Deporting my wife

[Kathryn41 3,205]

(diaddie mermaid wrote:

Boy, lots of speculation going on here. If one has to provide at a minimum a marriage certificate in order to gain the visa, then how do you presume the K3 was secured? As an attorney, you of all people should know that there could be more to this situation than is obvious.)

Yeah, maybe he followed his lawyer's advice - and his lawyer is one of those who who thinks some of the requirements are unnecessary.

Edited September 26, 2006 by Kathryn41

[japau 1]

Or maybe, just maybe, the OP is a troll (as I astutely and originally noted) and never had an "unmarried wife" that "immigrated on a K-3 (spousal) visa" without a marriage certificate because OP made up the whole thing? Purpose? Maybe some right wing wack job against all forms of immigration trying to "get inside" the heads of people with immigrating spouses in a disgusting display of what can only be bigotry or perhaps it's someone that has actually had something similar that occurred in their life, but that person is making that instance "more compelling" by posting other instances (let's also remember there's another 2 of these floating around by 'new members' in the last 3 days) to generate chagrin or sympathy or both, or maybe it's someone just looking to evoke the sympathies of the foolish, whom will swallow any sob story hook, line and sinker, as long as it can play on the Hallmark channel...and again young "debating" miss, no speculation is necessary because the OP wrote these as his facts: therefore, there is no speculation, only an analysis and simple refutation of the OP's statements...

Edited September 26, 2006 by japau

[john_and_marlene 162]

Or maybe, just maybe, the OP is a troll (as I astutely and originally noted) and never had an "unmarried wife" that "immigrated on a K-3 (spousal) visa" without a marriage certificate because OP made up the whole thing? Purpose? Maybe some right wing wack job against all forms of immigration trying to "get inside" the heads of people with immigrating spouses in a disgusting display of what can only be bigotry or perhaps it's someone that has actually had something similar that occurred in their life, but that person is making that instance "more compelling" by posting other instances (let's also remember there's another 2 of these floating around by 'new members' in the last 3 days) to generate chagrin or sympathy or both, or maybe it's someone just looking to evoke the sympathies of the foolish, whom will swallow any sob story hook, line and sinker, as long as it can play on the Hallmark channel...

Troll or not, they reeled you in to responding repeatedly.

[japau 1]

...and you are responding to me...so there! I mean, so what is your point? Do you have a point, or are you just "jumping on the bandwagon," as it were? (...and a poorly constructed bandwagon it is, what, with the high school debate club and the "monkey see, monkey say" society following blindly behind it).

Just as an explanation to an obviously overtaxed set of neurons I see before me: I am not, in fact, "responding to" the OP. I am, in fact, "noting" that the OP is a troll, making up stories that are not supported and insupportable by the OP's own "facts." You do understand the difference between a "response to" and a "notation about" don't you? Would you like a referral for a lesson?

Edited September 26, 2006 by japau

[john_and_marlene 162]

I'm just "noting" that the troll has achieved his objective. I'll pass on the lesson and still sleep well tonight.

[meauxna 15]

to generate chagrin or sympathy or both, or maybe it's someone just looking to evoke the sympathies of the foolish, whom will swallow any sob story hook, line and sinker, as long as it can play on the Hallmark channel...

This objection has come up before---consider the factual answers about what can be done in a situation like the OP states as info put out for whoever can/will/wants/needs to use it. It doesn't matter if the OP is a troll or not--it is often the case that these discussions help other people who read them afterward.

If you suspect a troll, ignore them. If you can prove a troll, PM the Admin with a request to do whatever you'd like done.

[japau 1]

I'm just "noting" that the troll has achieved his objective. I'll pass on the lesson and still sleep well tonight.

Hahaaa...touche...[and, finally someone with a sense of humor]...

[diadromous mermaid 36]

...and you are responding to me...so there! I mean, so what is your point? Do you have a point, or are you just "jumping on the bandwagon," as it were? (...and a poorly constructed bandwagon it is, what, with the high school debate club and the "monkey see, monkey say" society following blindly behind it).

