one pays someone but does not show withholding on a paycheck, then it is quite easy to always make it appear that one is an independent contractor, not an empllyee. And only a few states require unemployment taxes, state only, to be paid on befalf of such worker classification. And the only recourse an individual has is to file form SS-8 to make a determination. Once the IRS completes its review a year later, a $50 fine is imposed on the empllyer as well as back ss and medicare tax. All in all, ranges from a few hundred to several thousand dollars. But all the empllyer has to do is rename its business under another LLC and more than likely, the tax goes unpaid. So pardon me.


                      <span class="ev_code_RED">You are pardoned , Hudson. As usual, you once again managed to go off the deep end and get into another issue that was not relevant to the conversation. So tell me something i dont know then. The bottom line is that there was a review of the facts/information presented by both sides. Even if the IRS makes a determination in the case of the SS-8, the point is a determination gets made based on the questionaire and control factors. All your hoopla about the tax goes unpaid for whatever reason, is not the problem of the person applying for unemployment, because they get to collect because of the determination that was made. The REAL issue. The "victim" was compensated. So, again you ar excused. The unemployment analogy stands as a good model to be used for VAWA review. Unemployment reviews do not have a cost either to employer/employee. Attorneys are optional. There should always be a hearing/avenue for review of evidences from the other side if allegations are made against someone. </span>



                      The big problem about the court proceedings besides what Sprint brought up, is who will pay. More than likely, the immigrant does not have the financial means to pay several thousand dollars for a court proceeding while the USC does. Again, VAWA is an administrative review and should be handled as such.

                      <span class="ev_code_red"> Maybe , maybe not. This statement is too broad and general. Almost stereotypical even.

                      Immigrant may have access to pro bono legal help or sgencies that specialize in domestic abuse.

                      USC many times may not qualify financially for such help. Escpecially if USC is being accused of a criminal act, then forget about it. So in that aspect, USC may be in worse position than immigrant when it comes to free/reduced legal assistance.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Maybe , maybe not. This statement is too broad and general. Almost stereotypical even.

                        Immigrant may have access to pro bono legal help or sgencies that specialize in domestic abuse.

                        USC many times may not qualify financially for such help. Escpecially if USC is being accused of a criminal act, then forget about it. So in that aspect, USC may be in worse position than immigrant when it comes to free/reduced legal assistance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
                        Well, if one is talking about "having their day in court" is the legal proceeding being decided by an administrative law judge or through the federal district judge? Again, when going before the court, those court fees can add up to several thousand dollars depending on which motions you want to file, how often, etc. And at a bare minimum, it would be several hundred dollars. It is those costs, not the payment of legal services I was talking about primarily.

                        Since when is an immigration VAWA claim a criminal act?

