Fiance' was cheating while PREGNANT

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Had a friend for many years.

Then she told me she loved me and wanted to be with me.

I went to her country many times to visit her.

Sent her money every month.

Hired an attorney and did all the paper work.

On my last trip she got pregnant.

I went back and did an official engagement with an expensive ring so she could avoid ridicule in her home country.

Her K-1 was approved.

She came to the USA.

From the very first day I could see something wrong.

I gave her a phone and a computer.

We got married right away.

She had a nice home, health insurance and lots of cash to live on while I worked.

Two weeks after she got here, I discovered she had a lover in her home country throughout the entire courtship and engagement and PREGNANCY.

They chatted every single day behind my back by IM, phone, webcam etc.

They exchanged naked photos.

She sent him pornographic pictures of herself while pregnant.

She had his bank account number.

She agreed to commit adultery with him when she went home to visit.

They told each other they loved each other forever.

I was heartbroken at first but realized it was all a lie.

I had to protect my assets, home and child from her.

I confronted her, no verbal or physical abuse, and she agreed to stop with him.

Our baby was born.

She sent pictures of the baby to her lover.

I did DNA test and the baby is mine.

She never stopped contacting her lover everyday for 6 months.

I discovered more pictures of her with her lover during our entire relationship.

So, I filed for divorce.

She never got her I-94 when she arrived through customs.

I did not renew her I-94.

Her I-485 was rejected for lack of I-94.

I sent letters to USCIS with a removal of support declaration.

I contacted ICE.

I sent in evidence.

I have NEVER been contacted by an investigator.

I did receive a letter that her paperwork was delayed or missing evidence.

I contacted my congressman.

I went to USCIS field office.

Field office told me I couldn't get any information due to privacy laws even though I SPONSORED HER.

I served divorce papers and made her leave the house.

She agreed to go back to her home country.

I bought a ticket and agreed to give her money and keep the expensive rings.

She skipped out of the airport.

She disappeared for months and could not be found.

I have the baby and won custody.

She didn't even call to check on our baby.

I found out she is trying to petition based on abuse.

I never abused her.

There are no police reports.

She has lied to ICE, lied to her non-profit, lied to her family.

She has now been in the USA 1 year.

She has an expired K-1 for 9 months.

She has no I-94.

So, why hasn't she gone through removal proceedings?

How can her friends and family assist, aid, and abet her as an illegal alien (out of status right)?

Can she really get AOS with all this against her?

The baby can't keep her here.

Any suggestions out there to help protect my baby and me?

Big mess, sorry to hear that. But what's the deal? You have custody, you have done what you need to do and notified who you need to notify. I presume you have protected your assets. Then go on with life anf try to forget it. She is not your problem anymore. Take care of your child.

[rlogan 2,036]

Ok, I'm one of those sad bleeding-heart types

Another example of starting by denying the thing you are about to do: The speaker professes themselves to be the "sad bleeding-heart type". Boundless compassion for others - look at the happy face. We are taught to see if the next sentence will demonstrate the opposite: in this case to deny the OP any compassion at all. So right on cue:

But to play devil's advocate...

BUT. (Translation: I'm going to do the opposite of what I just said). "Devil's Advocate" means to blame the victim: to take up the side against him. The OP has a cheating green card scammer beneficiary and we'll show him no heart at all, let alone a bleeding one. No happy face here!

After you provoke someone, make sure to minimize what you've done, and blame them for answering your question:

I was only asking...

The word "only" is the minimizer. All I did was ask this little bitty question and here you went and over-reacted with an answer. How could you be so unreasonable when I am showing you zero compassion and all?

But anyway. You're the perfect husband and she's pure evil. Got it!

Then finish off by casting even more aspersions on the OP. Such a Bleeding heart happy-face thing to do, you know. Look again how the words mean the opposite of what they say. I don't know much of this person, but we are taught that this is an important signal we should pay attention to.

Look for this in your beneficiary. The OP had a beneficiary that was doing the opposite of what she was saying and there will have been signals just like this that he discounted because love is blind. Look back over your history with her verysadguy - where your gut was telling you something but you explained it away. They'll profusely declare their love for you in words, sure. But the actions - gee, it's almost like they love someone else or something!

[verysadguy 170]

Look for this in your beneficiary. The OP had a beneficiary that was doing the opposite of what she was saying and there will have been signals just like this that he discounted because love is blind. Look back over your history with her verysadguy - where your gut was telling you something but you explained it away. They'll profusely declare their love for you in words, sure. But the actions - gee, it's almost like they love someone else or something!

You are very astute (your reading in to the biased repliers viewpoints). Love is blind sometimes and perhaps too often. Actions obviously do speak louder than words. I got scammed. Now I'm covering all the bases and protecting my child (yes, I know it is our child, but I have a hard time accepting a sociopathic liar in my child's life).

[rlogan 2,036]

You are very astute (your reading in to the biased repliers viewpoints).

I had some very good instruction, Dr. George Simon being the best of them. I meant to comment that you held yourself well through an attacker with experience. He's done this three-step play many, many times before. It works when you get the person angry with the first provocation. It goes like this:

1) Ask the rape victim if she deserved it because she was wearing shorts.