Just as an explanation to an obviously overtaxed set of neurons I see before me: I am not, in fact, "responding to" the OP. I am, in fact, "noting" that the OP is a troll, making up stories that are not supported and insupportable by the OP's own "facts." You do understand the difference between a "response to" and a "notation about" don't you? Would you like a referral for a lesson?

Gosh! While you can suspect that this thread is bogus, you can't rightfully conclude that it is..and therefore, until you can do so, it is pure speculation. I can think of two scenarios where what the OP wrote could happen, and would be plausible.

And japau, as to your insistence upon referring to me as the "debating miss' rather than my moniker, or ID, had you read my response to your highly insulting and critical private message, yesterday, you'd know that not only is that rude and uncalled for, but totally untrue. I offered to clear the air in private so as not to do it in public. Much to my consternation, you'd rather it be broadcast on the board, and are doing your best to bate me. Why? Do you really think that you can succeed in oneupsmanship? Well, I'm game. Bring it on! You don't intimidate me one iota, and I can spar with you anytime, counselor. I've resisted speaking my mind but this blatant misogyny, condescension and outright rudeness is getting wearing.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

...and you are responding to me...so there! I mean, so what is your point? Do you have a point, or are you just "jumping on the bandwagon," as it were? (...and a poorly constructed bandwagon it is, what, with the high school debate club and the "monkey see, monkey say" society following blindly behind it).

Just as an explanation to an obviously overtaxed set of neurons I see before me: I am not, in fact, "responding to" the OP. I am, in fact, "noting" that the OP is a troll, making up stories that are not supported and insupportable by the OP's own "facts." You do understand the difference between a "response to" and a "notation about" don't you? Would you like a referral for a lesson?

Gosh! While you can suspect that this thread is bogus, you can't rightfully conclude that it is..and therefore, until you can do so, it is pure speculation. I can think of two scenarios where what the OP wrote could happen, and would be plausible.

Reprising your earlier quote mermaid:

...If one has to provide at a minimum a marriage certificate in order to gain the visa, then how do you presume the K3 was secured? As an attorney, ...

Did it occur to you that BECAUSE japau is an attorney, he saw through the OP's whole scam. Even I (not an attorney, but have plenty of wrong-side experience with US immigration migraines) saw it easily.

And japau, as to your insistence upon referring to me as the "debating miss' rather than my moniker, or ID, had you read my response to your highly insulting and critical private message, yesterday, you'd know that not only is that rude and uncalled for, but totally untrue. I offered to clear the air in private so as not to do it in public. Much to my consternation, you'd rather it be broadcast on the board, and are doing your best to bate me. Why? Do you really think that you can succeed in oneupsmanship? Well, I'm game. Bring it on! You don't intimidate me one iota, and I can spar with you anytime, counselor. I've resisted speaking my mind but this blatant misogyny, condescension and outright rudeness is getting wearing.

Mermaid, I'd suggest you "spar" from a position of knowledge rather than just one of anger.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Diadramous mermaid wrote:

"And japau, as to your insistence upon referring to me as the "debating miss' rather than my moniker, or ID, "

maybe he isn't able to remember it, Diaddie; after all, he doesn't seem to be reading your posts anyway.

Regardless, Meauxma is right; if you suspect the individual is a troll, then report him; if you have something constructive to write in response, do so as it may help someone else who is in a similar situation. If you have nothing constructive to say, then move on to the next message. Granted, there is information provided that is suspect, but rather than jumping to conclusions I like to wait until I have answers to the questions and can make decisions based on fact, rather than speculation. It may not be as dramatic and exciting, but it sure beats eating crow or trying to bluster my way out of a self-dug hole. Unless of course, you Want the attention too . . .

(and hey, I like the Hallmark channel and don't care who knows:-)).

Edited September 26, 2006 by Kathryn41

[japau 1]

...and you are responding to me...so there! I mean, so what is your point? Do you have a point, or are you just "jumping on the bandwagon," as it were? (...and a poorly constructed bandwagon it is, what, with the high school debate club and the "monkey see, monkey say" society following blindly behind it).

