MARRIAGE / IMMIGRATION FRAUD: Using fresh evidence for stale fraud?

[Oy!]

Yeah, they tried not sending me to the fraud desk many times and finally I formatted my question in such a way that they had to give me the e-mail. But someone back there in the thread said it's not gonna work, and it's not. She'll have the room packed, plus I'd wanted to put a single piece of paper in front of the judge, one he could ignore for all other purposes than that requested, to determine entitlement to some or all of the max calculated chunk of retirement. I didn't want to introduce the raw evidence because I don't want to chance deportation. The US Attorney doesn't want to process old stuff, so I'd have been safe just getting an opinion from the Embassy. Things wouldn't have gone further. I was worried that if sufficiently incensed, this judge could find a way to refer the matter in a non-ignorable way. But the money for the kids' college having been depleted, I have to fight. Things are too tight. There being a consensus the fancy way won't work, I'll do this the simple way. I've known all along it would work, but it's using a nuke where a flyswatter is called for.

 

[Proserpina]

Yeah, they tried not sending me to the fraud desk many times and finally I formatted my question in such a way that they had to give me the e-mail. But someone back there in the thread said it's not gonna work, and it's not. She'll have the room packed, plus I'd wanted to put a single piece of paper in front of the judge, one he could ignore for all other purposes than that requested, to determine entitlement to some or all of the max calculated chunk of retirement. I didn't want to introduce the raw evidence because I don't want to chance deportation. The US Attorney doesn't want to process old stuff, so I'd have been safe just getting an opinion from the Embassy. Things wouldn't have gone further. I was worried that if sufficiently incensed, this judge could find a way to refer the matter in a non-ignorable way. But the money for the kids' college having been depleted, I have to fight. Things are too tight. There being a consensus the fancy way won't work, I'll do this the simple way. I've known all along it would work, but it's using a nuke where a flyswatter is called for.

I have to ask - did you execute the I-864 affidavit of support?

 

[Oy!]

I have to ask - did you execute the I-864 affidavit of support?

Yeah, it expired a long time ago.

 

[Proserpina]

Yeah, it expired a long time ago.

It..expired?

Please explain.

(They don't expire)

 

[Oy!]

It..expired?

Please explain.

(They don't expire)

The one I signed stated a specific term.

 

[Proserpina]

The one I signed stated a specific term.

The I-864 has never stated a specific term. Not then, not now.

There ARE conditions when the obligation stops:

1) The immigrant dies
2) The immigrant abandons their permanent residency
3) The immigrant naturalizes
4) The immigrant earns 40 qualifying SS "quarters".

Are you referring to a different form, perhaps?

 

[Oy!]

The I-864 has never stated a specific term. Not then, not now.

There ARE conditions when the obligation stops:

1) The immigrant dies
2) The immigrant abandons their permanent residency
3) The immigrant naturalizes
4) The immigrant earns 40 qualifying SS "quarters".

Are you referring to a different form, perhaps?

Yep, there it is, #3.

 

[Proserpina]

Yep, there it is, #3.

So she's now a citizen?

Then your entire THREAD is moot.

 

[Oy!]

So she's now a citizen?

Then your entire THREAD is moot.

No, it depends on how totally pissed off someone becomes. I looked into it. AVOIDING that is what I'm after. Can't.

 

[Proserpina]

No, it depends on how totally pissed off someone becomes. I looked into it. AVOIDING that is what I'm after. Can't.

No, seriously - your entire thread is pointless. There IS no fraud. Period. Even if. Endastory. Forever and ever, Amen.

 

[Oy!]

No, seriously - your entire thread is pointless. There IS no fraud. Period. Even if. Endastory. Forever and ever, Amen.

Yeah, it's weird. You know the Filipino law on dual citizenship? That required oath is almost a repudiation of US citizenship. I remember she was looking into it and trying to get friends interested. This is a bad deal. Well, for one thing, it says all children of a Filipino are automatically dual citizens. And they're not signatory to that international treaty calling breaking custody orders kidnapping. They dismiss it as a civil matter. I mean it's totally uncool, nothing like the Israeli law that automatically makes Jews arriving citizens. There is no question of repudiation there. Anyway, remember that Mexican guy who voted in a town election down there, that dual citizen? I can just imagine him having a beer with some friends, going down to the polls, sounds like fun, bam, his US citizenship was toast. The basis is availing yourself of any privilege available only to a citizen of the other country. Well she wanted land titled to her there. That falls under that category. i don't know that she hasn't done it; I paid for every hospital stay, a bachelor's, two houses, monthly stipend, two half-associate's degrees, several training courses, board exams, vehicles, all. And still she sent $40000+ over there. That would be a disaster waiting to happen. A naturalized citizen's citizenship is a fragile creature. But I only wanted that aspect relating to marriage addressed. Nothing to do with all that. Just wanted it limited. You might think it's unimportant for me to want to save her face in the courtroom before her buds. If so, what can I say.