                        If a VAWA claim is not in favor of the USC and stays within immigration, USC is not adversely affected in day to day life, living in the US, or facing criminal charges in a federal district court. Nor would it violate free association thereof. Any immigration process is strictly a priveldge for both the immigrant and USC and not stated as a guaranteed right within the US Constitution.
                        "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You are pardoned , Hudson. As usual, you once again managed to go off the deep end and get into another issue that was not relevant to the conversation. So tell me something i dont know then. The bottom line is that there was a review of the facts/information presented by both sides. Even if the IRS makes a determination in the case of the SS-8, the point is a determination gets made based on the questionaire and control factors. All your hoopla about the tax goes unpaid for whatever reason, is not the problem of the person applying for unemployment, because they get to collect because of the determination that was made. The REAL issue. The "victim" was compensated. So, again you ar excused. The unemployment analogy stands as a good model to be used for VAWA review. Unemployment reviews do not have a cost either to employer/employee. Attorneys are optional. There should always be a hearing/avenue for review of evidences from the other side if allegations are made against someone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
                          The point was to show that unemployment administrative decisions is not enforced the as you may think.
                          "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hudson:
                            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You are pardoned , Hudson. As usual, you once again managed to go off the deep end and get into another issue that was not relevant to the conversation. So tell me something i dont know then. The bottom line is that there was a review of the facts/information presented by both sides. Even if the IRS makes a determination in the case of the SS-8, the point is a determination gets made based on the questionaire and control factors. All your hoopla about the tax goes unpaid for whatever reason, is not the problem of the person applying for unemployment, because they get to collect because of the determination that was made. The REAL issue. The "victim" was compensated. So, again you ar excused. The unemployment analogy stands as a good model to be used for VAWA review. Unemployment reviews do not have a cost either to employer/employee. Attorneys are optional. There should always be a hearing/avenue for review of evidences from the other side if allegations are made against someone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
                            The point was to show that unemployment administrative decisions is not enforced the as you may think. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                            <span class="ev_code_blue">The unemployment process decision is effective. It is about making sure that the claim is paid to the applicant if it is in fact due to them. The evidence from both sides is looked at and then a decision is made. If in favor of the applicant, then uc funds are paid out.. If in favor of the employer, then no funds on paid on behalf of the employer. The funds are paid from the insurance that was contributed to by the employer and the employee. The monies come from the FUNDS. The enforcemnt of the employer is not an issue because he does not pay out the funds, he only contributes to them. The applicant, is not affected by negligence of the employer in that regard. The point you are trying to make is not relative. I am completely aware of how the process works.. it seems perhaps you may not be as you appear to have missed the point.</span>

                            Hudson Quote"
                            "Since when is an immigration VAWA claim a criminal act? "

                            <span class="ev_code_BLUE">Beats me. If it is , it must be something new that got enacted yesterday. Who said that it was, if I may inquire? You wouldnt be confusing a person charged with domestic crime by police seeking legal help and being charged with abuse under VAWA now would you. Remember using the Unemployment analogy, one or both parties would be able to bring in counsel. If that counsel was from legal aid or from some pro bono source, they would have to meet qualifications. </span>

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
                              What do you mean they are not enforced? If someone files a claim, they get their money. Don't they? Assuming its a legit claim and not denied. Or are you referring to the employer dumping the business and restarting under a new name? That would be an extreme measure just to avoid what would probably be a small increase in the premium paid. This may be plausable with a large corp and massive layoff. But, I would also assume any state labor board would see right through a scheme like this. Wouldn't fly.



                              I disagree with no affect the the USC. There is an impact on free association. Maybe it isn't as significant as being sent home, true. But, shouldn't the truth prevail? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
                              A claim is filed, it does not necessarily mean it is legit. No problems assuming there is no hearing to determine eligibility Davdah. However, unemployment agencies do not have the manpower to investigate the claims in any way whatsoever. The scenario I gave is just one example and you would be surpised the number of employers who do this.

                              Again, whether immigration is for the benefit of a USC or of a potential immigrant, it is still a privilege. As such, your rights are not being infringed.
                              "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:

                                I disagree with no affect the the USC. There is an impact on free association. Maybe it isn't as significant as being sent home, true. But, shouldn't the truth prevail? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                                What you talking Davdah? Foreign immigrant women and VAWA together DOES NOT EQUAL to TRUTH.
                                I am not racist. I am not anti-immigrant. I am AGAINST CRIMINALS, FRAUDSTERS, WHO DISOBEY THE LAW, BREAK THE LAW AND PERPETRATE THE FRAUD.

                                You may not like what I have to say but that does not mean I am wrong.

                                Comment

                                Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

                                Home Page

                                Immigration Daily

                                Archives

                                Processing times

                                Immigration forms

                                Discussion board

                                Resources

                                Blogs

                                Twitter feed

                                Immigrant Nation

                                Attorney2Attorney

                                CLE Workshops

                                Immigration books

                                Advertise on ILW

                                EB-5

                                移民日报

                                About ILW.COM

                                Connect to us

                                Questions/Comments

                                SUBSCRIBE

                                Immigration Daily



                                Working...
                                X