Just as an explanation to an obviously overtaxed set of neurons I see before me: I am not, in fact, "responding to" the OP. I am, in fact, "noting" that the OP is a troll, making up stories that are not supported and insupportable by the OP's own "facts." You do understand the difference between a "response to" and a "notation about" don't you? Would you like a referral for a lesson?

Gosh! While you can suspect that this thread is bogus, you can't rightfully conclude that it is..and therefore, until you can do so, it is pure speculation. I can think of two scenarios where what the OP wrote could happen, and would be plausible.

And japau, as to your insistence upon referring to me as the "debating miss' rather than my moniker, or ID, had you read my response to your highly insulting and critical private message, yesterday, you'd know that not only is that rude and uncalled for, but totally untrue. I offered to clear the air in private so as not to do it in public. Much to my consternation, you'd rather it be broadcast on the board, and are doing your best to bate me. Why? Do you really think that you can succeed in oneupsmanship? Well, I'm game. Bring it on! You don't intimidate me one iota, and I can spar with you anytime, counselor. I've resisted speaking my mind but this blatant misogyny, condescension and outright rudeness is getting wearing.

Debating Miss has a very high degree of self-importance and thinks this should be held by everyone else - but that's not the way the world works: ask any one of my many employees. I don't even notice her, actually. I personally think she's a rude little girl though, arguing with people on every little point and making believe she is some kind of authority when she clearly is not. It's her "private message" that was rude, and I decided not to finish reading it (or the others she sent) and just deleted whatever it was she sent later, because I'm too busy to deal with her, and I'm just not interested: she's just not that compelling. It's like Derek Jeter batting against the little league. I'm not going to argue with her, because with her it's like chewing old gum...all the work but none of the flavor...capische?

Edited September 26, 2006 by japau

[diadromous mermaid 36]

Did it occur to you that BECAUSE japau is an attorney, he saw through the OP's whole scam. Even I (not an attorney, but have plenty of wrong-side experience with US immigration migraines) saw it easily. Mermaid, I'd suggest you "spar" from a position of knowledge rather than just one of anger.

Indeed, it is from a point of knowledge that I spar with japau, albeit he considers I have none. If you recall on this thread I secured information from the source, as opposed to jumping to scandalous conclusions as the resident authority claims is appropriate. Frankly, I've run across a lot of arrogant and pompous toads in my life, but this one takes first prize!

Aside from the fact that japau has clearly indicated that he has difficulty distinguishing between truth and fantasy, right and wrong, (attorney or otherwise), no it would NOT occur to me that he has any more visual acuity than any of us...in fact, I think in this particular situation, he is doing a disservice to the OP, and to his own disclaimer. I mean the irony! His signature bears the statement

If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything (especially to me).

yet it's open season for him. He should pay more regard to his expectation and demands of others , if he wishes not to appear to be a complete hypocrite. What if it turns out that this thread is legitimate? (I know the answer to that question already) Would the 'honourable counselor" be man enough to eat his own words and a little crow on the side?

maybe he isn't able to remember it' date=' Diaddie; after all, he doesn't seem to be reading your posts anyway.[/quote']

Kathyrn,

I am all for offering the benefit of doubt, but in this particular case, I'm afraid this is intentional. Let's just say I received a fairly lengthy and rather scathing private message from our "revered counselor' yesterday, that makes it impossible for this manner of addressing me to be anything but deliberate and calumniatory.

And now back to topic:

As I said, in my earlier post, I can think of two situations where this could occur. Not saying which one is the case, but there are two that come to mind.

Edited September 26, 2006 by diadromous mermaid

[Aussielad 37]

Im in agreeance with Mo and Diddie....seriously, Japau stop the contraversy,....or are you yourself the one who is probably the troll???

[diadromous mermaid 36]

There is no troll, this is a legitimate post.

[john_and_marlene 162]

if you suspect the individual is a troll, then report him; if you have something constructive to write in response, do so as it may help someone else who is in a similar situation. If you have nothing constructive to say, then move on to the next message.

... and if you like to whine, just keep posting and posting about your displeasure. I think that's the case much of the time.