2) When she responds in anger you blame her for being angry, or even for responding at all.

3) Continue the attack, but make it look like you are only defending yourself

What they do next depends on how successful they were in getting you angry. You did not respond in anger and he couldn't continue provoking you to higher levels of anger. So what the manipulator does next in that case is leave the field, pretending you are an unreasonable person who can't be dealt with. But if you do what they want then you will get worked up into a rage and then he'll turn that on you successfully: just look at you - an angry person.

Now I'm covering all the bases and protecting my child (yes, I know it is our child, but I have a hard time accepting a sociopathic liar in my child's life).

Despite being such a cliche' it is true that the biggest tragedy about this behavior is repeating itself in a cycle from parent to child to grandchild down through the generations. So yeah, break the cycle.

[Iyawo Ijebu 157]

This forum is for people to read and make comments freely about whatever subject is at hand. If a private conversation is what you want you should conduct it by e-mail or PM! And what profession do these people belong to that they are not adhering to the standards of?

Here is the thing, the answer could help someone else who suspects mischievous activities with their own Spouse.

An example of an on topic answer: I got evidence because I installed a keylogger on the PC, etc It doesn't have to derail the thread and it could be very useful.

[Iyawo Ijebu 157]

Ok, I'm one of those sad bleeding-heart types But to play devil's advocate...

Have you considered she may have cared about you and wanted to start a life with you but was simply still in love with her "ex"? These things take time sometimes.

You're absolutely right to divorce her, but she's been uprooted from her home and past life. It's what she wants, but probably wouldn't have done so if she wasn't so desperate to escape poverty. Desperation makes people do a lot of crazy things.

Sounds like you've already thrown the book at her. Unless she's going to be a danger to yourself or your child, would it be so bad to have her as some small part in your lives? Why does she have to be deported? ( honestly just asking here )

We need solid folks like you as family court Judges. I love your real life approach to solving life issues - kudos

What about a Violence Against Men Act!? VAMA?? Anyone!? No...

Not sure why they named it that but it does cover male and female.

[rlogan 2,036]

Not sure why they named it that but it does cover male and female.

That is an outstanding question, and the answer isn't good. It's no accident. Think how incredible it would be if it were named Violenve Against Men Act! (With women in a footnote - oh yeah, they are covered too.) No Way! It shows us the bias against men is front and center, with nobody even questioning the incorrect default position that violence is men-on-women. Domestic violence is apparently just as likely to be women-on-men. The fact it is named so in the title helps spread misinformation, a key source of bias. Many people aware of the act don't know it applies to men.

[Iyawo Ijebu 157]

That is an outstanding question, and the answer isn't good. It's no accident. Think how incredible it would be if it were named Violenve Against Men Act! (With women in a footnote - oh yeah, they are covered too.) No Way! It shows us the bias against men is front and center, with nobody even questioning the incorrect default position that violence is men-on-women. Domestic violence is apparently just as likely to be women-on-men. The fact it is named so in the title helps spread misinformation, a key source of bias. Many people aware of the act don't know it applies to men.

I concur, and indubitably.

[Gigli2008 70]

That is an outstanding question, and the answer isn't good. It's no accident. Think how incredible it would be if it were named Violenve Against Men Act! (With women in a footnote - oh yeah, they are covered too.) No Way! It shows us the bias against men is front and center, with nobody even questioning the incorrect default position that violence is men-on-women. Domestic violence is apparently just as likely to be women-on-men. The fact it is named so in the title helps spread misinformation, a key source of bias. Many people aware of the act don't know it applies to men.

I disagree. VAWA was enacted with help from women advocacy groups. Women are the ones who pushed then Sen. Joe Biden to bring it to law. For you to say that VAWA was made as some sort of bias is incorrect. That VAWA benefits men and battered children of USC proves that it is not a biased law. It would be biased if it was covering women only but not men. If it weren't for women advocacy groups, VAWA would not be law today. Men should participate in advocacies that protect the rights of men like the women groups do. Don't let us (women) do all the work and then complain that we are biased against men, when we push congress to protect us, especially when you get to enjoy the benefits of our hard work.

Edited April 30, 2012 by Gigli2008

[rade2rising 205]

seems this topic has run its course....

[rlogan 2,036]

I disagree. VAWA was enacted with help from women advocacy groups.

Which explains exactly why the name is biased towards women. Thanks for the help in proving my point.

especially when you get to enjoy the benefits of our hard work.

You mean the gender-biased groups you refer to were prevented from getting the act applied exclusively to them. It isn't you I should be thanking for keeping special interest groups in check.

[Gigli2008 70]

Which explains exactly why the name is biased towards women. Thanks for the help in proving my point.

You mean the gender-biased groups you refer to were prevented from getting the act applied exclusively to them. It isn't you I should be thanking for keeping special interest groups in check.

Sometimes it's an honorable thing to give credit where it's due. People who fight for the rights of others should be appreciated. In any case you are only offended because of the title/name the act was given, not because of the contents of the act. The contents of the act covers men, women and children. The acronym VAWA....It's just a name.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Gigli2008

[rlogan 2,036]

Sometimes it's an honorable thing to give credit where it's due.