 

[Just Blue]

Yeah, they tried not sending me to the fraud desk many times and finally I formatted my question in such a way that they had to give me the e-mail. But someone back there in the thread said it's not gonna work, and it's not. She'll have the room packed, plus I'd wanted to put a single piece of paper in front of the judge, one he could ignore for all other purposes than that requested, to determine entitlement to some or all of the max calculated chunk of retirement. I didn't want to introduce the raw evidence because I don't want to chance deportation. The US Attorney doesn't want to process old stuff, so I'd have been safe just getting an opinion from the Embassy. Things wouldn't have gone further. I was worried that if sufficiently incensed, this judge could find a way to refer the matter in a non-ignorable way. But the money for the kids' college having been depleted, I have to fight. Things are too tight. There being a consensus the fancy way won't work, I'll do this the simple way. I've known all along it would work, but it's using a nuke where a flyswatter is called for.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I have to ask if you are suffering from a mental illness?

 

[Proserpina]

Yeah, it's weird. You know the Filipino law on dual citizenship? That required oath is almost a repudiation of US citizenship. I remember she was looking into it and trying to get friends interested. This is a bad deal. Well, for one thing, it says all children of a Filipino are automatically dual citizens. And they're not signatory to that international treaty calling breaking custody orders kidnapping. They dismiss it as a civil matter. I mean it's totally uncool, nothing like the Israeli law that automatically makes Jews arriving citizens. There is no question of repudiation there. Anyway, remember that Mexican guy who voted in a town election down there, that dual citizen? I can just imagine him having a beer with some friends, going down to the polls, sounds like fun, bam, his US citizenship was toast. The basis is availing yourself of any privilege available only to a citizen of the other country. Well she wanted land titled to her there. That falls under that category. i don't know that she hasn't done it; I paid for every hospital stay, a bachelor's, two houses, monthly stipend, two half-associate's degrees, several training courses, board exams, vehicles, all. And still she sent $40000+ over there. That would be a disaster waiting to happen. A naturalized citizen's citizenship is a fragile creature. But I only wanted that aspect relating to marriage addressed. Nothing to do with all that. Just wanted it limited. You might think it's unimportant for me to want to save her face in the courtroom before her buds. If so, what can I say.

What in the world are you talking about?

 

[Oy!]

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I have to ask if you are suffering from a mental illness?

Yeah, hers. But it's not a mental illness. Hold on a sec, lemme get a link. http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199401/charming-psychopath

And it's complicated by bipolarity. And not everyday bipolarity, 0.4% of those on SSRIs are bipolars and shouldn't take 'em, because it removes concern for consequences, removes inhibitions, and nukes any moral considerations. It throws 'em up on the manic edge and nails 'em there.

You ever looked into the SSRI killings? Everyone says, gee, I'd never have guessed, he seemed so cheerful, so energetic. Yeah.

There is definitely a narcissistic cast to it. Face is all-important. Making someone like that FEEL cornered is a bad idea.

 

[LdiJ]

Yeah, they tried not sending me to the fraud desk many times and finally I formatted my question in such a way that they had to give me the e-mail. But someone back there in the thread said it's not gonna work, and it's not. She'll have the room packed, plus I'd wanted to put a single piece of paper in front of the judge, one he could ignore for all other purposes than that requested, to determine entitlement to some or all of the max calculated chunk of retirement. I didn't want to introduce the raw evidence because I don't want to chance deportation. The US Attorney doesn't want to process old stuff, so I'd have been safe just getting an opinion from the Embassy. Things wouldn't have gone further. I was worried that if sufficiently incensed, this judge could find a way to refer the matter in a non-ignorable way. But the money for the kids' college having been depleted, I have to fight. Things are too tight. There being a consensus the fancy way won't work, I'll do this the simple way. I've known all along it would work, but it's using a nuke where a flyswatter is called for.

Lets make sure I understand exactly what is going on. You married this woman in 1997, had children with her, and now in 2013, 16 years later, want to try to prove that she did not enter the marriage to actually BE married?

I don't care what kind of evidence you have. After 16 years AND children, you are not going to get anywhere with that.