Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • David Roberts
    replied
    OK Boys and Girls we have hope !!!! A case in Texas involves VAWA immigration fraud, an annulment was granted several years into the mariage and it withstood appeal, we finally have case law to refer to and use !!!! Spread this far and wide DO NOT file for divorce, go for an annulment !! http://texasfamilylawyers.me/2012/05...iage-annulled/

    Leave a comment:


  • sabir
    replied
    good work keep it up

    Leave a comment:


  • 4now
    replied
    <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:
    True Hudson, Oh so true. If a claim is filed it may not be legit. That is why the employer is notified and is given the chance to respond. That is how the process begins. At least is CA. If the employer feels its not a valid claim they submit a written response. The state will make a ruling and notify the parties. Either can appeal the decision and on it goes. Done it a few times already. I doubt an employer would be able to get away with a name shuffle scam out here. But, then again, I haven't thought to try something like that.

    WUSC, I think you misunderstood my comment. What I meant was that the truth should come out. Not that the two equate truth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


    HUDSON quote:

    But how does one differentiate between one story or another when determining truth? And it is just as probable as one side would be predicated to lie as the other side, would it not? So, how does a government administrative board make the right decision. If the board is more favorable to one side than the other, is that justice?



    <span class="ev_code_RED">The point is that both sides of the story should be investigated and verified. it would cut down on the potential of lying and false claims</span>. Again the claim for VAWA should only be limited to that claim and not to any issue outside that claim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


    @red.

    Hudson this is exactly Davdah's and my point. Both sides are investigated in a UC claim if one side disputes the claim. It is an excellent process that VAWA should model after.
    Is it justice you say? Burdon of proof is what you are calling one sided. The administrators should be trained and unbiased in their decisions.. just like in unemployment and then have a special deputy is called in for final analysis and decision on matters that have been appealed.

    I am glad that we are all finally in agreement on the matter.

    See what discussion and open minds can accomplish

    @DAVDAH Yes, companies do shut down and reopen for reasons to avoid paying. Happens all the time. You are an honest guy, so dont get any new ideas

    Leave a comment:


  • Hudson
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
    True Hudson, Oh so true. If a claim is filed it may not be legit. That is why the employer is notified and is given the chance to respond. That is how the process begins. At least is CA. If the employer feels its not a valid claim they submit a written response. The state will make a ruling and notify the parties. Either can appeal the decision and on it goes. Done it a few times already. I doubt an employer would be able to get away with a name shuffle scam out here. But, then again, I haven't thought to try something like that.

    WUSC, I think you misunderstood my comment. What I meant was that the truth should come out. Not that the two equate truth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    But how does one differentiate between one story or another when determining truth? And it is just as probable as one side would be predicated to lie as the other side, would it not? So, how does a government administrative board make the right decision. If the board is more favorable to one side than the other, is that justice?

    The point is that both sides of the story should be investigated and verified. it would cut down on the potential of lying and false claims. Again the claim for VAWA should only be limited to that claim and not to any issue outside that claim.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sprint_girl07
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by whiteUSCNeedsHelp:
    NY MEN BEWARE - READ THIS LINK

    http://news.mensactivism.org/node/9752 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Actually I think it's a good idea, except only given to those in cases where the abuse or threat was somewhat proved serious and/or those who have repeated the abuse.

    If you hear about the stories where a husband received the protective order, only to get angrier and go back and kill the wife, and in some cases children.

    If you don't agree, then think about if it was your daughter, sister, or mother who was in that situation. I am sure you would want anything to have protection for them, and an electronic tag would put a lot of minds at rest.

    Leave a comment:


  • MakeItRight!
    replied
    But surely judges who are sworn to uphold the Constitution will give the accused a fair hearing, won't they? Consider this – How fair a hearing can one expect from any judge who's been through a training like the one in which the instructor, Judge Richard Russell, was caught on tape telling family law judges:

    "Your job is not to weigh the parties' rights as you might be inclined to do. Your job is not to become concerned about all the constitutional rights of the man that you're violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, 'See ya' around.' ... we don't have to worry about the rights."

    Leave a comment:


  • whiteUSCNeedsHelp
    replied
    NY MEN BEWARE - READ THIS LINK

    http://news.mensactivism.org/node/9752

    Leave a comment:


  • whiteUSCNeedsHelp
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
    WUSC, I think you misunderstood my comment. What I meant was that the truth should come out. Not that the two equate truth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Davdah I know what you meant, I was just being sarcastic . Unlike others who stand for FRAUD, DECEIT, CHEAT, LYING Immigrants, I know you stand for TRUTH, JUSTICE and USC.

    Leave a comment:


  • whiteUSCNeedsHelp
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hudson:


    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. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Not yet. However, should our STUPID law makers like Biden choose to make those files public or come up with a ridiculous law that will line up those men and put them in jail based on those FRAUDULENT VAWA affidavits, then it will have far more drastic impact. You cannot argue such law won't pass because of course, they succeeded in passing VAWA which infringes rights of USCs.

    Leave a comment:


  • whiteUSCNeedsHelp
    replied
    <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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hudson
    replied
    <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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 4now
    replied
    <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>

    Leave a comment:


  • Hudson
    replied
    <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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hudson
    replied
    <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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 4now
    replied
    <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>

    Leave a 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