Calling me dishonerable. Argumentum ad Hominem.

People who fight for the rights of others should be appreciated.

Special interests ALWAYS pretend it is everyone but themselves they are pushing their special interest legislation for. Guilt-tripping everyone for all their hard work just for us!

In any case you are only offended because of the title/name the act was given, not because of the contents of the act. The contents of the act covers men, women and children. The acronym VAWA....It's just a name.

Excellent!

Two "minimizers" in there: "only offended" and "just a name" coupled with selective attention. All you have to do is put the words "just" and "only" in there and you make someone's concern disappear. You "only" raped me or "just" sold me to a foreigner as a sex slave. But it isn't an argument. It is called a "defense mechanism", under the category of Denial. You deny it by belittling it.

Selective attention means you ignore the only concern I actually raised which was the spreading of disinformation on behalf of those special interest groups the poster mentioned. The title is the most efficient means of doing that, and it is trivially so. With a mere one word difference, all that misinformation. I don't have to be so stupid as to give "credit" to someone working against me. I do not recall putting you in charge of what my interests are either. So you can't tell me that you know my interests better than I do.

The name is not an accident. There will be different versions of bills in the house and senate, numerous hearings in subcommittees for both, conference committee after that - stupendous numbers of hours in testimony at hearings over an entire legislative session - at least one, maybe more - with the president of every special interest group testifying, droning on and on about everything under the sun pertaining to the act... and not once does anybody think hey - we should call the Act what it actually IS instead of naming it for these people testifying in front of us. Sheer monumental coincidence. So counter-intuitive too.

This is by definition "political correctness" or the default position, which is women first in this case. And before you get your panties all in a wad over it, it is an intellectual point for me only and not anything worth the slightest real effort of mine to change. Because they can have their propaganda, special interest legislation and all - I'm going to make my own way in the world. I just don't have to put up with someone pissing down my back and telling me it's raining.

[Darnell 8,479]

For more clarity -

bills get put on the calendar because an interest group and/or PAC was successful in helping to draft the legislation with the Congressman that they're dealing with. It was not just one women's group - there was a coalition of women's groups at the time. I think rLogan is outta line on this one, thinking somehow there's a personal attack mixed in, veiled in the ether. I didn't read it that way, at all - I sense there was some explanation made (mostly) with a little bit of righteous indignation thrown in (for good measure) because you (rLogan) weren't aware of the timeline and history on how VAWA / Adam Walsh Act came into being. and that's ok - everyone learns something here at VJ.

No harm, no foul. calm the f down, rLogan (and thanks in advance)...

I disagree. VAWA was enacted with help from women advocacy groups. Women are the ones who pushed then Sen. Joe Biden to bring it to law. For you to say that VAWA was made as some sort of bias is incorrect. That VAWA benefits men and battered children of USC proves that it is not a biased law. It would be biased if it was covering women only but not men. If it weren't for women advocacy groups, VAWA would not be law today. Men should participate in advocacies that protect the rights of men like the women groups do. Don't let us (women) do all the work and then complain that we are biased against men, when we push congress to protect us, especially when you get to enjoy the benefits of our hard work.

[Darnell 8,479]

Calling me dishonerable. Argumentum ad Hominem.

Special interests ALWAYS pretend it is everyone but themselves they are pushing their special interest legislation for. Guilt-tripping everyone for all their hard work just for us!

Excellent!

Two "minimizers" in there: "only offended" and "just a name" coupled with selective attention. All you have to do is put the words "just" and "only" in there and you make someone's concern disappear. You "only" raped me or "just" sold me to a foreigner as a sex slave. But it isn't an argument. It is called a "defense mechanism", under the category of Denial. You deny it by belittling it.

Selective attention means you ignore the only concern I actually raised which was the spreading of disinformation on behalf of those special interest groups the poster mentioned. The title is the most efficient means of doing that, and it is trivially so. With a mere one word difference, all that misinformation. I don't have to be so stupid as to give "credit" to someone working against me. I do not recall putting you in charge of what my interests are either. So you can't tell me that you know my interests better than I do.

The name is not an accident. There will be different versions of bills in the house and senate, numerous hearings in subcommittees for both, conference committee after that - stupendous numbers of hours in testimony at hearings over an entire legislative session - at least one, maybe more - with the president of every special interest group testifying, droning on and on about everything under the sun pertaining to the act... and not once does anybody think hey - we should call the Act what it actually IS instead of naming it for these people testifying in front of us. Sheer monumental coincidence. So counter-intuitive too.

This is by definition "political correctness" or the default position, which is women first in this case. And before you get your panties all in a wad over it, it is an intellectual point for me only and not anything worth the slightest real effort of mine to change. Because they can have their propaganda, special interest legislation and all - I'm going to make my own way in the world. I just don't have to put up with someone pissing down my back and telling me it's raining.

But But... this is already a done deal. 'They' named it without consulting you or me. Neither of us made any input during the time for 'submissions by the public' which this bill had. Where where you? what were you doing? I certainly wasn't paying attention then..

Let it roll, just this once, aye?